yetineti

@AION Good. You?

Double negative. Do you deny that clothing affects the situation* — At that point having a vagina affects the situation— not clothes. — Man gets punched in face. Shouldn't have had nose. — Sorry. — Man gets punched in face. Shouldn't have had such hittable nose. — If women walked around naked, you should have the respect not to fuck them. If clothes or the type of clothes changes that for you. Cum 3 times before you leave the house, please.

Yeah, men are more likely to be aware of the abuse and put up with it. Women typically get sold a front before the man reveals his true abusive self. Statistically, it is under studied though. And it’s difficult because while abuse towards women is for about 1 in 4 and for men 1 in 9– men are more likely to under report.

Yep

Yep

@Miguel1 Then tell me my agenda. No really, I’m curious. Tell me how much you’ve connected with thousands of women. You were being Braggadocious; arrogant.

Everyone talks about evolution. Nobody mentions mating. Look into mourning doves for example. Evolution didn’t just shape us Men to dominate and Women to submit. Don’t @ me about the data or trends. Look into the evolution of mating, pairing, co-op, etc. Maybe it applies to you, maybe it doesn’t. But preaching about how women are is an obvious trap. Not because you’ll hurt their feelings. But because you are not appreciating your own desires and the beauty of a ‘woman’s abstraction.’

Men, if girls are so simple, why do you need all this data? Sounds like you all cracked the code already 😉 Aren’t you happy going through your endless women?

Once you eat one Dorito, the whole bag is gone. Show me the man who can eat one Dorito and I’ll take you as more credible than anyone else here. Otherwise we’re just arguing over who can eat more Doritos.

“Abusive relationships happen to irresponsible people who allow themselves to get boiled alive like frogs.” The connection is you’re both blaming her for her actions and implying an inability to solve them as well. This logic creates an unworkable, disempowering paradigm and is ultimately self full filling. And if you men believe your own words, that ‘responsibility’ lies with you and it should say: “Abusive relationships happen when irresponsible men who allow themselves to get boiled alive like frogs.”

@AION You’re upset because the women are on my side. 😘 Of course Leo’s right. He should embody it.

I’m not against truth-telling. I’m for truth that includes emotional presence—truth that lands, not just truth that hits. When you drop a “hard truth” and watch someone shut down, that’s not clarity. That’s bypassing the responsibility to actually be with someone. To me, integrity isn’t just saying the thing—it’s saying it while staying connected. I’m not saying everyone has to speak the way I do. I’m saying we need to notice when “sharing perspective” becomes a shield from emotional accountability. It’s not projection—it’s discernment. I’ve been in enough circles to know when someone’s sidestepping discomfort by intellectualizing or masking disengagement as neutrality. That kind of “truth” is often just a more sophisticated way of avoiding the moment. And I don’t need everyone to agree. What I’m pointing to is a pattern: whenever emotionally charged topics arise, the conversation often shifts toward detachment—like neutrality, clever framing, or sarcasm. That shift feels safe, but it kills the aliveness of the conversation. So when I see that move happen, I speak up—not to accuse, but to bring us back to what’s real. If someone replies, “Well yes, of course, that’s already part of my model,” I’d ask: is it really? Because what I’m saying isn’t just “some people need emotional sensitivity.” I’m saying: maybe the issue isn’t their sensitivity—it’s us not fully inhabiting our truth with emotional attunement. That distinction matters. It changes the whole dynamic. This isn’t about avoiding truth. It’s not about catering to fragility. It’s about whether we’re fully embodying the truth—or just dropping it like a grenade and walking away.

Mockery dressed as praise.

@integral Are you asking me to tip toe around the Truth? You can say people weren’t engaging in personal attacks, but you clearly don’t even know what that means. You weren’t listening to the people you were talking to.

@aurum I think she’s married. She’s fine. Apologize to yourself for not excepting the role and impact emotions have had on your life if you really care about the Truth and understanding— much less fulfillment, having a decent relationship with people or getting your dick sucked.

No but you just did. If you men want to emotionally manipulate and say it’s Truth, I can play that game all day.

@Emerald I thought me being that harsh came across wrong. We agree though and I understand what you’re saying.

Again, irony.

It honestly sounds like she’s the rational one and you’re the one who needs her to parent you into parenting her then. Long story short, your argument was somewhat ironic.

It’s not tip toeing, its emotional maturity and effectiveness of teaching and meeting people where they’re at. Your girlfriend? Who cares? This isn’t about you.

I am sorry that seems harsh. I am pointing out the hypocrisy in this conversation. What you called being a dick. The men here are being dicks, yes. If they are right about the way women should be treated, they are not acting how they say they should. They are saying what they said they ‘shouldn’t say.’ I am not saying women cannot handle that. I am saying if your claim is women need special handling and then you treat them poorly, it looks extra bad. Principle, that’s all.

I am extremely disappointed with the men here. Men: If you are right. You should’ve kept your mouths shut. If you are wrong. You should’ve kept your mouths shut. Make sense? Good.

Leo— You know the weight your words carry. You’ve built a platform on insight, nuance, and depth. So when you reduce a complex dynamic to “talk about serious truths with women and you will absolutely regret it,” you’re not delivering truth—you’re delivering defeatism wrapped in superiority. You’re too smart not to see what you’re doing. You’re retreating into logic because you’re frustrated your logic isn’t landing. But that’s not the women’s fault. That’s the edge you haven’t grown through yet. The real teaching—the actual work—is learning how to speak truth that doesn’t bypass emotion, that doesn’t shame the listener, and that doesn’t let your disappointment mutate into contempt. You’re mistaking emotional resistance for ignorance. You’re mistaking being misunderstood for being right. And you’re mistaking your own frustration for clarity. This thread started with a provocative idea, sure. But it hit a nerve because there is a real dynamic worth unpacking. You could’ve been the one to thread that needle—humor, tension, honesty, and growth. Instead, you chose the easy road: a mic drop that flatters your followers and alienates the very people you say you’re trying to understand. You’ve told people for years: You must meet others where they are. So why don’t you? Why, when the emotions rise, do you turn your back and call it proof of their inferiority? This isn’t strength. It’s resignation. And it’s beneath you. You can be better than this. So be.

None of you would get a date with a lady with these tones. 😉

Saying you are bisexual and your attraction to men is typical is oxymoronic and really dismisses any bias. Most women’s attraction to men involves also not being attracted to women. Nonetheless, I think what @Emerald is saying is imperative. It is the guard rails to Leo’s work, which can be greatly abused. Arguably more than not. I will say this, however. Leo’s work, when properly understood, cannot be found elsewhere; priceless. Also, I’d make a further distinction, hopefully for clarity, on what he mentioned: “Gender equality in the political sphere is being confused with gender equality in the relationship sphere, where it does not belong.” I think some can be added to this. I graduated in 2019, have older references and a clear understanding of the social equality that is taking place— particularly at an age where dating and relationships become apparent. Gender equality cannot be confused with political equality or relationship equality when social equality out weighs all other social concepts. This leads to dilution of the very idea of a relationship, the need to have one, etc. All of the debate in politics, relationships, etc. is just the merging and dilution caused by ‘Stage Green’ and any one ‘prior to Stage Green’ trying to make sense of it. ’Stage Green’ is not the hippie go lucky lovey dovey it seems. It is a direct response to the hyper-individuality of ‘Orange’ creating its own purpose, its own social justifications, etc. ‘Green’ says it’s easier to forget most of the constructions and fall into your social positioning than it is to actively reconstruct. Hence, after thousands of years, we’re debating ‘relationships’ something that has been extremely straight forward. We must recognize the idea of ‘relationships’ actively changes as we speak. And men and women, today, struggle with understanding where new social equality plays a role in the interdependent nature of men and women as friends, lovers, companions, etc.