Xonas Pitfall

100%! I was just pointing out the gender bias happening, both can be crazy crazy ones! 😅

Nisssse Silly Gueuïeoosee!

The hotter the guy, the more difficult it is to handle their ego, greed, lust, and narcissism. It goes both ways, haha. The more attractive you are in general, and considering you haven’t faced much backlash in life and are still relatively young, the more you can get away with things. This is an attractive-people thing, not just a guy or girl thing. (Also edit: As @Schizophonia pointed out, it’s more of just a toxic person thing, to be honest haha. It’s just that the more attractive you are, and if you’re a toxic person, the more you can get away with. But yeah, still non-gendered.) Again, you can’t call women the crazier gender when men, throughout history, have been more aggressive, impulsive, cheating, causing unnecessary wars, domestic violence, and creating laws that benefit them and disadvantage anything not like them. It took thousands of years just to get some gender equality, who do you think was electing for this? History alone shows plenty of blind spots on the men’s side. Again, I’m not saying women are the better gender now; I dislike these gender wars. I’m just trying to point out the biases here. You have to remember that anger, inability to control lust and horniness, and inability to be vulnerable are also unhealthy emotions that should be seen as "crazy" and incredibly toxic as well if not regulated.

Also, just a note: being 'outward' doesn’t have to mean bungee jumping or suddenly flipping to an extrovert; it can be as simple as 'speaking out loud,' 'writing out your thoughts,' or focusing on a movie/video game you enjoy. You can still be heavily introverted and contemplative, but just 'articulating' your thoughts helps, so you’re not just stuck in your head, daydreaming. That’s what you’re really battling, since that's the main cause of that 'trance-like state' that leads you deeper into depressive moods. It’s a meme, but... to not depress, you need to express. As corny as it sounds, it’s true. So, honestly, even taking time to write on a forum or slowly expressing your thoughts will help you get off to a better start. You’re not necessarily battling introversion and reflective interests; what you’re battling are ruminating thoughts and maladaptive daydream-like behavior. Anything that gets you out of that is much better. You need to externally keep explicating yourself in any way possible.

I think it's also about how relevant and helpful education is perceived to be. With the internet, kids are more likely to stumble upon "anti-schooling" content and realize how irrelevant many of the things taught are, so it’s even less motivating when online learning feels like a better alternative to traditional education. Personally, and for many of my friends, this has been a significant issue. When you compare traditional education to online resources, and also become aware of how little school guarantees a job (if anything, it might just get you into more student debt), it makes school even less appealing. I guess in the past, there was a sense of security that if you got a degree, you could get a stable job and stay with a company long-term with little fear of sudden laid-offs (though maybe that’s just a myth, I am not well-versed here). Education fundamentally has to feel like a worthwhile investment compared to other alternatives, which is why people are pushing for school reform. There are (for example) plenty of AI tools that can potentially be implemented to personalize teaching for children, and that’s just one of the ways the system could potentially improve. Before, students didn’t have as many distractions, so even if the teachers weren’t great, they could still get by. But that’s not a good situation, and it shows how many flaws have been overlooked in the system. Not saying teachers should be disrespected at all, but it’s clear that the education system has long been ignoring some key issues. It could push us to rethink how we engage students, allowing them to explore subjects they’re truly passionate about and helping them discover what interests them. This, to me, is what real education should look like. Obviously, it sounds somewhat utopian for now, but I do think many of the flaws in old-school approaches are slowly being more and more exposed. Which is good!

South Park makes me nostalgic :') ❤

Yes, this is how depression feels or "comes to be": you're overactive in your 'ego' or neural default network. Research suggests when depressed, there's a heightened activation of areas of the brain involved in self-referential thinking, like the default mode network (DMN), which is responsible for mind-wandering and processing personal memories, and when it's overactive, it can lead to persistent negative thoughts and a sense of being trapped in your own mind (just as you are reporting). Here, if you want to read more about it: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0812686106 That's how I feel myself in the 'emptiness' stages, especially if they are prolonged. As I said above, you're completely immersed in the Default Mode Network (DMN), stuck in your own recursive thought loops. It's a completely different state of consciousness from normal. And... interestingly, psychedelics have been shown to reduce activity in exactly that area of the brain (the DMN). This may explain why they are one of the few things that actually seem to work for you. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1119598109 Changing anything in life (whether it's your body, your career, or your mental state) follows a similar process. To change your weight, for example, you need to make gradual adjustments to your diet and exercise routine over time. Only after consistent effort will you eventually return to, or even surpass, your "prime body" and healthy state. The same principle applies to switching careers: you must let go of your ego, admit that you don't know anything about this new topic, and start from scratch, which is painful. Only by taking small steps over time can you reach the same level of success, or even exceed it, in your new field. However, this slow, long-term process can be incredibly painful and discouraging, especially since with all of these you have the motivation to push forward. But with depression, the unique challenge is that you start feeling more exhausted and tired, and you lose any apparent reason to do things. It’s as if you have to work against your own mind and rationality if you want to make a change. It's like you're fighting just to have motivation; you're developing a habit/goal of being motivated. The same goes for overcoming depression. To break free from the negative thought loops of the Default Mode Network, you need to deliberately engage in activities that pull you away from introspection. Movement, social interaction, self-expression, engaging in speech or communication, meditation, or focusing outward, anything that interrupts the recursive, self-referential state. Only then will you begin to feel a shift. Basically, think of the nihilistic impulse of "Why does any of this matter?" as your mind saying, "Hey, eating another doughnut isn't that bad, is it?" or "Who cares if I lose weight? I don't want to be motivated by shallow reasons." It's like the devil on your shoulder. You can point out the trickery in those thoughts when it comes to something like losing weight, but with nihilism, the argument feels more intellectual, more convincing, and therefore, harder to challenge. It feels more "personal", "true," and "correct," but it's ultimately the same kind of illusion. Alternatively, you could opt for a quicker fix: plastic surgery to change your body, a career referral to bypass the grind, or a psychedelic experience to temporarily step outside of the DMN. Both approaches work and are fine; one is gradual, long-term, and often painful, while the other provides immediate results (and sometimes only short-term). In the psychedelic state, for example, you get a brief glimpse of what it’s like to function beyond that exhausting, numbing, self-referential state. It’s a temporary break from the cycle, which can be incredibly helpful, I know it was for me. But if you don’t have access to psychedelics at the moment, I’d strongly encourage you to try sticking to a routine that forces you out of your mind. See how you feel after a week (or even a couple of days). Your mind is highly self-deceptive in its nature, so it could be worth a try; nothing to lose really, in attempting something different if possible. I believe in Sugarcoat ❤

Thank you very much! I highly suggest this tip, to be honest. I feel like my thoughts got progressively clearer once I started doing it. I guess seeing them written out 'prettier' and properly motivated me to push extra hard to keep redefining my logic and communication style.

I write it myself first, but I can't be bothered with grammar, capitalization, or spelling, so my original is very wonky. Then I run it through AI and say, 'Hey, correct grammar and capitalization.' It's an awesome combo, hehe!

This I understand conceptually, but if I truly ask myself if I’ve experienced, believe, or know this, I’m not quite sure. That was my original question in this post. How do you know this isn't just how the mind works, and that it’s all happening in my mind? Sure, the mind has an infinite looping property, and yes, it's contingent for reality to exist; but can’t I just say it’s contingent for reality to be perceived, not exist? How do I know if my mind dies, then everyone separate from my mind in this "reality" will die too? I cannot ever know this. Nothing I ever experienced points to this, both logically and experientially. So, I wanted to ask: how do I contemplate this further so I can grasp what is being said? Thank you so much! ❤

Meaning usually follows this path: You notice or experience some suffering → You alleviate it for yourself → You share, teach, or help others alleviate that same pain. Or, in a shorter and broader sense: You notice how to generate more happiness for yourself and others → You share it and help others experience it. It’s about sharing happiness, alleviating suffering, increasing love, self-expression, exploration, understanding, and care. Life purpose and "calling" usually imply the specific skill or type of suffering or experience/happiness you’re fixing and sharing. That’s why children and relationships are meaningful to a lot of people; you get to feel loved, share love, and feel the direct impact of your actions on others. The same applies to high-purpose careers. This is the more "human" definition of meaning. The more spiritual/metaphysical view is: The universe is unlimited, undefined, pure chaos, and infinity; what it’s missing is finiteness. So, it creates finitudes to experience and know itself. We are small pieces of consciousness, or figments, that help consciousness define itself. Think of it this way: If you don’t know how to gain muscle, you enter into a chaotic, unpredictable world of the gym. Then, you discover how to achieve that goal, and in the process, you’re slowly defining and paving the way on how to do it. See how it connects back to the human-purpose version, too? It’s about defining infinity, making infinity know itself. It’s ultimately meaningless since we are the meaning generators. Meaning fundamentally implies that something is more meaningful than something else. But in non-duality, nothing is more meaningful than anything else. Therefore, all and nothing are meaningful. You're filtering and creating structure in the undefined to achieve your specific bias (goal). For God, this specific path is meaningless because God is both overweight and lean, big and strong, small and fragile. But for you, you have a very specific preference for how you want to be, so now you make that specific distinction in the "unknown" meaningful. You give it special treatment and notice. This is something God "alone" could never do. We are the creations He needed to make this specific distinction, and that's why we exist. God can never alone experience attachment because God is unattached and equally attached to everything, fully connected. He both loves a glamorous movie star and a reclusive, bookish introvert; a tough, battle-hardened soldier, a free-spirited artist, but also a corporate CEO, a passionate activist, a hot playboy bunny and a 48-year-old basement-dwelling nerd, a rugged military man, a redneck, but also a spiritual delusional hipster, a man in his peak athletic capabilities, and a disabled person. But YOU have a unique ability to love a very specific set of people or one person fully, and see, distinctly to you, why they are so special. You give them meaning that transcends all others. This is why we are needed by God. This also applies to yourself, your career, your hobbies, and your taste. Why are they so special to YOU? Only you can make them beautiful and meaningful because God cannot do it for you, since He loves all of them equally. It’s just that people often have a hard time loving themselves or feel self-deprecating unless they have more narcissistic tendencies. So, it’s sometimes easier to see this as a service to others and separate aspects of reality. But both are completely valid points of meaning. You can only experience meaning from a finite perspective. So, the most meaningful thing is the thing from your personal, limited self-perspective, and that’s your "purpose." Keep chasing your bias. Humans’ bias is towards happiness and fulfillment, and away from unhappiness or hopelessness. So, whatever form your personal point of view gives you, that is the highest meaning you can ever have and experience, since you’re the only ever source of finitude in the universe and the current NOW.

Bless! 😊💞💗💛

Masculine is Self Feminine is Love Then: What is Sex? Self-Love! ❤

Is it possible that you’ve simply moved beyond more shallow desires? Do you feel like you now resonate more with "higher" desires, like service to others, contributing to humanity, helping, meaningful and stable connections, or the expression of love and wisdom? I'm not entirely sure if this is the case, but everything you described above seems like a perfect setup for someone noble and selfless to do the right things this world needs. But I’m not sure how you actually feel, just wondering!

For me, it goes like this: I feel empty, something random happens that sparks my curiosity, and I get immersed in it. Then, that thing fades away, and I feel empty again. Then again, I expose myself to something new, something random happens, I get immersed, and then it fades away again. Rinse and repeat. Occasionally, I experience moments of "lack" in certain areas of my life and wish to heal or fix them, which leads me to immerse myself once more. Other times, I feel a sense of "curiosity," and that drives me to immerse myself in something new, but eventually, it fades again. Rinse and repeat. I feel like most of my life follows this cycle, or at least that’s how I tend to view it when I enter these empty states. My mind needs something external to become immersed in, something that I can't currently imagine or be aware of. So, I need to expose myself to exterior people and things until something "hits me". It’s like seeking your own trance. Of course, if you have goals, things to look forward to, and aspirations, that immersion can last indefinitely. But I understand that in these empty states, those feel impossible, which is why it feels meaningless to just say, "Hey, invent something." That's why realizing the cycle I described works better for me. It's a good parallel to Leo's post on "states of consciousness" being everything. In the current state, you can't grasp or understand anything about spirituality, God, consciousness, etc. But then, you have a shift, like a psychedelic experience, and your state changes. Suddenly, things make sense that didn’t before. The same can often be true with depression. In a nihilistic state, it's hard to imagine anything beyond feelings of despair or thoughts of suicide. Then, you meet someone, have a realization, take a supplement, drug, or find yourself in a new environment or experience, and suddenly, it’s hard to imagine what your old self was like.

Love it! ❤ I think an important distinction I’ve personally made is between kindness and integrity. Some people might seem kind and caring, but if I notice a lot of inconsistencies between their words and actions, it should raise red flags. Truth and integrity go hand in hand, and if one is missing, the other likely is too. I 100% agree!

We have to be very careful in how we define these terms. When we talk about Truth, what are we referring to? If we’re discussing concepts like God realization, ego submission (or loss), love, beauty, the mysterious dream-like nature of reality, and experiencing being rather than just thinking, analyzing, or strategizing, I would say all of these aspects are typically more aligned with what is traditionally considered “feminine.” In this context, they appear to be a significant part of the truth. As I mentioned earlier, many times when discussing these ideas, Leo responds with, "You need a higher level of consciousness to experience this," which is fine, but this isn’t the autistic, step-by-step, logical answer you'd expect; he said himself that it was only after several years of inquiry, experience, appreciating, and basking in God/enlightenment that it really clicked for him that God has a natural order and logic to it. My issue lies in how we often define masculine and feminine intelligence. It's often framed as smart versus dumb, rational versus irrational, or order/structure vs delusional. ๑ This is a tale as old as time, a pattern that keeps repeating everywhere ๑ Even Spiral Dynamics follows this very structure. You have an egoic, self-oriented, survival-aware, individual-based level, the masculine. Then, it shifts to a more communal, group-centered, world-aware level, the feminine. This is the core of these dualities. If you fail to acknowledge the intelligence in either of these perspectives, you’ll continue to hold a very distorted, biased, and ultimately invalid view of what masculine and feminine actually are. Chris Langan is a good example of how far you can get with pure, rigid, logical analysis and little to no spirituality or feminine embodiment. Don't get me wrong, he achieved a lot, but even Leo admitted that he wouldn't consider Langan to be God-realized, which is a fair point. Plus, I’m pretty sure Langan himself acknowledged that he was able to do his work because of his woo-woo experiences and lucid dreams, which he referenced while trying to explain his findings. Science, rationality, pragmatism, empiricism, logic, and systematization are what you get when you focus solely on those aspects of reality. That’s why ‘mystics’ and highly open-minded individuals, who weren’t afraid to explore the paranormal, undefined, and more 'chaotic', often ‘feminine’ parts of reality, were needed to make greater scientific breakthroughs. It’s also funny how liberalism is viewed here as a more progressive and correct view, yet if I ask some hardcore, masculine, grungy redneck, they'd say liberalism is for 'pussy beta cucks' and that you're not a real man if you hold that perspective! This means conservatism is seen as largely more masculine, not liberal; yet somehow, the feminine is considered the higher perspective? In fact, if an objective alien were to observe both from a non-partisan perspective, they’d probably conclude that conservatism feels more masculine, while liberalism feels more feminine. F: 'So, you had more mystical experiences with nature or God, right? You’re talking about feeling and intuition, and that led you to some aspects of truth, correct? You do realize that talking about things like beauty, love, selflessness, and transcendent reality is a very feminine thing, right? You’re talking about ego dissolution, going beyond reality and pragmatism, and seeing the other in yourself, love and connection.' M: 'Uh... No, no, that’s also masculine, because, uh… I logically inquired about all of this while I meditated on a rock alone, tough guy monk stuff! I don't care about those things, it's just the Truth, and it's masculine to value Truth, yeah!' F: 'So, if those things aren’t feminine and they’re not part of the feminine approach, then what is feminine intelligence and spirituality? M: 'Uh, new-age spiritual nonsense, delusional astrology... that’s it! Dumb chicks thinking they can manifest anything they want with the law of manifestation, duh! Just feeling and being a brainless bimbo instead of logically inquiring and deconstructing, yeah!' It’s like, when it’s convenient, the mystical, intuitive, and "dreamy" aspects are suddenly masculine because of the way they were 'logically' processed, but anything that’s labeled 'woo-woo' and retarded gets dismissed as feminine. Does that make sense? The distinction seems unfair and incoherent, not to mention other important elements I mentioned above. I feel like Leo and a lot of guys who agree with this view often underestimate how feminine much of what they’re saying sounds (and I'm not shaming that; I think it's awesome!). But let’s zoom out for a bit. If I brought in an objective alien or a random, non-biased human who has some vague idea of what feminine and masculine mean, and I showed them some of Leo’s posts, they’d probably think it sounds like some delusional manifestation talk chick, completely unrooted in reality, posting #LawofAttraction tumblr quotes. Hey, I’m telling you, you can imagine a unicorn! If you just manifest and wish for it, the unicorn will appear right in front of you! The highest beauty is selflessness. The highest beauty is that everything is an illusion. A lot of Leo’s videos were very much in the 'hipster' green stage spiritual realm, yoga guides, meditation. And a lot of them were titled with feminine themes too: 'What is love?' 'How do you express love?'" You don’t get the truth, you cannot prove the truth, you need to embody the truth, be the truth. You’re not in the right consciousness or frequency! It’s all a dream... nothing is real... I manifest/create my reality and self. Again, I’m not trying to mock, nor am I saying these posts aren’t true or meaningful. I just want to offer some perspective on the unfair bias and nitpicking that seems to be happening here. I hope I’m making sense. Please feel free to correct me if I’ve misunderstood anything 🤍

Would you mind sharing a bit more about this? (If it's not too private, of course!) I find these moments of snapping and realizations deeply intriguing and educational. Thank you so much for being so open and vulnerable here! ❤ (っᵔ◡ᵔ)っ What did you find love to be, actually, that you thought it wasn’t before? What kind of alternative personal needs and relationships did you discover?

What do you think would be a better definition, pointer, or expression for it?

One of the "stereotypical" properties of the feminine is "being peaceful... submitting to the environment... allowing... presence, being a beauty to admire, a muse." This seems much more "grounded" by definition. If we talk about binaries, then the masculine is usually about conquering, not submitting, dominating, warriors, hunters, etc. This is less "grounded" and more restless, meant to act quickly, more impulsive, ready to attack and slaughter. Take the risk. You can also flip the frame and say, well, yeah, they can be more peaceful and delusional because they are being protected and isolated from harsh reality by men, meaning they are less grounded. So which is it? Haha, it’s incredibly loopy, and both definitions can imply this. You could argue that men are rougher and more impulsive because reality requires that of them. Another property of the feminine is "being motherly, caring, calm and patient with children, nurturing, being able to love unconditionally, supportively, understanding, empathizing... in tune with the reality of emotions and the social group's personality." This approach is also very grounded. You need to be unbelievably grounded and emotionally attuned to the baby and children to create a healthy environment. Research shows that, on average, men take more risks than women, both physically and financially, which may help explain why female-led companies often have steadier, long-term growth. MSCI reported that companies led by women saw 10‑point better returns on equity over time. Male-led companies may pursue faster growth, but often at the cost of higher risk and volatility. In contrast, female-led companies often achieve more sustained and stable growth. During crises like the pandemic, firms led by women were perceived as less risky, had better credit quality, and weathered downturns more reliably than male-led firms. A large-scale study of nearly 99,400 global firms found that companies led by women consistently outperformed male-led ones on exploitation metrics, such as productivity, innovation, and capacity utilization, but showed lower growth in sales and aggressive expansion behaviors like asset acquisition. Men are much more likely to punch, attack, or street fight, whereas women are more likely to express crying, issues, or vulnerability; both of these are impulsive, non-stoic expressions, not grounded, logical approaches. Also, both genders have their more "emotional/sexually charged" and more "grounded/calm" properties. The ideal man and woman would have both qualities combined, quite fittingly. A man would want the hot, emotionally expressive, submissive, pornstar-like, feminine girl who’s wild in bed (short-term) but also super supportive, calm, peaceful, "Be his peace... ❤", nurturing, motherly, and grounded for the long term. Similarly, a woman would love the hot, sexy, charming, masculine "bad boy" (short-term), but also someone who has the provider attitude, logic, stern problem-solving capability, and reliability of a father figure (long-term). Both genders suffer from similar issues, to be honest. They both want the hot, sexy, impulsive, wild sex attraction but struggle to maintain it long-term. Usually, for women, the guy will be horny, lustful, toxic, a bad boy, or a narcissist who won’t commit and cheats. For men, the girl will be crazy hot but too emotionally unstable, impulsive, illogical, bratty, and dramatic. You basically want your lizard brain constantly stimulated long-term, without any consequences or boredom. It's a core mind trick in almost everything in life, haha. Again, it's flawed to consider one gender completely rational and smart while ignoring the blind spots that come with it.

I think, if I'm being very charitable, the reason why consciousness is often equated with "God" is because of its properties: The only thing that has ever been omnipresent, ever-present, in your life is that awareness, that consciousness. Therefore, it carries the property of omnipresence, one of the core attributes of God, and it passes the neti-neti test. Who are you if not your thoughts, body, emotions, and senses? Consciousness! Has there ever been a moment in your life when you weren't you? Being Yourself? You can never escape your own perception. It feels like this cat-and-mouse game, where you try to create something outside of perception, but then perception immediately captures it, haha ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ . . .🧀 ! Since it's connected to the mind and the ability to take in, be, and perceive anything, it holds the property of emptiness and infinite fluidity of imagination. Because it's the first primordial necessity for anything to be experienced at all, it has that creator/origin property, that sense of being the ground of creation. And based on my trips, once I elevate to high enough states of consciousness, I reach this pure, transparent awareness, a hyper-reality, which seems to directly control reality and perception. So, there definitely appears to be something like God-consciousness. It's like: what are the properties of God? Omnipresence, transparency, unfiltered perception, pure understanding, truth, being, ever-present, ever-now. And the only thing that actually has all those properties right now, here, in this moment, is that sense of "consciousness" or "I am-ness." However... I'm still unsure if this is a good implication or a logically sound deduction. Something in this feels a little confusing, and I haven't fully resolved it.

I also think this might be a personal issue of what Dear Leo is attracted to! "But Leo...! I didn’t expect my hot witch girlfriend to be a bipolar loony." However, men can also be equally mentally cruel and unhinged, so I don’t really see the point; for every hot sexy BPD DDs cock-slurping bombshell manic pixie dream girl, there’s an NPD ASPD manipulator, gaslighter, pure demonic evil polyamorous-seeker red piller haha. Match made in Heaven!

But how do you counter ego? Empathy, love, intuition leaps, all lofty feminine qualities, lead you to insight. If you were purely stuck in your logic, your "ego," there would be absolutely no reason for you not to just keep lusting after absolute power, resource gathering, and manipulating systems, which is what you see in men who are blind to the "otherness" (this is the male, masculine blindness). Again, remember we are talking dualities here; you can’t just ascribe: Masculine: pure logic, perfect logic, intelligence; it includes both intuition leaps and hard truth. Feminine: all that is dumb, idiotic, undefined, confused, lost. I doubt you realized the truth completely through logic. In fact, you admitted yourself that you only later, after 30+ years, realized God had inherent logic in it, meaning a lot of your insights came from being, experience, and feminine "submission" to the insight, presence, and leaps of insight. The love and beauty of consciousness probably moved you to keep trying to understand it. Empathy is what lets the ego break out of its ego-centric state and into the realization of self and other, seeing itself in the other, connection, love, unity, God. Which points back to my original argument: you can’t nitpick all intelligence to masculine logic when we clearly see a trend of males lacking this important insight and females being more in tune with it. Females have their own blind spots, I agree, but this way of distinguishing male and female as rational versus irrational is a very shallow understanding of what logic is and what is needed for genuine insight.

To be completely honest, a lot of the time, the “male” version of "hard Grrr logic and facts" 💪💣🔥 just means excluding empathy from your deductions or not knowing how to handle and consider emotional input calmly or properly. That’s part of why we see significantly more male aggressors, predators, abusers, domestic violence cases, and suicidality. To live in a grounded and truly rational way, and to make sound, logical conclusions, you need perspective, and empathy with emotional awareness is part of that. You can’t 🙈 ignore these perspectives, just like how science often tries to ignore anything "metaphysical" or "woo" when investigating reality, in an effort to make it all seem more like “hard science”, step-by-step as if that alone will lead to pure logic or pure insight. In fact, I feel like many people stereotypically associate this sphere of spirituality, being, experience, openness to the metaphysical, intangible, and mystical, as more feminine in nature, which is an important aspect of realizing God. So I’m not sure the argument about men being “more logical” really holds up that strongly. Sure, maybe women are more socially conditioned not to stand out or are more prone to groupthink, I can acknowledge that. But what about all the men who follow herd-like ideologies like the red pill? Why are we ignoring those men? There are millions of them. In fact, I can’t think of a single major female movement that’s ever carried the same kind of toxic, incel-like thinking, and resonated so strongly that figures like Donald Trump or Andrew Tate became the most searched people on the internet. Do you think the majority of women supported/caused that? Do you think women were the ones who brought Hitler to power? What about all the other tyrants? I doubt it was women supporting their rape, molestation, and torture. Is it logical to be evil? If truth is Love, then how does one explain this? You also can’t use the argument “well, those aren’t real men,” when those types of men clearly exist and are widely pervasive. If that logic holds, I could just as easily say that any woman who isn’t developing witchcraft powers isn’t a “real woman,” and then selectively redefine femininity in an idealized, all-powerful, sage Guru wisdom way. You can’t just take a few exceptional male logicians and say, “See? Men are more logical on average.” That’s not a fair representation 😅 No offense, but I’ve always found this argument a bit silly at times. Note: I’m not saying women are the more logical or rational ones; I think this means that both genders need additional perspective. They each have their own forms of logic and blind spots. There’s logic in harmonizing, in building socially progressive and cooperative systems, emotional intelligence, understanding complex relational dynamics, and sustainability. And there’s logic in survival, in competition, dominance, resource gathering, boundary setting, rule making, and strategic control. Ignoring either of these means you're seeing "Logic" through a narrow, biased lens.

Basically, your "non-ego" feeds on her raw expression of emotions, And you contain her / define her; therefore, you dominate her chaos and emotions? Would you say that you're fine being “dominated” by a woman’s raw emotions, whether that’s unfiltered anger, crying, excitement, or tenderness, but you don’t enjoy being dominated when it comes to areas of self-preservation: how to live your life, what to do with your career, money, resources, logic, or beliefs? And in turn, does she enjoy being dominated by you in the sense that you provide clarity, containment, or interpretation for her emotions, her chaotic experiences, inner world, and her sense of self? Although I’m not sure how universally true this is, here’s how I currently see it: Socially and stereotypically, both genders have historically been allowed to express certain emotions and vulnerabilities more easily than others. Whether that’s due to natural disposition or cultural reinforcement is another discussion, but the patterns seem consistent. Women, for example, have often been discouraged from expressing emotions or traits like aggression, primal instinct, survival drive, lust, horniness, predatory desire, selfishness, independence, or lack of empathy, dominance, competitiveness over cooperation, disagreeableness, traits often associated with self-preservation, and ego. And yet, these qualities exist in all humans, regardless of gender. Men, on the other hand, have been discouraged from expressing vulnerability, tears, softness, innocence, naivety, emotional overwhelm, lack of direction, indecisiveness, or failure to lead or protect, traits that are just as integral to the ego and human experience. So what happens? It feels like, consciously or unconsciously, we’re drawn to each other to help unlock and contain the parts of the ego that we've been socially (or internally) suppressing. In a way, women can rediscover their anger, assertiveness, confidence, fight response, and wildness through the masculine containment. And men can experience emotional release, softness, drama, raw vulnerability, chaotic expression, and a sort of "melting" into feeling through the feminine. Both fill different "Holes," Maybe?