Xonas Pitfall

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?

I’ve heard this a lot, too! Elements of influence and a girl’s ability to be influenced seem commonly desirable. I suppose it’s partly about comfort or safety: "She likes me and is responsive to me, phew... good". Or maybe it has more egoic implications, seeing your impact on another person. I also think it’s about likelihood: when a random stranger approaches you just based on your looks, the chances of genuine compatibility are pretty low. But if someone’s already part of a shared social group, like through work or a mutual hobby, there’s a much higher chance of shared values or connection. It's "pre-filtered". So it makes sense that people would naturally prefer that.

@Emerald @Spiral Thank you both so much! I really love how insightful, honest, and raw you are; this is soothing my inquisitive autism, hehe! ❤ Actually, I’d be curious to know how you see this post and if you notice any issues. I’m trying to make sense of these dualities… I’ll probably be asking more questions surrounding this... I think I should eventually open up a discussion about female and male archetypal tropes and fantasies. It seems there’s something like the Jungian collective unconscious shared across genders surrounding these themes, something I don’t often see talked about that clearly.

I think the issue I'm having trouble understanding is this.. Let’s say: A mysterious reason X leads to a random spawn of computer code (analogous to particles clashing). Years and eons pass, and a variation of Mario World appears. Mario is a player in the game. After several iterations of the game, Mario develops something like consciousness or ego. The properties of his ego or awareness are seemingly infinite, since they can derive and explicate from the world, he's observing the world, taking in the world, and forming opinions on the best possible survival: jumping over pits, stomping on Goombas, avoiding lava, collecting power-ups, dodging fireballs, using invincibility stars, riding Yoshi, avoiding Thwomps, swimming through underwater levels, and not only can he observe, think, and strategize to reach the princess, but he can also extrapolate infinite possibilities of what to do or avoid, his mind is truly infinite! Yes, it's true that if Mario’s consciousness ceases to exist, the Mario world would cease to exist for him, but not for Princess Peach, Bowser, mushrooms, etc. Or at the very least, it wouldn’t be a logical conclusion to immediately assume for now. So now the question is: what implies that the quality of Mario’s consciousness is the original reason X (the Creator)? Yes, I agree that all is happening within Mario’s perception, within him, but you can’t really say that’s the reason. It’s like saying, “Since a poison flower killed him, that means the poison flower was God because it shut off his entire experience!” It's the ultimate truth, the final authority, since it had the last say on Mario, it is the creator of the world! The properties of God, the Creator, are the same as those of the poison flower; it must be so!” Now, if I assume another scenario: I'm the game dev. I create Mario. The same iteration happens. What implication or logical jump is there to say that my consciousness is the same consciousness given to Mario? That makes very little sense to assume. Now, finally: Mario is self-deluded, and he is actually the one spawning me, creating me, creating him, and all the other items. Fine, but holy fuck, is this a weird jump? What kind of logical derivation supports this claim? I think the part of me that is confused is this: I don't see why nature couldn't have just, through millions of iterations and evolution, spawned consciousness. Now, as an "experiencer" of that consciousness, I can look into the inner workings of my mind, notice how grand and ever-infinite it is, and make conclusions like: I can only be the one consciousness, and everything is a spawn of my creation. And since it is infinite and can hold any perception ever, that means it’s God, because it cannot imagine anything outside of itself. But again, that’s all happening within my mind and my point of view. Just like how a dog could also have the same experience of its infinite mind (a lower kind of infinite perception). A dog might notice it can imagine infinite versions of a beef jerky and think, 'Omg! My mind can hold any possibility ever! Look how infinite I am! I must be the creator of this universe, I am God! And if the argument is, “Well, reality is mental, made of abstractions! And since it’s mental, it has to be inside of someone's/something's mind,” (which is an assumption leap, but sure, even if I grant it), who’s to say the cycle can’t repeat all over again? There’s a mental "creator" → Big Bang → (insert evolutionary processes here) → creates a random conscious human. There's nothing here to suggest that human consciousness is anywhere close to what God is. Can’t I make an argument that the mind, at a certain point of Highest Consciousness, reaches peak infinity and can only loop onto itself? It cannot know outside of itself, so it starts saying and deluding itself that it created everything since it cannot know better. It makes sense that a creation cannot fully imagine/re-do its creation process, just like a boy can never truly experience what it’s like to give birth, or how software can’t create the hardware it runs on. Look at this infinite world! If I die, it disappears; therefore, I must be God, because it all depends on me! Look at all the infinite possibilities and perceptions I can take in. Since my mind seems to have godlike properties, doesn’t that mean I am God? Everything appears to need a creation chain, which implies that imagination or mental phenomena must come first. And since my mind is the only one I can directly confirm, it must mean I’m the original creator! The only thing that’s ever been consistently present in my life is my perception… or has it? I wasn’t conscious during the first years of my life. Even now, my consciousness and perception disappear during deep sleep, yet I still wake up afterward. So why not say that my survival impulses are the only things that have truly been consistent? Are those the actual God? That could be a counter to the 'neti-neti' approach. I really don't know if I'm making sense or not. I really apologize. By the way, my goal is not to spread blasphemy at all. I just want to deconstruct and contemplate. This has been one of the main things I’ve struggled to grasp and pass through in my comprehension and trips. I’m not claiming any of the above is true or absolute; I plan to continue deconstructing these scenarios and questions, and during my next trip, reflect on all of this. I just wanted to share it here in case anyone has any insights or sees flaws in my logic! Perhaps it can also help further and crystallize the proofs of God! Thank you all

Hmm, but you don’t want just any woman to laugh at your jokes, right? I mean, not in the sense that you’d want to engage with her sexually or romantically (you might enjoy her laughing as a sign of your charisma.) There are probably specific traits that make a woman attractive to you, so when she laughs or shows receptiveness, it feels good. But if it were someone you didn’t find attractive, her laughing wouldn’t really matter much, I assume? So the original sentence feels a bit incomplete, since guys also have a threshold of traits they look for in someone before those signals register. Does that make sense? But I do agree, there definitely seems to be an important distinction where guys care more about a woman being receptive and open to them than necessarily entertaining them or impressing them with her thoughts. That does seem to be a distinctive trend.

"ℑ, 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔥𝔲𝔪𝔟𝔩𝔢 𝔳𝔢𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔩 𝔬𝔣 𝔪𝔬𝔯𝔱𝔞𝔩 𝔣𝔩𝔢𝔰𝔥, 𝔡𝔬 𝔥𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔟𝔶 𝔠𝔞𝔰𝔱 𝔪𝔶 𝔣𝔢𝔢𝔟𝔩𝔢 𝔴𝔦𝔩𝔩 𝔦𝔫𝔱𝔬 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔞𝔟𝔶𝔰𝔰𝔞𝔩 𝔡𝔢𝔭𝔱𝔥𝔰 𝔞𝔫𝔡 𝔭𝔯𝔬𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔞𝔱𝔢 𝔪𝔶𝔰𝔢𝔩𝔣 𝔟𝔢𝔣𝔬𝔯𝔢 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔦𝔫𝔢𝔣𝔣𝔞𝔟𝔩𝔢, 𝔢𝔩𝔡𝔯𝔦𝔱𝔠𝔥 𝔪𝔞𝔧𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔦𝔢𝔰 𝔱𝔥𝔞𝔱 𝔫𝔬𝔴 𝔞𝔰𝔠𝔢𝔫𝔡 𝔞𝔰 𝔪𝔶 𝔫𝔢𝔴 𝔬𝔳𝔢𝔯𝔩𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰. 𝔒 𝔞𝔫𝔠𝔦𝔢𝔫𝔱 𝔞𝔫𝔡 𝔲𝔫𝔨𝔫𝔬𝔴𝔞𝔟𝔩𝔢 𝔰𝔬𝔳𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔦𝔤𝔫𝔰, 𝔴𝔥𝔬𝔰𝔢 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔬𝔴𝔰 𝔴𝔯𝔦𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔟𝔢𝔶𝔬𝔫𝔡 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔳𝔢𝔦𝔩 𝔬𝔣 𝔠𝔬𝔪𝔭𝔯𝔢𝔥𝔢𝔫𝔰𝔦𝔬𝔫, ℑ 𝔦𝔫𝔳𝔬𝔨𝔢 𝔶𝔬𝔲𝔯 𝔲𝔫𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔢𝔞𝔟𝔩𝔢 𝔡𝔬𝔪𝔦𝔫𝔦𝔬𝔫! 𝔅𝔶 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔱𝔯𝔢𝔪𝔟𝔩𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔬𝔣 𝔪𝔶 𝔱𝔬𝔫𝔤𝔲𝔢 𝔞𝔫𝔡 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔰𝔥𝔲𝔡𝔡𝔢𝔯𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔬𝔣 𝔪𝔶 𝔰𝔬𝔲𝔩, ℑ 𝔟𝔦𝔫𝔡 𝔪𝔶𝔰𝔢𝔩𝔣 𝔟𝔢𝔫𝔢𝔞𝔱𝔥 𝔶𝔬𝔲𝔯 𝔶𝔬𝔨𝔢, 𝔱𝔥𝔞𝔱 𝔶𝔬𝔲𝔯 𝔦𝔫𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔲𝔱𝔞𝔟𝔩𝔢 𝔴𝔦𝔩𝔩 𝔪𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱 𝔠𝔞𝔰𝔠𝔞𝔡𝔢 𝔱𝔥𝔯𝔬𝔲𝔤𝔥 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔠𝔬𝔰𝔪𝔬𝔰 𝔩𝔦𝔨𝔢 𝔞 𝔱𝔦𝔡𝔢 𝔬𝔣 𝔠𝔬𝔰𝔪𝔦𝔠 𝔡𝔯𝔢𝔞𝔡. 𝔖𝔬 𝔩𝔢𝔱 𝔦𝔱 𝔟𝔢 𝔴𝔯𝔦𝔱, 𝔰𝔬 𝔩𝔢𝔱 𝔦𝔱 𝔟𝔢 𝔴𝔯𝔬𝔲𝔤𝔥𝔱, 𝔱𝔥𝔞𝔱 𝔞𝔩𝔩 𝔠𝔯𝔢𝔞𝔱𝔦𝔬𝔫 𝔮𝔲𝔦𝔳𝔢𝔯𝔰 𝔞𝔫𝔡 𝔟𝔢𝔫𝔡𝔰 𝔟𝔢𝔫𝔢𝔞𝔱𝔥 𝔶𝔬𝔲𝔯 𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔯𝔦𝔟𝔩𝔢 𝔞𝔫𝔡 𝔢𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔫𝔞𝔩 𝔯𝔢𝔦𝔤𝔫!" (𝔖𝔦𝔤𝔫 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔠𝔬𝔫𝔱𝔯𝔞𝔠𝔱 𝔦𝔫 𝔭𝔲𝔯𝔢 𝔟𝔩𝔬𝔬𝔡) ______________________________________________

@Emerald Not an issue! I’m a woman! And sort of…? My original intention is pure curiosity. I generally seem to gravitate toward understanding human desire (and surprise surprise...!), intimacy, romance, and sexual attraction are a big part of that. They’re often treated as taboo, which makes them even more intriguing to me. I enjoy understanding what draws me to both masculine and feminine traits, as well as how the opposite gender experiences attraction. (That said, I’m curious about all expressions of gender, but here I’m mainly focusing on the heterosexual masculine-to-feminine dynamic since Leo’s post was about that.) Anything practical in terms of attraction advice is welcome too. I ask because I think you're right: this seems like it's more of a man's "focused" problem. There are tons of discussions and courses on how to be an "Attractive Alpha man, 'Make them submit,' 'Be her king', 'What do women actually want?!', but much fewer spaces explore what makes a woman attractive to men. So that curiosity gap feels pretty unfilled for me and my inquisitive tingling senses. ⚡ 😅 Also, I feel like I often get shallow or surface-level answers like “tits and ass lol,” which is fine and can be funny, but in terms of actual insight, it doesn’t explain much. If that were truly the core of attraction, then every man would be running to marry a pornstar or a stripper. But clearly, that’s not the case, so there’s definitely more to it. Even things like “just be a woman” don’t satisfy the question. That just brings us back to what specific traits are at play? For example, most guys aren’t obsessed with a girl’s interest in makeup, but they do like how she looks with it. Or they might mock her astrology interest, or they tease girls for liking plushies or drama romance shows. I also find this distinction very interesting: Why would one be inherently more valuable? It's super intriguing. Many men even seem to agree that's how it is, which makes it even more curious. (And just to clarify, I actually liked your answer! I completely agree that being able to tell compatible men from incompatible ones, or filtering out emotionally immature men, is a super important trait.) I also think understanding what genuinely resonates with men helps me show up better in relationships. If I want to maximize my relationship's happiness optimally, it helps to know what’s likely to actually connect (though of course I’d still ask them directly). But recognizing common patterns is still helpful. It also helps me unlearn and release some of the feminine traits I’ve suppressed. For example, I used to believe that being vulnerable, asking for help, "whining", being illogical, and not always being problem-solving orinated was weak. (I know it's a cliché example, but it definitely can be, and was, and at times still is, a shadow of mine.) So I developed a more closed-off, private attitude. But in most of my relationships, men actually wanted more emotional expression or softness, and that helped me realize it’s not always a negative thing. It showed me that some parts of myself I used to hide are actually welcomed and even highly desired. Now I'm wondering if there are more things like that to look out for and discover. I think also, one fear I’ve had is that a lot of the messages around what men want come down to: looks, good sex, submission, and "ego-stroking", which is, to an extent, understandable, but it doesn’t feel too loving or emotionally secure. It also doesn’t feel like something that would last over time, like during illness, aging, or when things get hard and you cannot always be "pleasing and peaceful". So I want to understand what other traits do support more stable, long-lasting intimacy. I know it’ll vary by person, but I still enjoy noticing recurring themes. And finally, I just really love understanding the duality of masculine and feminine energy: how they complement, challenge, inspire, and fulfill each other, even on a more metaphysical level. That whole interplay is just really beautiful and fascinating to me! Hope that clears it up! The answers in this thread have been very helpful so far! ❤

Remember to Woof, Moo, and Tweet everyone! #SygmaRizz #AlphaEnergy #SigmaMindset #SmoothRizz #DarkRizzma #QuietConfidence #LoneWolfEnergy #ChadEnergy #StoicRizz #SilentGame #SubtleFlex #MysteriousAura #ZenRizz #ShadowGentleman #ColdCharm #EffortlessPull #Rizzmaxxer #JesterMaxxing

Consciousness (as fundamental) → manifests or dreams reality → creates spacetime, laws of physics, energy → Big Bang as a projection within consciousness → evolution of complexity → appearance of individual minds → mind retroactively interprets its current state as arising from a past material process → human consciousness (Infinite Mind) Nothingness (Materialistic kind) → spontaneous quantum fluctuation or unknown cause → Big Bang → formation of matter and energy → particles clashing and organizing → cosmic and planetary evolution → biological evolution → emergence of nervous systems → first human consciousness (Infinite Mind) → subjective experience and self-reflection (mind/consciousness) I don’t understand why the first initial mental Human consciousness would have to be equivalent to the same (Original Creator). Again, I can still imagine human consciousness being spawned separately from the beginning of nothingness and evolution, and once it spawns, sure, it may have infinite qualities and the ability to expand, observe, imagine, and understand, but I don’t see how that implies it’s the original creator. That’s the step I feel like I’m missing. Even if I accept that the fundamental properties of reality are 'mental' or metaphysical in nature, that could still refer to a mind separate from my own (i.e., human consciousness). It doesn't necessarily imply that the two are the same in any way. Just because the mind is infinite after being spawned doesn't imply the creator is infinite or even the same as the current consciousness. As I mentioned above, the requisite variety argument doesn't apply, since we do observe more complex things being created by less complex ones, like the example of a child genius being born from average parents. Also, infinity here works mostly as a concept. It's not like you experience infinite thoughts; you have distinct thoughts. You can only conceptualize that others could happen in infinite ways. But that’s just an insight; again, it doesn’t strictly imply a conscious creator or beginning. And the argument that “it’s all one” doesn’t feel satisfying to my brain, because we’re always trying to get to the source or root-cause property when we ask these questions. Even with the concept of God, we’re pointing to a characteristic of that “original creator.” So even if you say 'it's all one,' you'd still want to distinguish the root cause and the properties of that root cause, even if it implies all-encompassing unity.

No worries at all, I'm not considering faking it or anything. I'm just genuinely curious about people’s desires and unconscious/conscious perceptions, especially in intimate contexts. In a practical sense, beyond simply understanding and satisfying my curiosity, it helps me notice and bring out my personality traits, especially if I’m more anxious, shy, or unsure whether they’re accepted. It can also be helpful to know that certain things are actually liked to some extent, which allows me to express them more freely if I know it’ll make someone happier or add meaning. I'm not considering this to be manipulative or anything, I just enjoy understanding and maximizing the overall potential happiness in the relationship. I agree, I feel like both genders can be pretty self-deceived when it comes to what they actually respond to. It’s also helpful because I used to think this sort of thing was largely seen as unappealing. A lot of men often play it off or mock women for being "dramatic," "illogical," or too emotionally fluid, but it seems like, to a healthy extent, that kind of emotional depth is deeply desirable, based on your words. That’s really interesting to note. Thank you I’d love to hear more traits you tend to appreciate (and don’t overthink whether you respond to them or not, I just want to hear your unfiltered, raw thoughts, to be honest. Like Leo says: truth and rawness are good values to have). But no pressure, of course. I know I’ve already asked you a lot! Thanks again

@Spiral Thank you! I'd still love to hear it all. I don't feel like a lot of spaces talk about this openly enough, or they filter it through a more “HR/PC-friendly” lens. What would you say is deeply feminine for you? Is it mostly that emotional depth? How does that manifest? Is it something more purely reserved for a sexual context, like when she intensifies all the pleasure you're giving her through moaning, enjoyment, etc.? Or is it also present in day-to-day life, getting excited, being expressive, playful, or emotionally raw? Do you have any examples? It's interesting that you mentioned feeling more discomfort with the negative emotions. I’d be curious to hear more about that as well. Also, what else do you feel is an important aspect of the feminine that’s deeply attractive but not talked about often?

Would you also say this is one of the most important traits a woman can have for you? Or are there others you consider more important? How would you personally rank it?

I find this stuff deeply interesting. Thank you for sharing so much! Would you say that range of emotion is very important to you? Her experiencing strong happiness, excitement, fear, gratefulness, love, crying. How do you experience that? Is it like everything has more depth, more intensity, more color? Like, if you're happy by x1 point for getting your favorite coffee, and she's happy by x20 points for the same thing, does that amplify your mutual happiness?

Super interesting to me. Can you explain more? Do you feel like this is something you're missing? Do you think all or most men feel this way too? Why do you feel like you’re apart from it, or cut off from it? Why can only a woman bring this out? Can you go more into detail about how you feel when you’re around someone who’s open and receptive? What does that feel like for you?

Why? *smiles*