If one is depressed, truly depressed and not just sad about real life events, one should see a Therapist. It is not weird, it is literally the way to seek treatment for Depression and other mood disorders.
Exercise has been demonstrated to elevate mood, but as far as I know, not a substitute for medication when dealing with mood disorders. If it worked, myself and many others wouldn't be on meds.
History lesson: The same thing was said about the ozone layer. The global community dealt with that.
Stop trying to put yourself "around more Women" and make yourself a person Women want to be around instead.
The best thing you can do is get a hobby, get involved in that hobbies local community, and meet people with similar interests. Romantic interests will eventually follow.
Apologies for the misunderstanding. I did not realize that I was notified only because you @ me, not responded to me, so I responded as though it was directed at me.
Don't take too much of an issue with it. I misunderstood the situation, and dealt with it as such. No hate on new accounts generally, but being here for a year has me seeing new accounts as a big red flag.
Again, apologies for the misunderstanding!
EDIT:
Because I am a dumb dumb and apparently cannot Lemmy, ignore this comment. Leaving it up to show how silly I can be.
I feel quite silly explaining this, because it seems like you probably don’t want a real answer, but “they” is used when referring to a general group of people.
The singular use of "they/them" has existed since the 14th century, and is not simply "a general group of people' by definition in modern English.
@Arkouda@lemmy.ca was answering in a way that could be applied to anyone, including OP’s son.
I find the advice to be universal, so what is the problem with it being applied to anyone?
Why be exclusive when you can be inclusive?
Why do you believe neutral language meant to include every one is exclusionary?
Why try to turn a wholesome comment into a gender-war?
The only people I see making this a "gender war" are you, the two month old account, and the 12 day old account who also responded after being triggered by neutral language. I am open to a good faith discussion about this, but you will need to demonstrate your good faith in the next reply if you want that.
Otherwise, take care.
She’s talking about her twelve-year-old son, and that’s specified. What reason could you possibly have for using “they/them”?
I generally try to default to neutral terms. There is no need to get this triggered over my choice to use neutral pronouns.
I don't see it as a problem, even long term. I think children are allowed to seek comfort when they need it from their parents.
The only thing I would say is that because this isn't normal behavior, and started recently, you should have a talk with them about why they are feeling the need to sleep with you now. It could be an underlying issue or it could be that they are experiencing stressors in life they aren't able to cope with.
Either way, talking to them about it would be the best idea.
"The Government of Canada will not accept a bad deal," Carney said in French in Huntsville, Ont., Tuesday. "Our objective is not to reach a deal whatever it costs. We are pursuing a deal that will be in the best interest of Canadians."
When it comes to the prospect of reaching a deal, Carney said "we'll see" and that "complex negotiations" continue. He said if there isn't a deal that works for Canada, his government will "take stock" and consider what to do next.
This doesn't sound like what you are describing, and seems firm considering how dangerous of a situation this is.
"I've had over 80 bilaterals with world leaders since I became prime minister. A number of the premiers have been on major trade missions. We have other things to do," he said.
This sounds like the Government has other plans for when Trump talks fall through. Which has been being worked on over the last few months. From trade to arms procurement there is a lot of diversification efforts happening across governments.
There is a lot going on and the focus doesn't really seem to be getting something from the US anytime soon.
I would argue this time Carney’s comment is a worthless plattitude. You can sign anything and claim it was the best deal for Canada.
What does a good deal for Canada look like to you?
What supports your argument?
You could look at him removing the digital services tax and negotiating with the US as anti-Canada things he’s done
Despite him saying he’s looking out for Canada
One could look at it like that, but I do not see why they would. Can you explain why one would see it that way?
I do not remember a single part of the Liberal election platform that said "We won't cut funding in public services". The only thing I can remember being exclusively off the table were cuts to Provincial transfers.
It would be nice if the article cited those promises, but that is the Ottawa Citizen (Post media) for you.