Xonas Pitfall

Most men do not look like Brad Pitt either, haha. Yes, but the main point is that most men, on average, would find the first woman more attractive. The same goes for women - both tend to prefer the less extreme, more balanced expressions of masculinity and femininity. I guess it also comes down to how we define these terms.

Emerald gave a good visual example above. Would you say you find the first or second lady more attractive? That's what we mean when we compare hyperfeminine and hypermasculine, vs feminine and masculine.

Yes! 100% That’s why it’s so important not to emotionally shut down or see emotional growth as something “men just don’t do.” Just because you weren’t taught it doesn’t mean you can’t develop it. There are so many things society fails to prepare us for - whether it’s passion, finances, purpose, or even basic life skills - and we take responsibility to learn and grow in those areas. Emotional intelligence, social skills, and empathy are no different.

It would be like if women said: "Well, society conditioned us to be conservative, pure, and to preserve our sexuality. We were taught not to be slutty or overly sexual - so how can you expect us to be amazing in bed? Please be patient with me and teach me..." Then, when you try to communicate or guide them, they respond with: "Ugh, men are always so horny and selfish. Stop pressuring me, stop asking me to be someone I'm not or do things I was never trained to do. Can't you just do your role as a man and provide for the family? Why should I have to develop myself in that area? Girls aren’t even into that stuff - porn and sex are for men anyway." When in reality, sexuality is a core pillar of a healthy, lasting relationship, just like emotional connection and deep communication. Both people need to be open to growth in all areas, not just the convenient ones.

Hyperfeminine: Overly sexualized appearance often shaped by excessive cosmetic enhancements (e.g. exaggerated lip fillers, Brazilian Butt Lift, oversized breast implants). High emotional reactivity, constant need for external validation, attention-seeking tendencies, and dramatic mood shifts. Feminine: Naturally attractive with soft, elegant features - often hourglass-shaped, graceful, gentle, warm presence. Emotionally receptive, nurturing, and expressive without being chaotic. Hypermasculine: Extremely muscular, steroids. Emotionally closed-off, overly aggressive, dominance-obsessed, hyper-competitive, promiscuous, and lacking emotional awareness or empathy. Masculine: Leaner athletic build, confident and composed. Embodies quiet strength, emotional control, and a strong sense of direction. Calm demeanor, deep voice, and assertive but respectful presence. If we define the terms this way, it becomes clear that the more balanced expressions of masculinity and femininity are generally more desirable and preferred by most people.

I think this is actually a crucial point. A lot of guys who fall into red pill spaces often haven’t developed themselves yet – many are young, inexperienced, or lacking guidance. For them, red pill content can serve as their first real introduction to self-improvement: work out, get fit, build confidence, improve your finances, develop discipline, take responsibility, and embrace masculinity. To be fair, for many so-called "betas" – typically meaning insecure, overly people-pleasing, unassertive guys with weak boundaries or low ambition – the initial push toward self-respect and masculinity can actually be really beneficial. If you’ve spent your whole life trying to please women by being overly agreeable and "simp-y", some tough love can be a wake-up call. However, since most mainstream spaces avoid directly saying that confidence and assertiveness are key to attracting women, a lot of guys don’t find that advice useful. Red pill spaces, on the other hand, say it bluntly and forcefully, in a very visceral way, usually framed around sexual success. ("Want to get laid? Here's how."). And because that message is often the first thing that works for them, appealing to the "lizard brain" or giving them real results, it becomes easy to disregard anything else. "This is the only thing that got me somewhere, so why would I listen to people who never helped me in the first place?" And when that’s mixed with a "matrix" or anti-society narrative - that the world is against men and only this space tells you the truth - it starts to take on a cult-like effect. The initial success with self-improvement becomes the bait, and then the rest of the ideology gets accepted without question.

This is a valid point, but more often, the issue is that many women do communicate their needs clearly in relationships. They’ll say things like, “Hey, show that you've thought of me,” “Please plan more dates,” “Can you reassure me here? Can you help me with this?”. These are reasonable, emotionally healthy requests. But a lot of men, due to social conditioning and avoidant tendencies, misinterpret these things. They may see it as nagging, neediness, weakness, irrationality, when in reality, it's just a bid for emotional connection. So the question becomes: how do you navigate a relationship with someone like that? You can try to be patient and communicate gently, assuming they just weren’t taught how to build deep emotional bonds. But if they continue to be disinterested, dismissive, or closed off, it’s incredibly painful. And yet, women are often expected to carry the emotional labor in that dynamic. The core pillar of any meaningful relationship is emotional depth, connection, and safety. If a person can’t offer that - and they’re also highly disagreeable (which, statistically, men are more likely to be) - it makes the relationship nearly impossible to maintain. You can see why so many women eventually choose to walk away from that dynamic. To put it in perspective: imagine asking your girlfriend for more sexual intimacy, and she constantly shuts you down, makes no effort, and leaves you feeling ignored. Eventually, you’d stop asking. You’d either assume she doesn’t care, or you’d become resentful. That’s exactly how it feels emotionally for many women in these situations. And the rise of red-pill ideologies only makes this worse, saying, “Women are too emotional, irrational, and don’t know what they want, so don’t listen to them.” Just focus on becoming more “alpha,” masculine, and stoic, and you’ll be able to get whoever you want. It’s like wanting to play golf but refusing to learn how to swing. If you want a healthy relationship, emotional connection, and socialization isn’t optional. Just like someone who’s bad at math can’t be a financial analyst, someone who’s emotionally stunted and avoidant won’t be able to maintain a deep, stable relationship without growth and effort. Yet, emotional awareness and vulnerability are rarely encouraged or taught in male spaces - in fact, they're often seen as weak, unmanly, or "gay." But think about it: as a man, you probably weren’t raised knowing how to train properly, eat well, or lift at the gym; you sought it out and learned. You weren’t born knowing game or confidence; you studied it and practiced. So why should developing emotional depth and vulnerability be any different? It’s a skill like any other, and just as essential if you want something meaningful.

Have you had clients like this or met people like that? I'd actually love to see a thread where you share your experiences and how you understand this psychology or how it develops, maybe even a YouTube video...? Hehe

❤️ ❤️

Yes!

The whole "alpha" vs "beta" conversation heavily depends on how you define those terms. Masculinity Scale Physically jacked, possibly on steroids. Aggressive, emotionally closed-off, obsessed with dominance and control, sleeps around, lacks empathy and emotional depth. Confident, attractive, grounded, takes initiative, shows leadership, ambition, drive, charismatic, avoids commitment, lacks depth of emotional connection. Kind, emotionally available, fun, loyal, sweet, attentive, may not be dominant, or sexually intriguing, but brings stability and warmth. Insecure, unmotivated, emotionally withdrawn, physically unhealthy or unfit, spends most time escaping (video games, substances), complains often, lacks ambition or direction Emotionally volatile, overly sensitive in unstable ways, lacks any assertiveness or structure, tries to get affection only through pleasing or emotional manipulation, avoids responsibility, driven by validation-seeking Gay :-) (Joking, lol.) Femininity Scale Hyper-sexualized, surgically enhanced (lip fillers, BBL, etc.), emotionally unstable, dramatic, constantly seeking attention, addicted to validation, heavily tied to nightlife and partying, high-maintenance, and unpredictable. Often manipulative or chaotic in relationships. Beautiful, hot, sexual, confident, playful, socially charming, flirty, knows her value. Captivating, but not emotionally reliable. May struggle with depth or consistency in relationships, may cheat, but is extremely attractive. Soft, nurturing, sweet, emotionally open, peaceful, supportive. Radiates warmth, loyalty, and care. Often, the “good girl” archetype but not as conventionally beautiful. Not that good in bed - more timid, less fun. Insecure, overweight, poor hygiene or health, emotionally flat or cold, overly passive or avoidant. Lacks confidence and expression, does little to maintain or develop herself. Often feels invisible or resentful. Dominant, aggressive, highly disagreeable. Emotionally walled off, sees vulnerability as weakness. Constantly trying to “win” in the relationship. Often prioritizes control, power, and independence over connection or softness. May be respected professionally, but often struggles with intimacy. :-) There’s obviously way more in between, as you can probably imagine. I just gave a few examples on the scale to get the conversation going and illustrate the spectrum. Realistically, most people, both guys and girls, are looking for someone who falls somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd types on the scale. You want someone attractive, sexually exciting, and who has that "bad girl" or "bad boy" edge that triggers instinctual, lizard-brain horny attraction. But at the same time, you also crave the emotional safety, loyalty, and genuine care that come from the "good girl/good guy" type. It makes sense that, for short-term flings, people gravitate more toward the second category. In casual situations, you're prioritizing sexual chemistry over emotional reliability. You're not thinking about building a future, raising a family, or who's going to be there for you when life gets hard - you're just thinking about who’s fun, hot, and exciting in the moment. That’s why guys will hook up with 8s, 9s, and 10s party girls, but might not take them seriously long-term, especially if they have a high body count or give off chaotic energy. Similarly, girls are drawn to confident playboys or "fuckboys" for short-term flings because the attraction is strong, even if they know deep down those guys aren’t likely to stick around or provide real emotional safety. It’s the Same Old Story: Madonna-Whore Complex and Alpha-Nice Guy Dichotomy Girls want a bad boy who is only a good guy to them. Boys want a good girl who is only a bad girl to them. Most of us are looking for a balance. Someone who is hot and reliable, charismatic and caring, seductive and sweet. The issue is, people over-identify with one part of themselves and stop working on the rest. They use their strengths as leverage instead of trying to grow into a more well-rounded partner. If you have a pattern of being a "nice guy" and you meet a girl you love, try your best to also tap into a more masculine, dominant energy for her. Don’t just sit in your room, whining about how she might cheat on you - develop yourself. Hit the gym, build muscle, learn about dominant play, how to command authority, and maintain frame. If you’re a sweet girl who isn’t conventionally attractive but has found a guy you like, don’t give up. Hit the gym, learn makeup, dress well, take care of your scent, and explore being more seductive, playful, and sexual. Let yourself loosen up a bit and focus less on overthinking and being conservative. If you’re the dominant, “fuckboy” type of guy and you meet a girl you genuinely care about, don’t hold leverage over her, expecting her to accept cheating or constantly do more to keep you. Stop taking advantage of your charisma. Work on your attachment issues, become a safe space for her, and develop more of the good-guy traits. Think of her - what does she enjoy? Give it to her and genuinely enjoy it. Practice your empathy. If you’re a hyper-sexual, party-girl type who knows she’s hot and gets male attention easily, but you meet a guy you like and worry he only sees you for your body and not as wifey material, develop more sweetness and softness. Give him emotional safety. Don’t go clubbing all the time if you know it makes him worry. Become more attuned to what brings him closer to you. Build hobbies and a personality outside the typical “hot girl” stereotype. The problem with many popular relationship advice videos is that they make people think they only need to be one thing, “the alpha”, "the nice guy", "the innocent", or whatever, and once they achieve that, it’s supposed to be a jackpot. Now, instead of truly caring for the person, some just use the attraction they’ve built to manipulate or demand more from their partner. This only fuels the problems and statistics in today’s dating market. After all the effort you put into self-improvement, you end up hurting the market and traumatizing everyone all over again. It’s the same paradox as poor people resenting the rich, but once they become wealthy, they look down on the poor instead of helping. It teaches zero empathy. If you ever enter a relationship, you should aim to develop and balance both sides of yourself, the passionate, sexual side and the caring, supportive side. This balance is the greatest gift you can offer your partner, and in turn, you encourage them to do the same. If you’re able to achieve this, you’ll become extremely valuable, and ironically, your relationships will become much safer precisely because it is so rare. So, I’d say if you’re struggling with attraction, start by figuring out which stereotype you fit into: good girl, bad girl, bad boy, or good boy, etc. Then work on developing the other side of yourself. When you find a partner you feel is worth investing in, grow together and put in the effort to maintain the relationship. And, most importantly, don’t be selfish and use all the attraction and attachment you’ve built to suddenly cheat, throw polyamory demands on them, or stop trying because you think you’re “so high value.” Statements like “I’m a man, I deserve multiple women, deal with it” or “I’m a woman, so you have to give me more money” only hurt others and further damage the dating scene.

Not at all! That wasn’t my point – I was just suggesting that YouTube isn't blacklisting anything (since there are clearly large channels focused on spirituality, self-help, more taboo woo-woo topics, psychedelics, etc.). The algorithm just pushes whatever people watch and keeps them on the platform. If that's Trump videos, it'll be that; if that's cat videos, it'll be that; if that's Subway Surfer TikTok edits, then it'll be that. Sadly, that’s just the state of things right now. I’d never want this content to turn into some watered-down, mainstream brainrot.

https://www.actualized.org/insights/actualized-quotes-205 This post really caught my attention. What are your thoughts on it? There were earlier posts saying, "Truth is the highest form of beauty." But illusion is linked to falsehood. Illusion brings evil out. Obviously, both are ultimately connected, in a non-dual way. Without illusion, you wouldn’t be able to experience love and union born from the separation that illusion creates. That said, I’m still curious why the word “highest” is used here. Is there a deeper insight here that I might be missing... 🤔

Got it! It's a beautifully strange loopy, haha. You want the love to be so real, so limitless, that you dissolve all that is "real" into illusion - so that love isn't bound by form, condition, or structure. In doing so, it becomes more real than "reality" itself – transcendent. Illusion becomes necessary for beauty. Because for beauty to be eternal and unending, everything else must become illusion - fleeting, ever-changing, unable to confine it. Only then can beauty remain alive and infinite. You're trying to make love and beauty so real, so absolute, that in the process, you render everything else illusionary.

Personally, I love that everything is illusory. I have no issue with it. But I'm not entirely sure if I'd call that the highest beauty... unless that’s exactly the point of the quote. There seems to be an inherent link between reality and beauty; the more real something beautiful feels, the more beautiful it becomes. The more truthful, the safer it feels to trust, to surrender to, to love. There's something deeply compelling about what is raw, unfiltered, and pure. But on the other hand, if there were no illusion, there would be no otherness, and without otherness, there would be no love, no contrast, no connection. And love, in all its forms, is arguably one of the most beautiful aspects of human experience. So in that sense, illusion is the highest beauty, because it makes love possible. It seems to form a kind of strange loop: All is one, undivided, unified → So separation, otherness, and love become what God craves and values most → Which makes illusion precious, because it creates that experience → But illusion can lead to distortion, suffering, and insecurity → Which makes us seek truth and reality again, and see that as the ultimate beauty And the cycle continues... ⟳

The way I like to look at it is through the metaphor of Local vs. Cloud Storage. Cloud storage allows your data to be shared, while local storage means your data stays on your device. In local mode, you are the Godhead, omnipotent, singular, solipsistic. It's pure self-contained divinity. There’s no one else, no comparison, no competition, no reflection. In that state, you don’t experience interaction, connection, or even love, because there's only you. It’s absolute, but also absolutely alone. In local storage, there's no external verification or syncing, so you can alter your data freely, meaning scores, identity, or progress can be faked, manipulated, or cheated without consequence. You have total power. Then comes cloud mode. Here, you accept contrast. You’re no longer the only one, now you have a username, an identity. You play within a system, follow rules, and build a track record. You can succeed or fail, be better or worse than others. But in return, you gain the richness of experience: connection, love, rivalry, community, victory, loss, and otherness. The trade-off is clear: Local gives you total sovereignty but no relational depth. Cloud limits your omnipotence but offers the beauty of interaction and connection. The same principle applies to dream vs. reality, and god-mode vs. multiplayer in games! 🐈

I’m trying to think this through - wouldn’t this be equivalent to saying: The highest love is the one that loves evil the most. The truth that everything is evil is the highest love.

I suppose it depends on how you define it. The truth is everything real, because if something isn’t true, it can’t be considered real. Anything outside of that would just be filtered through a false or distorted perception. In that sense, all illusion stems from truth, and more deeply, all illusion is held within truth. Illusions can only exist because they are rooted in something real. Fragmented perceptions, when seen from the highest perspective, all point back to the absolute. The same principle applies across many dualities: Same Principle With Self And Other Same Principle With Love And Evil, Goodness And Devilry Same Principle With Limitation And Infinity Same Principle With Illusion And Reality Same Principle With Materialization And Potential I think what threw me off was the use of the word "highest". It made me wonder if there was a deeper layer I wasn’t seeing... and still does 😅

Is it true that everything is truth? 🤔 Is it true that everything is held within truth, however misconstrued?

2 895 000 000 views (Posted 1 Hour Ago) !!! 98%+ Click-Through Rate (CTR) 195,000,000 Likes / 0 Dislikes 3.1 billion Comments Subscriber Gain +412,000,000 Subs Retention Rate 103% Revenue $93,000,000 USD 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

I’d genuinely be curious to hear more, because this is something I often find confusing in these spaces. There’s a lot of talk about how women are supposedly cruel or have a "dark" nature compared to men. As if all they want is to constantly jump from one richer, taller, more attractive guy to the next, with no regard for the person they’re currently with. But in reality, men can be just as dark - it’s a human thing, not a gendered one. You see husbands leaving their wives when they get sick, gain weight, grow older, or start earning more. There are also higher rates of domestic violence and violent crime committed by men. So it seems clear to me that both genders have selfish tendencies and biases when it comes to relationships. Humans naturally want what they want, and that can lead to cruelty or manipulation, regardless of gender. It ultimately comes down to character and whether someone chooses to act with integrity. So when people frame this as a uniquely “female” issue, I just don’t see it. Female hypergamy is about what women tend to find attractive. Male hypergamy is about what men find attractive. Both genders try to get the best partner they can, and both fear being the one who’s settling, or worse, being settled for or cheated on. That’s why I question the heavy focus on "female nature" being darker. It feels like it misses the broader point - that this is all part of human nature. I’d be curious to hear your perspective on that!

Obviously, there’s a lot more nuance to this, I’m not saying it’s that simple at all. Plus, I wouldn’t want Leo to change his style, as he’s clearly aiming for authentic and truthful expression. That’s why I was suggesting other approaches, like collaborations. Many people think they’re following this kind of advice, but there’s actually a lot of research involved - understanding which titles, topics, and thumbnails perform well, what the current “meta” is, and so on. It’s a whole field you could study. I’m really sorry if I came across as oversimplifying things; that’s not my intention at all. YouTube is a brutal, competitive space.

Just a quick tip on the YouTube algorithm! YouTube doesn’t necessarily blacklist topics like spirituality, self-improvement, or psychedelics. Plenty of channels covering those areas, including psychedelic education, (more controversial) conspiracy theories, and psychic podcasts, get tons of views. The real game on YouTube largely comes down to thumbnail design and title format/clickability. While your thumbnails are unique, certain proven formats tend to perform better. For example, your video on proofs of God could’ve had a much higher reach if presented in a “tier-list” format - similar to videos like these: Your content is less overstimulating by design, which naturally filters out more casual viewers, especially in the first 30 seconds. That said, I’m not suggesting you change your format in a way that feels inauthentic. If anything, I’m sure both your viewers and you would hate a complete format shift, so it’s just about approaching things more strategically. Once you have a more consistent viewership, even your niche-style videos can perform well, and you’ll still be able to spread your ideas genuinely. One idea: do more conversational content like your discussion with Curt. Someone who comes to mind is Dan Koe – he’s a big fan of Actualized.org and has openly praised it as one of the most insightful and high-quality channels on YouTube. A dialogue or podcast episode with him could expose you to a broader audience of people aligned with your style. His channel has been growing like crazy over the past few years. Another approach might be offering commentary on trending topics, but from your higher-consciousness lens, similar to your Andrew Tate video, which pulled significantly more views than your surrounding uploads. Which also proves your channel isn’t really blacklisted, per se. The YouTube formula is: Thumbnail + Clickable Title + Solid Hook + Evergreen or "Trending" Topic. Of course, I don’t know how much you care about view counts right now - this is just a small suggestion in case you’re looking to better navigate the algorithm. Either way, I love Actualized.org and will be a consistent viewer! The content is incredible, and the blog has also been an especially juicy addition lately. Thank you a lot!

Recently, a discussion around a spiritual couple and their take on polyamory sparked a broader topic - the subtle (and not-so-subtle) self-deceptions that psychedelics can create. Whether it's illusions that surface only during a trip or ones that linger and distort your everyday thinking, the line between insight and delusion can blur fast. As I said in that blog post, at least for me, once I started practicing psychedelics, I was genuinely shocked by how much mixture and distortion my reality was getting from the drugs, and I had to pull myself out of it. I feel like in some communities, psychedelics are marketed as truth-revealers, or that only the wild, obvious delusions are insane, and they don’t follow you into real life. I had to battle through that, and still do to some extent. Even Leo said, "I have fooled myself in the past that a girl was my divine soulmate when she was not even close. And psychedelics made that illusion five times worse." That’s why I wanted to open this thread. If you’ve had experiences with psychedelic delusion, insight vs. illusion, or spiritual fantasy spirals, feel free to share them. The more honest we are about this, the better equipped we’ll be to use these tools responsibly!

This mindset is totally valid. But my only question is: why does that somehow mean women have a "dark" or "ugly" nature? How does this differ from guys? They might not value traits like masculinity, competence, or strength in a partner, so naturally, their version of "hypergamy" won’t be based on those qualities, simply because they don’t prioritize them in a potential woman. Aren’t guys just as "hypergamous" in their own way? Most men want the most beautiful, sweet, caring, kind, and feminine woman they can find. And if they eventually meet someone who feels like a better match, a lot of them will move "up", too. That’s literally why so many guys in the Red Pill sphere idolize the Leonardo DiCaprio lifestyle. That’s also why there’s a classic social cliché of a wife being left for a “younger” woman (the babysitter, a coworker, or someone new). Both men and women can be equally ruthless in choosing partners or even leaving relationships and marriages in pursuit of someone they perceive as "higher value" - it's not gendered, it's just part of human nature. Yes, you should value yourself and enter conversations feeling like you bring something to the table. But that’s just basic self-improvement and social dynamics 101. It’s not some deep insight into male or female "nature" - it's human nature. People who see themselves in a more positive light tend to feel more confident, more relaxed, and naturally more charismatic. That kind of energy draws others in, no matter your gender.