Xonas Pitfall

@Leo Gura You are extremely biased on these issues. You’ve seen the darker side of porn: sex trafficking, exploitative contracts that strip performers of ownership over their content, predatory revenue splits, and agencies pushing women past their limits. This especially impacts women with fewer options, who are often sold a dream of success, only to end up barely making money, while their content is permanently owned and distributed by someone else. Not to mention how extreme and degrading porn content can become when agencies have the authority to pressure performers into doing more and more. Your argument that “because it’s safer and easier, it’s therefore worse” doesn’t make sense. That would be like saying you'd rather people do heroin than weed because it’s more immediately destructive and scary, which is obviously absurd. There’s a clear double standard. When large companies, often run by men, profit off women, set the terms, and push content in more extreme directions, it is normalized as “good ol' porn.” But when women take back some control, set their own limits, and profit directly from their work, suddenly it’s "worse than heroin", "This is a SICKNESSSSSS of the HIIIIIGHEST ORDAAAA." What are we even arguing at that point? Exploitation of women with less control is acceptable, "No one is getting scammed with good ol porn." "It's worse than porn." But autonomy with more control over men (buyers) is somehow the real problem? "This is worse than heroin." "This is a SICKNESSSSSS of the HIIIIIGHEST ORDAAAA." You can criticize both systems if you want; that’s fair. But why is a system where more men might potentially be exploited considered worse than heroin and described as something of the highest level of degeneracy, while a system that has been historically exploitative and predatory toward women for ages is dismissed as “good old porn,” and seen as more acceptable? Very biased and double standards.

Do you want your daughter getting addicted to heroin, then selling her own body, losing her youth, health, terrorize her family, and finances in desperate attempts to get the same high again? You want your son encouraging other girls to show their pussies to the world for a small chance of riches? These are all horrible, but I just don’t see the argument for why OnlyFans is worse than all the others mentioned above. It’s a complete misconception that all attractive girls will want to do OnlyFans, just as it would be wrong to say all guys will be attracted to OnlyFans agencies, NFTs, or crypto schemes. These all appeal to certain kinds of people, and only certain types of people get rich doing them. They’re all flawed and deeply problematic, but I don’t understand the biased comparison being made with them. Don’t forget, you originally said this as well: Which would imply: Doing heroin is less bad than weed in my eyes because it has a huge stigma and barrier to entry, which is good. Does that make sense? To clarify, I am not saying this stuff is good or should be encouraged, but I’m trying to point out the bias that happens when we focus only on OnlyFans. I hope I made that clear.

@Leo Gura Very biased statement 😅 Neither is ideal, definitely, but I don’t see a good argument for how it’s “worse.” If you want to say quick money cash schemes are bad, then you have to bite the bullet and say that crypto, NFT, shitcoins, porn recruitment agencies management, gambling, dropshipping, etc., are also equally worse than heroin. We’re pretending here that any attractive girl who does OnlyFans makes this amount of cash. If you make that amount of money, you either have some crazy marketing team behind you, or you’re quiet intuitive about what goes viral, or you got lucky. But this isn’t any different from a typical influencer. Plenty of typical influencers also promote shady, scammy, or sketchy things to children and adults as well. I agree this is very bad, but I don’t understand the particular isolation of OnlyFans. These stats are pretty similar for most online marketing, the digital space, and influencers. The top % makes a lot, the bottom almost to nothing. Very typical. Again, I agree that both are bad, but these comparisons really aren’t fair.

@Leo Gura In its purest form, it is! In more generic layman’s terms: then no, correct.

Understanding in its purest form is being, unity. You want to understand something so badly that you fully become and immerse yourself in it. Hence, Love = Pure Understanding.

Let's try tackling this one by one... #1 The fact that now your responses are more studious and grounded is a bad sign. That was one of my original points when I gave examples above. You can make extremely broad, sensationalist, women-blaming statements & posts, shaming women for being selfish, commenting on morality, higher values, corruptions, etc., and then when people call you out on it, suddenly it’s: “Well... I’m no saint,” “it is what it is,” “love is vicious, and I’ve just integrated that viciousness,” “All is fair in love and war! Don’t take what I say as some broad commentary on the world.” Do you see how strongly you come in, claiming, blaming, and bashing women and feminism, making sweeping statements about people, but then, when someone challenges you, you back off? It becomes: “Well, hey now, why are you so focused on me? It’s not like I’m talking about the entire state of the world. Plus, I’m no saint.” But you still feel comfortable commenting on other people’s lack of “saintliness”? #2 The comment about men and women being different, sure, that’s not what I was criticizing. My point is that the system you’re describing doesn’t actually work. In your framework, men are free to sleep with as many women as they want before committing, while women are damaged, mentally and physically, if they do the same. But look at how that plays out in reality: Men say they want “high-quality” women, feminine, emotionally vulnerable, sweet, young, beautiful, naive. Then those same men go out, charm, seduce, and manipulate those exact women. But because they get bored or want variety, they cheat, leave, detach, and end up traumatizing them. And what happens next? Those women become more guarded. They warn other women. They demand more independence, more protection, and distance from men. At the same time, men praise the idea of a “traditional” family, loyalty, love, stable parents, Christian values, but show very little interest in actually upholding those values themselves. How are men supposed to gain all this “experience” if women are expected to remain virgins? Who are they sleeping with? Sex workers or more “easy” women? But then those women are labeled as “whores” and looked down on. So the very behavior that enables men is the same behavior they condemn. Men say they want more sex, but then complain that women are too promiscuous. Then they say they want less promiscuity, but get frustrated when women ask for commitment, stability, or a ring. They say they want femininity, love, care, sweetness, vulnerability, but don’t step up to reciprocate that with commitment or emotional responsibility. Do you see how hypocritical and dysfunctional this whole system is? If the stance is simply “I want sex, and yes, I’ll treat some women badly because I can,” then at least that’s honest. But then why dress it up as some larger commentary on women, feminism, or morality? I understand that it’s frustrating and difficult to control sexual desire. I’m not pretending it’s easy or that everyone should live up to some perfect, utopian standard. But at the very least, acknowledge the bias, hypocrisy, and selfishness involved. That’s the first step, and a big reason why these patterns keep repeating. I have far less of an issue with guys who are honest and say, “I just want sex, and I’ll be manipulative or act like trash to get it because I feel starved of it. I know it hurts women. I know people like me contribute to the problem, but this is where I’m at.” At least that’s self-aware. What bothers me is when men behave that same way, but then turn around and start making broad claims about women, feminism, morality, higher values, so strongly and assuredly, about how the world and then women should be, but they themselves have 0 interest in upholding these values and honoring the good people. That’s the issue. If what you really care about is sex, and you’re willing to act in certain ways to get it, then just own that. That’s where your position actually ends. Going beyond that in commentary is just ridiculous.

@AION Again, I don’t have any issues if you just want to engage casually with women now and then plan to settle later in life. And if you hold the same opinion toward women in general, that people have fun dating, and eventually find someone they click with, connect with, and commit to, then great. But that perspective feels too calm and neutral compared to the types of comments & posts you make. I’ve included some of them below for reference: There’s plenty more btw, but these are just a few quick examples I found to illustrate my point. None of this really comes across as “I understand that people want to have fun in their 'prime years', casually date, and that both men and women have their own more or less shallow preferences. Eventually, you find someone you click with, commit to, and build something together. People are people.” Instead, a lot of it feels like blaming women and criticizing them for doing the same casual or “promiscuous” behavior that you’re also engaging in, them being more opportunistic, "egoistic", and hypergamous in a shallow way, and still being interested in them for similar superficial reasons. This is all something you’re doing yourself, so why is all the blame being placed on women? Do you see my point? It feels quite hypocritical. Even here, I’m not sure what to think. Ideally, you don’t engage with those types of women if you notice they will genuinely get attached, so you don’t hurt them. "Play a different game." What does that mean here? If you want to be right and not cope just to get a higher-quality girl, you will end up hurting their emotions eventually. And then you will turn around and ask, “Where have all the good women gone? Why are they all so bitter, hardened, and not feminine anymore?” Well, if you treat those “highly feminine” girls as a game, then that is ultimately what gets reflected to you. But, I won’t say much here since I don’t really know what you meant in that comment and don't want to overassume. In general, I find this type of comment from men quite hypocritical. They praise highly feminine, receptive, attached women who stay “pure,” but then a man approaches them, charms them, and eventually treats the situation as more casual than she does. Then they act surprised when those same women become more guarded or hardened later on.

Not sure what you mean by “false dichotomy,” but if that’s what you think, then I have no issue with that. My issue is that most of your comments about women focus on how they’re immodest, "hypergamous", how there’s a “corruption of women,” how you can’t find high-quality wives these days, how older women are bitter or insecure because they’ve lost their looks, and so on. But at the same time, you engage in the very behavior you’re criticizing in the dating market. You tend to go for girls you’re mostly or purely interested in because of their looks and youth, and you don’t really seem to plan for or consider long-term relationships. You’re hypergamous yourself. You prioritize the more stereotypically ‘shallow’ traits men tend to like: youth, beauty, sex, and short-term fun, but then complain that women are ‘collapsing, degenerating society’ when they engage in similar behavior. Do you see my point? That’s all I’m saying. If you’re okay with both men and women exploring and having fun in their prime, then that’s fine; no issues at all then. But based on your comments about women, it doesn’t seem like you’re holding both to the same standard. Basically, my only point is that you can’t make posts and comments like that about women when this is your own lifestyle. You are the exact thing you complain about in women. To clarify, I didn’t mean that you can’t have a long-term relationship if you don’t want to date women older than you. I just meant that in any long-term relationship, you have to accept that your partner’s appearance will eventually change, even if there’s a large age gap. As I said above, you can’t really comment on or talk about the destruction of long-term relationships when you yourself don’t care at all about providing a long-term relationship to the women you praise as ‘high quality’, highly feminine, emotional, and beautiful, while you would rather just have fun with them and not commit. That’s my only point.

I am really caught out by how God has happened when I haven’t taken God in God. I am God partially putting this in God so I stop God myself, and partially doing it because I want to God something. Over the last God God I really ramped up the God and started actively pushing for God. I had no God initially, but the God of all God and no God became too much. The last God God have been something I don’t really have God for, it’s been mostly God and lonely God, I connected a lot of God is the best way to put it for God. Other than the initial God, I’ve been working through a more interpersonal God of this God. It started with me God through God, and obviously seeing thousands of God. I’d been really practising staying with the simple God that I am everyone else a lot beforehand, and the raw God of God acted as a God. I was fighting back God it hit me so God. Moreover, recently I caught the God frame, the best way I can put it is I zoomed out just enough to see that this is akin to a God set, and even my God are like a God. It’s kind of scary how little there is behind the God, I guess I understand what God said about realising that the God you were looking for is absolutely God. Finally, its reaching God I wasn’t really ready for, sometimes I can’t even look back at God because the God is just too God. Asking where I know them from is taking me to God I’d forgotten about for a very long God. I’m obviously God, and that’s God. I’m going God trying to separate God from unvalidated God. Frankly I can’t even believe that I am God this. I’m mainly concerned about God, so I guess it’s definitely time for some God. It would be nice if anyone could God this train of God for any obvious God I’m misinterpreting or God, but I’ll find out for myself either God. God are starting to look like they did for a very long God 10 God ago after I took 600-700ug. It’s terrifying yet God, I’m honestly completely gobsmacked (or Godsmacked).

All good! My point was more directed at AION and guys with a similar mindset. I think my only critique on your end was that I recall you talking about wanting a deep connection and praising genuine, selfless love, but most of the posts about femininity seemed more focused on criticizing it as ungrounded, irrational, and illogical, and mainly praising the sexual and beauty aspects instead. I also remember asking you the same question: “How do you plan to have a long-term relationship and maintain attraction as looks change?” and your only answer was “I don’t know, we’ll see,” while continuing to emphasize how important beauty and attraction are. Which, don’t get me wrong, I agree with, but it does feel a bit inconsistent considering the amount of talk about “deep love” and connection. But I think you understand this, so I don’t want to make it a bigger deal or anything Bottom line: if you want a genuine long-term relationship with a woman, you need to respect the feminine. You can’t see it as something irrational, illogical, or purely emotional, while only cherry-picking sexual attraction and physical beauty, and hoping that somehow it will glue and sustain the relationship forever. You can start there, sure, but the bond eventually has to deepen and build over time. Otherwise, you’re setting yourself up to fail from the start. And again, if you simply don’t care about that or cannot ever imagine it, that’s fine. But then that person probably shouldn’t claim authority when talking about what femininity is, the differences between men and women, what love is, or the state of the dating market and relationships in general. It becomes inconsistent and hard to take seriously.

@Natasha Tori Maru I agree fully! My only point was that it’s often disheartening seeing people like AION preach about the corruption of women, how they aren’t modest, feminine, "being hypergamous," and so on, but then live and be proud of the exact lifestyle, which directly contributes to the further corruption of the dating market. I don’t think you should really have the right to complain about the state of the dating market and "deep loving relationships" if your approach is short-term, opportunistic, and hedonistic. That's all!

To clarify, no issue with liking it, of course. I just meant that it very much becomes a mockery of what a real, deep relationship is over time. You can’t really talk about “the desire for a deep, long-term relationship”, “selflessness, pure love“ without being okay with, or at least addressing, this simple fact of life. That being said, I’m not really addressing this to you. I was referring to Aion’s tendency to be very opinionated about “the fall and corruption of women,” while he himself has made multiple accounts of living the same pickup/red-pill lifestyle and never really conceptualizing the possibility of being with someone older. That’s why I asked how he expects to have a proper long-term relationship this way, even though it’s something he speaks about so highly, and, in his worldview, he mostly blames women for this fault.

I think I’ve written this before, but my main issue with @AION is that one can preach about “Love, respect, modesty,” while criticizing women, yet when asked questions like “Can you envision yourself with a woman who is older, as you gradually become less conventionally attracted to your partner as you both naturally age, get sick, through thick and thin, etc?" you get absolute crickets. Again, I don’t mind if you want to live the “Red Pill Leonardo DiCaprio lifestyle”; you’re free to do whatever you want. But you can’t claim that you understand, love, or respect femininity, or that you know anything about deep human relationships, if this is your entire perspective on it. You simply cannot complain about a system that you are actively reinforcing. Leo sometimes falls into this category, too, to be honest. He occasionally says in his videos that he desires a deep relationship and talks about how to truly love another person. Yet if you even mention to him the concept of slowly becoming less attracted to your partner in a long-term companionship, you get more crickets. It’s very clear where the main value lies: beauty and sex. Which, hey, is fine and understandable. But this is a complete mockery of what a genuine, deep connection is and can be.

Sure, but you said this: Doing heroin is less bad than weed in my eyes because it has a huge stigma and barrier to entry, which is good. ?

I want to be charitable to this argument, but I just don’t see it. OF definitely has a stigma, and it’s not like if you say you do OnlyFans, people will assume you’re doing something honorable. Most people will assume you’re doing porn and being a whore online, whether that’s softcore or explicit content, especially if you’re earning a lot. If anything, the porn industry probably has more toxicity involved once you start considering recruitment practices, trafficking, and agencies that have control over these women, along with shady contracts that strip them of ownership over their content and push their boundaries further for content they cannot easily say no to once in the system. I don’t necessarily know which is worse, but I don’t see a strong argument for why traditional porn would be better or worse than OnlyFans. Both carry a significant stigma. Plus, it’s not like porn agencies don’t use OF arguments to recruit women, “You’re gorgeous, Abigail, you’ll make so much money, so easy, so fast!” It’s kind of like saying pimp street prostitution is better than high-end security prostitution in Las Vegas clubs, because at least on the street you’re more likely to face violence, get raped and beaten, and be asked to do more nasty stuff, which would discourage more women from getting involved. “If I can just strip and dance in strip clubs with high-end security for money, then Actuzlied.org wouldn’t even exist!” It’s also more fair from a purely business perspective. When you want to jerk off, you jerk off and "enjoy" the model, and what she does, you are not jerking off to the agent, the cameraman, the tax advisor, or anyone else behind the scenes. Therefore, most of the value is in the model. So most of the power and control should lie with the creator. It’s similar to if YouTube suddenly called you up and said, “By the way, Leo, we’re taking an even bigger cut of your earnings, and also earnings from your course and forum now belong to us too. You are part of our ecosystem and agency, hence we can do it.” If a new platform offered the same opportunities but gave you more control over your content, you’d likely switch immediately and view it as less toxic and more fair overall. Also this, yes.

I do wonder if people would have the same reactions toward the owner of Pornhub or other well-known porn sites. It seems like OnlyFans carries a certain sting for some men because it’s seen as “empowering” women. But when women are coerced into porn or are part of an agency run by a man, those same men are often viewed as legends, "cool chill guy", or just neutral. Hm . . .

I think a helpful way to look at this is through specialization. Adults generally know more than children, but that doesn’t mean any adult is qualified to teach any subject. We ideally still want to rely on trained experts in specific areas. The same logic applies to governance. Wealthy or corporate elites might have deeper knowledge in certain domains, like business or finance, but that doesn’t mean they should have broad, unchecked authority across all areas of public policy. In an ideal system, decision-making would be more “policy-specific.” People with demonstrated knowledge and experience in a given area would have more influence over decisions in that area, rather than power being concentrated in a small group or tied to wealth alone. Right now, democratic systems often end up revolving around electing a single leader or "a vibe", and voters are frequently influenced more by charisma, identity, or surface-level messaging than by careful evaluation of actual policy. One way to think about it is that instead of relying mainly on a human representative system at the top level, you could have a more direct, structured participation system, where people engage with policy through, let's say, for a fun example, a web or mobile platform. On that platform, users wouldn’t pick leaders, but would be presented with policy proposals and asked to respond to them directly, through written input. Before participating, the system could also gather relevant context about each person, such as their experience in specific fields, how much of it is tangible and verifiable, years of work in those areas, relevant certifications, and possibly general knowledge assessments. Based on that, different aspects of policy input could be weighted differently depending on relevance and demonstrated expertise. The idea is that this could filter out low-effort participation to some degree, since many people would not spend the time engaging deeply unless they care about the topic. It could also help distinguish between different levels of understanding, where someone with direct experience in a field might have more informed insight into that domain than someone without it. A.K.A You can see whether the person wrote to “Should immigrants be allowed in the US?” “no because they are gay lol, death to all Mexicans,” compared to a properly written, logical, well-phrased opinion, that would be far more helpful both for data quality and for the actual informational value of the vote. That is much more useful than simply circling the name of a president they like to watch TikTok videos about. Of course, there are serious problems with this kind of system. One major issue is governance: who designs and regulates the system itself? How do you ensure the people defining what counts as “relevant experience” are honest and not biased actors? How do you prevent manipulation, cheating, or people gaming the system by faking credentials or optimizing for whatever increases their influence score? So this kind of system might be a kind of idealized direction; it is very much utopian for now. In principle, though, it tries to move toward a model where specialization, multi-perspective input, and reduced bias and polarization lead to more informed collective decision-making, rather than relying purely on broad, undifferentiated voting or personality-driven leadership. TLDR: I don’t think pure one-person-one-vote democracy works that well because it treats everyone’s input as equally informed. I think voting power should be weighted based on things like experience, domain knowledge, and how much someone actually understands a specific issue, so people who are more informed or experienced in a topic have more influence over decisions in that area. Obviously, you’d need really solid, fair ways to measure that; it could get gamed or corrupted.

"But Leo, You're So Privileged!" blog post is amazing. Thank you.

Unironically, Actualized.org videos

Try it yourself. Do exactly what you’re asking: remove all your assumptions and beliefs. What is anything you can be sure you know? Try to remove everything. The only thing you will be left with is pure “is-ness.” This is now, therefore it is. This is in my direct experience, therefore it is. This “is-ness” is truth, or pure correspondence that things are just what they are, not some other way or with some filter, assumption, or perception added to them. Just A = A. This is what it is. It won’t have any thoughts or any further veil of perception. It really does feel like pure nothingness, or a vacuum of existence, just pure being.

One thing I’m really grateful for with social media is that it exposes more transparently the kinds of people who run for these positions. Before, you’d assume, “Oh, well, hopefully these people have at least some knowledge and level of awareness before running for president, right… right?” How naive of me

Love You!

🤣🤣🤣

Women were very much at the mercy of men who financially supported the family. When you lose power, and someone has that much control over you, it’s easy to imagine how things can become abusive and toxic in a relationship or marriage. The laws used to be much worse, too, and you can still see horrible laws in some parts of the world, such as marrying off girls at 10-12, a lack of access to education, and extreme restrictions on freedom. There are even places where older men genuinely cry for and protest against higher ages of consent. On top of that, we still have pedophilia and sex trafficking rings. So to deny that toxic masculinity doesn't exist, or to claim it is only a reaction to feminism, is unreasonable. Toxic masculinity existed long before women had any real say. A lot of feminism emerged as a reaction to prevent these kinds of horrific outcomes and to give women more power and autonomy. I just wish people understood that when someone identifies with a certain idea, it doesn’t mean they embody the most extreme version of it. You can absolutely appreciate men who are kind, honorable, and genuine, while also not wanting to return to a time where women had to marry young, have children early, and depend entirely on one person for survival or derive all their value from that role. The same applies to men. You can value traditionally feminine traits in women without falling into toxic “red pill” ideologies that glorify power imbalances or assume feminism is simply about making men weaker or useless. People need to stop over-polarizing these issues, because doing so only deepens bias and fuels bitterness about society. There are genuinely good men and women out there, and there are also many who are trying to do better. This really shouldn't be that outrageous to say.