theleelajoker

Yeah it's not easy. I'm getting more into somatic stuff, Peter Levine for instance. Did simple exercise and I could immediately feel an effect on my body. One thing for my is dissolving old fear (trauma), the other is being focused not to create new tensions. The awareness from psycedelics and Vipassana make me super sensitive not so much re fear itself - it's subtle as you say - but re it's traces in the body. Tense muscles, contractions, constrained movement, activated nervous system. I can feel and see changes due to working on it, but it's literally like stretching a muscle it's not done in one turn but gradually. Also, lot's of stuff is coming up when dissolving these tensions - fear has a source and those tensions have been holding back something for a reason

Yes it's a learning process for me. I think it stems from my upbringing, there were clear expectations how we kids should be, and those expectations were flawed even if our parents want the best for their us. So I went away from those sub-optimal expectations, to more "noble" stuff, such as being open and deep, and expected others to be like this. And tatataaaa, unintentionally, the circle is completed I have an ex I recently talked to. I was very open, she very grateful for that and I realized "ahhh ok it's actually possible to find a woman where I can talk freely". The disclaimer is again - how long would that work? My previous GF also appreciated the openness a lot.. until she didn't. I guess it's not easy to stay on the same development path as a couple.

I find that very on point. It seems to me that in cases you describe, there is often also a certain struggle of power, a "us against them". Which of course creates resistance, fear etc. Alan Watts has a talk about the perception one can have, of a "alienated from others, a threatening external world" vs. "I feel one with it, I feel part of it"

Are you confused about it, or others? And what problems does it create? That we can't handle the freedom of leaving predefined roles? I don't care what kind of rhetoric you call it. I'm speaking from my own experience, not from ideology. Lived in four countries, traveled to a lot more. There are archetypal behaviors, and a mental map can be useful. Same time everyone is a unique mix. Don't know what your problem is with seeing people in context. And you can google "women Ukraine war" and you might be surprised that things are not as black and white as they might seem. I agree on being spoiled in the west, the safety and stability should not be taken for granted.

Yeah, kind of answers it. Sounds simple but probably not easy, like many things. I wonder about other emotions beyond jealousy. Fear, fight flight freeze when (as far as I understand it) the limbic system overrides any rational and measured response

There's something to it, the mapping stuff (I do talk more with men about it) and als re the constant risk of overgeneralizing. There is no doubt that there are differences but you are likely to find certain behaviors in both genders. Gender matters, but there are many variables. Personality types have been mentioned before, culture, family upbringing etc. The mapping part can be useful to a degree, but in the end you always have to deal with individuals. And what kind of individuals you meet also depends on your believes. And when then interacting, those individuals are not set in stone, but influenced by how you mapped people, because you act in alignment with your map an thus influence the interaction. What topics you talk about, how you say things, how you interpret their behavior...

Had recently interactions that you mentioned. Me saying sth, an insight, the other person did not know it and felt insecure and inferior about it. To make things worse, they then projected their insecurity on me and I got bad reactions. Funny thing is that with one particular insight, I also told a third person about it and she was super happy to hear that. So it was neither my presentation nor the insight that mattered, the persons attitude towards was crucial. Hence my stance was - up until now - twofold: People that want to listen learn will do that. Those that don't want to listen - not my problem, they don't fit with me. So it's like a filter for social interactions People that can't take knowledge/ insights from others should learn to do that more, simply because it's win win and otherwise lose-lose. I thought it's an area for growth for them. So I had resistance towards them being so closed What changed is: More interactions where people reacted negatively to information that was a) obvious and b) helpful. So more lose-lose for both. I don't see it as a thing anymore that others should change. To say, it's not a bug but a feature that they are how they are. Reading through the personality types just made me see things more relaxed, like a video game where you can't expect the warrior character to be a magician. It created kind of a mathematical perspective on humans for me, just a set of programs in body, mind, character. So It's one thing for friends, acquaintances, colleagues etc. I think I will just talk and share less unless asked, and tone down everything 95% lol. But re girlfriend, partner it also became more obvious for me that I need someone that likes and enjoys this kind of exchange

@Joshe Ok now after reading your discussion with @Ramanujan I did some research on the stuff you talk about, the personality types and interactions. When reading your quote above I immediately had two situations in mind where could 100% relate. You remember the discussion we had in the other thread? Now I'm more willing to balance my behavior towards others and become a bit more restrained

+1 for the sex and attachment part. Doesn't work like that, fantasy IME, too. Re story: Things like that happen. Her first text already said a lot about her and her current vibe. Instead of "Hi let's meet" she was "oh you did not text, sth you didn't like etc". Interactions like this are a little warning flag for me. You can still continue but you can't say there weren't hints She told you she's just separated, you surely got a certain vibe from her when seeing l and she was honest about many things. I guess she's just a bit up and down emotionally in the moment, or maybe as person in general. My take is you saw the signs and you either ignored or accepted the whole story in exchange for sex She wanted some fun, distraction while having a good conscience. Just energetic exchange between two adults. Ego may hurt, that's ok. Forget about the power and gaslighting. Energetic exchange, deal is done, next woman will come. Enjoy!

Good points. Also don't think it would work if you do it for someone. It's a nice bonus that once you have that stability, you can be a support for somebody but it's a byproduct not that goal. And also agree with "Women are just inadvertently good at revealing a man’s emotional instability" it's actually quite funny how they do it without consciously knowing. What were the main things you changed about yourself and your behavior?

First time I hear about this nerve

Yeah, I look at crying like a tool. Once I cried, I feel more calm, more ready to do what I need to do. THAT'S dealing with emotions for me. Feel them, move on. How long does it take to cry? 5 Minutes max? Then the emotions are out of the system and you move on. Simple. It's the vipassana training for me. Feel it, acknowledge it, move on. Don'T get stuck on it, I get you there. But we talk about 5 Minutes crying, not weeping for weeks and feeling pity with yourself non-stop.

Bold marked by me. Those two go hand in hand, it's about balancing them for me.

OK got you Misunderstanding you when I read your post before. But nobody can manipulate you unless you let him/her do it. It takes two to tango. And I don't feel ANYONE ever cried in my presence with the intention of manipulating me. It's something I only know from movies, series but not real life (maybe I did not notice, can't exclude that oc). One other thing: "cry over trivial things" --> trivial or not is HIGHLY individual. The fact that one cries over sth means it's not trivial for them. And I don't equate crying or expressing emotions as weakness. You can flip the script easily around. It's weak not to feel what is, and it's strong and courageous to fully express. Weak is to feel so insecure that you keep your human organism from crying, keeping it from doing what's healthy for it. I went to chatgpt and looked at the historical perception of crying. You can see where the narrative changed more towards what typical "masculine" narrative is inherited from our parents (marked blue) or the opposite (green)...it's just that. JUST A NARRATIVE 1. Ancient Societies – Tears as Public and Communal In many ancient cultures, crying wasn’t considered a private weakness—it was often a public, communal act. Mesopotamia & Egypt: Crying at funerals was expected; professional mourners were sometimes hired to wail loudly. Tears were seen as a sign of respect for the dead and a way to guide the soul. Ancient Greece: Philosophers had mixed views. Homeric heroes wept openly—Achilles, Odysseus, and others cried in front of their peers without stigma. Later philosophers like the Stoics began framing excessive crying as a loss of rational control. Ancient China: Confucian ideals encouraged crying for filial piety—grieving for parents could include ritual weeping for years. 2. Early Religions – Tears as Spiritual Expression Tears were seen not just as emotional but as spiritually potent. Biblical Traditions: Tears could signify repentance, compassion, or divine favor (e.g., Mary Magdalene washing Jesus’ feet with tears). Medieval Christianity: “Gift of tears” was considered a sign of holiness—saints were praised for weeping during prayer. Islamic traditions: Crying when reciting the Qur’an was a sign of deep piety and humility before God 3. Medieval & Renaissance Europe – Theatrical Mourning From the 13th to 17th centuries in Europe, public displays of grief were still acceptable. Noble courts often had elaborate mourning rituals with open crying. Renaissance literature (e.g., Shakespeare) portrayed men and women crying, though the tone shifted—male crying became more constrained in heroic contexts. 4. Enlightenment & 18th Century – Sentimentality as Refinement The Age of Sensibility (late 17th–18th c.) saw tears as signs of moral virtue. Novels like Richardson’s Pamela and Rousseau’s Julie glorified weeping as proof of a tender heart. Middle- and upper-class men could be “manly” and still cry—especially over literature, music, or moral dilemmas. However, philosophers like Kant began pushing for emotional moderation, planting seeds for modern stoicism. 5. 19th Century – Gendered Tear Norms Industrial modernity brought new divides. Victorian Britain: Women were encouraged to cry as an expression of femininity, morality, and compassion. Men’s tears became stigmatized in public life, except for exceptional circumstances (war funerals, death of a monarch). Colonial attitudes often labeled crying in non-Western cultures as “primitive” or “over-emotional,” revealing ethnocentric biases. 6. 20th Century – Crying as Weakness (and Reclamation) The 20th century split crying into “private” and “public” spaces. Early to mid-century: In many Western countries, stoicism—especially male stoicism—was idealized. Emotional restraint was linked to professionalism and strength. Post-1960s: With the counterculture, therapy movements, and feminism, crying was reframed as healthy emotional expression. Late 20th century media: Celebrities, athletes, and politicians crying became more common—though often judged differently by gender. 7. 21st Century – Crying in a Globalized, Digital Age Today, cultural perceptions are fragmented and context-dependent. Mental health awareness has reframed crying as a natural coping mechanism. Social media makes crying visible in new ways (livestream grief, emotional reaction videos). In some professional and political spaces, crying can still be interpreted as a loss of control—particularly for women, who face a “double bind.” Different cultures maintain different norms: Japan may still see public crying as shameful; in Mediterranean and some Latin American cultures, public emotionality remains more accepted.

Birds fly. Fishes swim. Humans cry. No one cares if people sneeze. It's a biological function. Crying has value (see article below). @Joshe Seriously, I have seen countless great takes from you but that one surprises me I don't see any evidence, not the slightest, that the "ick" has anything to do with an evolutionary mechanism. It's your own subjective evaluation projected on the outside. Moreover, you got it the wrong way: NOT CRYING makes you WEAKER while crying is actually the thing that makes you stronger (article below). Here are already two people saying completely different things about getting or not getting the ick. With me it's a third, a different perspective - not only do I not get the ick response, I welcome when people cry. They do it for themselves, not for me or to influence me. I let them cry, stay calm, just stay present, sometimes hug them if my intuition tells me to, but mostly I just leave them alone until they are finished. Crying for happiness, don't think anyone says something against it. I cried because of happiness because of sunset in amazons, and I cried for happiness during meditation. Great stuff. Crying for other reason then happiness I welcome for two reasons: First, afterwards the person feels better and whatever the topic was, it's much lighter and more constructive now. Second, I know they are not hiding or suppressing their emotions, and they are not afraid being authentic. It's the cultural perception of crying and the individual evaluation that are the problem, not the crying itself. In the city I live there are groups of men meeting, just men so that they can FINALLY open up, some of them to cry (cry uninhibited) because they are afraid to do it if there are women around. Alright, this is where we are in society.... https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-crying-good-for-you-2021030122020 As a phenomenon that is unique to humans, crying is a natural response to a range of emotions, from deep sadness and grief to extreme happiness and joy. But is crying good for your health? The answer appears to be yes. Medical benefits of crying have been known as far back as the Classical era. Thinkers and physicians of ancient Greece and Rome posited that tears work like a purgative, draining off and purifying us. Today’s psychological thought largely concurs, emphasizing the role of crying as a mechanism that allows us to release stress and emotional pain. Crying is an important safety valve, largely because keeping difficult feelings inside — what psychologists call repressive coping — can be bad for our health. Studies have linked repressive coping with a less resilient immune system, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension, as well as with mental health conditions, including stress, anxiety, and depression. Crying has also been shown to increase attachment behavior, encouraging closeness, empathy, and support from friends and family.

I think there's something to what he says. Due to my professional experience / training, psychedelics, Vipassana it also easy to for me to hold the space for others and I became much better in dealing with my own. Sometimes people are like "I hope that isn't too much now telling you this and that" and all I think is a) No, not at all and b) You have no idea what I have already seen Of course there is still stuff I need to deal with, not all emotions are integrated, but it's light years from where I was years ago. I can see how others had difficulties when I was expressing. As he said in the video, IME humans can only handle as much emotions from someone else as you can handle your own. Does not matter if its a man or a woman. So what happens is that sometimes if I expressed, the other person gets afraid of her own emotions, feelings. The typical reaction is then that people retreat (men and women) or get aggressive (stronger tendency for that with men, only one woman ever was like that). Interesting is however, that that is only one side of the coin. Because I feel the the emotions want to be expressed by the others. It just subconsciously. People were looking to talk to me, they give subtle hints in their words and actions, they were looking for interaction with me, there was a part in them that finally wants to be free of these emotions. Because it seems that only when expressing, or at passing through them (Vipassana) you can finally get free of them. Re society standards: I got to experience the whole spectrum. One guy calling me a woman for expressing once. Funny thing is, our conversation pushed him so hard that he already had tears forming in his eyes, he was close to crying (so who's the woman ahaha ) but I let it go because he appeared to me just like a helpless kid. Some women explicitly told me that they like when I express. "It makes me trust you more" one said once Some men are looking for my proximity, because as long as I have enough status in their eyes me doing it gives them allowance to actually feel stuff, too Re society standards there's a simply guideline for me: What kind of "man" would I be if I let ANYONE ELSE dictate what I SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do or feel? What kind of "man" are you that you hold yourself back, that you even hurt yourself because you once heard someone say how the world should be? So you prefer to live in a prison instead of shaping the world with your actions? Pfffff Funny thing is, handling / expressing your emotions gives you incredible power. For once, for oneself, loosing fear of feeling sth, increasing quality of life. Second, It can make you kind of invincible in arguments, fights. When people feel that they can't hurt you with words, can't put you off balance because you are not afraid of feeling whatever comes - they are likely to get much more peaceful, much more cooperative, much more constructive. Because they know their fears, they are aware of their suppressed feelings and they know I COULD push this button anytime. And with nothing to "fight" back, the best strategy is to be resolve this thing peaceful. Which is - as long as the other one is respectful - my preferred option, too.

OK thanks. I just wonder if "enlightenment" will really be like that, you know? A lot of people throw out a lot of ideas and criteria, but really seeing it in action, real life meeting people in this state? Haven't seen it yet. Just a lot of talk, and people that call themselves awake are far away from being awake/enlightened in my perspective. Simply observing their behavior gives me VERY CLEAR impression of a lot of "no" to your questions. Also, there is the idea that it is the same for everybody, is it really like that? Who knows.

@Natasha Tori Maru I think it's a hopeless case. You can see where I am pointing at, he can't. He won't. Because he doesn't want to. He reminds me of this here So I am done expanding energy here. For other readers, they can form their own opinion.

As I said before, my personal experience strongly indicates that the way you see the world does - to a significant degree - shape the world you experience. I am still amazed how you talk about your deep awakenings, that you recognize how reality is created and cannot see this in this particular point you are making. "All sharing and working together" : It's not always, not with everyone, that's not what I said. I know who to talk to, and whom to ask which questions and I get great input and sometimes people do the same and ask me stuff. You call it more sober, I call it insecure and scared of opening up. I DARE YOU TO PROVE ME WRONG. Go out, try it, be more open, drop your believes and assumptions, drop your fears towards "women", go and and live and act in such way that women are the opposite of what you believe now, and see what happens. Do that honestly for one month, come back and tell me how it went. Then we can have a new discussion. But I don't think you can do that, it's tough to let go of those believes that give you apparent safety and certainty. And we can't change our believes just like that, it takes actual experience and interaction in real life. Maybe I organize a video call for you, I invite all the women that are interested in the topics you say women are not, all the women I know that give great advice and that share everything they know about men and women alike, would that change your mind? Probably not, because no matter how much direct experience you'll have as long as there is fear in your organism you will go back and say "yeah that's just a small fraction ALL OTHER WOMEN ARE THE OPPOSITE" Well, it's up to you, nobody can convince you otherwise Edit: You say you don't have many female friends. Sister maybe? If so, how's the relationship? Although we also sometimes fight and disagree, all in all my sister is a great example for me re working together, sharing things, supporting each other etc. And I learned it's possible with other women, too. Plus with women outside family you can extend that on further areas

Yeah I agree, I called it the same thing some time ago But some people seem to equate awakening primarily with insights, and the ability to explain things, or to have highly complex theories about how life works but not the small everyday behavior that IMO actually shapes the world. Then there are divisions being made, your are awake but not enlightenment, there is enlightenment but not sainthood etc...all this play of words, further divisions, and more concepts and all I am thinking is: really?

Yeah, I'm with you here. Not about the death thing, or the truth will come, this I simply don't know. But 100% agreement about "no awakening for the sake of awakening". Same as you said above, for me it's 100% about being pragmatic with it, increasing quality of life for me and others around me now. I often wonder, looking at people that talk so much about "awakenings" but show bullshit behaviors and shitty attitudes full of unwarranted aggression, prejudice, harmful narratives, inferioty complex, narcissism etc. Ok it's their life but if that's your awakening then I don't want it as such behavior clearly does not improve quality of life for yourself and others.

I got great input by women in real life or forum by just asking. My experience was that women tend to understand women very well in most cases and thus are great source of advice. Don't know why there's the idea of "exploitation" and "secrets" when you easily can work together to make interaction between genders better. Says a lot about the lense you see the world through IMO

OK I am not familiar with these terminologies, and even after some research I am still not sure. Will give it a try with paraphrasing to see if I get it: 1. You want X --> you take action --> all good, a least you do what you can. 2. You want X --> Instead of action --> accepting not doing anything --> you feel your emotions of not having / not going for X as in 1. 3. You want X --> Instead of action --> rumination, victimization --> you transfer your discomfort to sth outside, sth symbolic --> not feeling your emotions, at least you have something on the outside to give responsibility to ---> you do 3. because when you say it's on the outside, then its beyond your control. So far so good. Can you give a short definition of your understanding of "taking phallic position" and "castration anxiety"?

Generalization - so why do it when you know it's harmful? Projection - how exactly is it useful? When you want to find out the truth, empty your mind of any assumptions.