Elisabeth

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    1,176

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Elisabeth

  1. Posted

    Why don't you just google for miligram scale (or microgram scale for other substances) and buy one? If you're going to do more trips, it's worth it. 

    However, psylocybin content in mushrooms - at least those naturally growing - differs from place to place and even from mushroom to mushroom. You don't really know your dosage from the weight. 

  3. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

    @Elisabeth I agree

    I think I know what Leo means to say but attractive does not neccesarily mean you will be with that person. 

    I know some 9-10 women that are in relationships with men which as an hetero male i find them 'atrractive' yet these women exhibit cheating behaviours because they felt attracted more to other males in that moment. 

     So basically attraction/desire does not neccesarily mean long term healthy partner compatibility.

    One has to decide, are we talking about high intense desire/attraction or about estability and connection? (being a couple)

    Is veeeery different.

    I agree one should make that distinction. However, I see how Leo's auction analogy would apply to both. It's just that there are different values at play.

    If I want a relationship, I'll place value on kindness and compatibility. If I can't get a guy that's attractive, kind and compatible, I'll settle for a worse relationship.

    Are guys doing the same? I think so. The ones that are looking to have a family, and there are such guys, they do.

  4. Posted · Edited by Leo Gura

    48 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    [Removed]

    Thank you, I see your argument.

    If true, thank god this is mostly unconscious. It isn't healthy to think of yourself or your partner as 'scraps'.

    Please consider finding a way of teaching that doesn't dismiss 80% of people as scraps :/ or mislead guys into thinking that if they aren't top 20 no woman will ever date them.

  6. Posted · Edited by Elisabeth

    On 9/27/2024 at 10:43 PM, Leo Gura said:

    Girls are attracted to the top 20% of men, and men are attracted to the top 20% of girls.

    The problem is the self-biased way men see this situation.

    I couldn't help thinking about this yesterday. This just doesn't match my experience. I know you must have said it a 1000 times on this forum already, but would you care to elaborate anyway?
    Do you think there is an objective scale on which women rate men? Or is this like a personal number (with some factors contributing more often than others)?

    I argue the scale is personal and thus the statement is very misleading, giving guys unnecessary bad self-esteem.

    I'am attracted to men who are intelligent, if they studied math that's a bonus. So I date an IT guy who's also emotionally available.

    My friend? She doesn't see value in education. She's artsy. She dates a good-looking carpenter.

    The guys both have some qualities, but she wouldn't date my guy and I wouldn't date her guy. Are they top 20%? Well, they guys also have their problems. Most my friends wouldn't rate either one top 20 because of their issues. 

    I'm into guys who are rather robust and I don't mind fat, unless it's extreme obesity. You can lean on them. Another of my friends? Her guy has to be extremely skinny, otherwise, she's repelled.

    I'm not saying great flirting skills (or "game") combined with money, looks, status won't work for sex attraction. That man teaching the tantric bdsm workshop? Oh my god, he had me instantly. (Only later did I learn he's also a mathematician and founder of a bank. Gulp.) The to 2% who tick all the boxes? They can really choose.
    But my friend attending the same workshop? She thinks he's an ego maniac. She's repelled.

    Sometimes, money is totally unimportant. There are even girls who are attracted to homeless anarchists.
    Some women date poor people with disabilities who will never be able to provide for them as long as they have a good heart.
    Sometimes looks is unimportant. If you fall in love for other reasons, your guy suddenly seems much more good looking.

    Sometimes I'm attracted, but then the attraction vanishes instantly when they guy voices a political opinion.

    But, I argue the majority of guys will have qualities which make them attractive to someone. This goes well with the fact that most people end up having a family.

    This is not false hope for those who hide in a basement, play computer games and voice negative opinions about women. You have to go out, be social and have some skill. Almost any skill of your choosing plus some basic level of social intelligence.

  7. Posted · Edited by Elisabeth

    2 hours ago, puporing said:

    Not sure about white families but I suspect there's also some of this happening too where... In extreme cases women are discouraged and sabotaged by their family and peer groups constantly to pursue higher education for well paid jobs.

    What happens for white, privileged women like me is we get all the education, but then we don't get the opportunity to apply it fully.

    Under the best of circumstances (fair assessment), 'meritocracy' means only those able and willing to sacrifice for their jobs will get the highly competitive ones. If we do get children, we can't do it - we're unable to devote enough resources to career development for a decade. Also, caring for ageing parents and in-laws is usually on the woman's shoulders.

    For example, in physics (which I do), there is like 30% of girls in undergrad courses, almost a similar fraction continues to a PhD, but after that, a sharp drop occurs, since women in their 30ties really can't go travelling round the world to gain experience at postdoc positions.


    Even if women sacrifice having a family, there are often glass ceilings that will prevent her from advancing to an in-demand position, such as habitual mistrust in women's leadership abilities, double standards on behaviour, lack of good role models and mentoring,... (leaving out downright sexism).

    Another thing I observe, girls are generally less encouraged to find their life-purpose or focus on one thing to get good at. It's like when a teenaged guy has a serious hobby, he's seen as gaining valuable skills for the future or having a strength; if a girl has a hobby, it's kind of cute (since she's gonna end up as a caregiver anyway). In some cases, we're actively discouraged from focusing.

    And, oh the pressure on being "feminine" (=beautiful and submissive)... you'll still stir a lot of hate if you aren't. I know men are fighting hard against nasty stereotypes too, but no guy has ever been accused of not being masculine enough for working on his career, while being ambitions is seen as unhealthy in a woman. 'Spiritual' new age circles are the worst for that - I've been literally told that a women is not to do math, she's to dance and sing (needless to say, I blocked that guy), or that logic is not feminine enough and I should be connected to earth instead (I'm never going to a women's circle again). This nonsense makes me doubt the path I've chosen, so I declared war on all "masculine vs. feminine" talk long ago.

  8. Posted · Edited by Elisabeth

    On 9/9/2024 at 0:19 PM, AION said:

    Is this true? I hear a friend say this to me and I heard some masculinity coaches saying this. 

    From my observations it is true. Especially in a regular relationship where the woman is seeking to start a family and needs a guy to provide and protect. 

    Most women are hypergamous. So they want a guy to be better or higher up the social and economic chain. It is pure coincidence but I was talking to a salsa dancing friend and he said the same thing: if you want to make a chance with a girl you have to be the better dancer but that is out of the scope of this thread. 

    It makes me think. Does love really exist? Modern relationships are based on value exchange. You basically have to have what the other person wants which is basically value exchange aka win win relationships. Unconditional love is not a real thing; only lack of options which people falsely characterize as love. 

    From my personal experience, liking my partner's lifestyle was a big part of making me fall in love with them. However, there are two however:
    1) by lifestyle I don't exactly mean money, I mean his hobbies, friends, skills, education, curiosity, vision...

    [Note: I don't deny the importance of a roughly similar socio-economic backgrounds --- I probably wouldn't date way down, but I wouldn't date way up either, because a very rich man would have probably little in common with me in terms of values.]


    2) I'm talking about this initial stage of "falling in love". It's only later in a relationship that more stable love, informed by true knowledge of each other, can grow. Lifestyles change all the time (someone gets sick, children are born, money is lost...), but with mature love, couples deal with that.

  10. Posted · Edited by Elisabeth

    12 hours ago, LordFall said:

    @Elisabeth It's definitely about relationships for me; not just sex. I'm a fan of BDSM so personally I would incorporate some elements of that into it. People have 4-5 children and love them so I don't know why you couldn't do that with romantic partners about it. 

    I agree. If you've got great bdsm skills, yeah, you can have a lot of fun. Rope teachers will have tied up a hundred people on their learning journey. It's possible to do that respectfully and ethically.

    The ethics of having multiple dom-sub relationships gets soooo intricate and situation specific. I'd say if the women are exclusive with you, you're into shady territory even if all parties try their best to keep good consent practices. Especially if they're new to the scene. Heck, if you're into power exchange out of the bedroom, you're navigating difficult waters every single time. But if you're in the scene, you're aware, and this thread is not specifically for that.

  12. Posted · Edited by Elisabeth

    8 hours ago, CARDOZZO said:

    My hypothesis is that men in general are extremely brainwashed by youtube, reddit, redpill, blackpill, incel philosophy.

    What I want is that he gets out of his mind and go to the real world to talk to woman. I don't want to reinforce any belief.

    I'm proposing he develops a scientific lenses to cut all the bullshit (manosphere content) he is being exposed to without empiricism and direct experience.

    Then we're fundamentally in agreement!
     

    8 hours ago, CARDOZZO said:

    One thing I can say (I'm average on looks not a Brad Pitt) - It is hard to date these days if you are not actively going out, specially if you don't like traditional means to get a date (IG, Tinder, Bumble) and if you don't have a social media presence (Good Pictures, Followers).

    I had to laugh about "traditional means". Traditional means to me are what I said: Meet people in real life (through school or work, hobbies, existing friend circles), people you have something in common with, and only invite someone on a date if you already like them.
    Online dating is good if your social options got limited, which does happen for many people later in life when school is no longer a thing and most friends are already paired off.
    (That's what I see - I do agree I have a very European perspective, and social isolation of the youth may be much worse in the US.)

    The only thing I was worried about is that I view the "approach tons of women" thing as one of the myths. If it does not work, he might go "See? Women don't want ordinary guys like me. I've proven it." - while he only reason he's been rejected because there was no prior connection at all.

    Thank you for your sad post.

  13. Posted

    5 hours ago, LordFall said:

    I don't think people in the poly community have any idea about game. They're usually quite strong on trust and communication which is great but if you combined that with good game and some money game I think you could do it on a way grander scale than they can. But also he never said he wanted to date whoever; he said he wanted 2 girlfriends. 

    But why would you do it on a grander scale? What's a grander scale here? More sex?

    If we're talking about relationships - and "girlfriend" describes a relationship in my vocabulary, but maybe it's just a keyword for something else in yours - most people will be able to handle one, two, max tree serious ones. There's not a hard on limit fwb's, people you see once in a while, short-term summer romances or people you just hook up with, if you've got the time, energy (and yes - money). Some poly people do that.

    If a lot of sex is all you're after and "game" is just a word for deception, we need not speak.

  14. Posted

    21 hours ago, CARDOZZO said:

    I get what you are saying.

    Why don't you become an empiricist or a scientist?

    Start observing dating through that lens.

    What you didn't experience for yourself, you don't believe it.

    Forget about opinions on the internet.

    I challenge you! 😉

    Approach 50 woman asking if they would go on a date with you.

    No expectations, just to try it out.

    What's your hypothesis that you want to test with this approach? That it's easy to get a date by just approaching en masse?

    You could end up reinforcing that poor guy's beliefs. Because most women don't go on dates with guy that have no serious interest in them, specifically. We won't feel well if we're one of fifty. A scientific experiment.

    I'll argue an alternative hypothesis. I'll argue that approaching one girl at a time, girls that you've at least had an interesting conversation with, girls that you are interested in because they are fun and share common interests, gives you much better chances.

    It's a myth that men approach and women select. For serious relationships, men have to choose just as carefully. We're talking about a match of both chemistry and personalities here, a match that will allow two people long-term cooperation.

  15. Posted

    @Basman  Journaling can certainly be effective.
    There's a youtube channel called "Crappy Childhood Fairy", I believe she's had better success with journaling than therapy.

    However, there's something a journal won't give you, which is the experience of being with a person who's really attuned. Some believe this is the most important mechanism of how therapy works.

    Why don't you try a lot of journaling with some therapy, just picking the topic which came up as most significant in your journalling sessions to work on with the therapist.

  16. Posted · Edited by Elisabeth

    5 hours ago, LordFall said:

    I think that's half the recipe here. Provide for multiple women and have the emotional intelligence and compassion to not lie to them and love them equally in the way they want to be loved and I don't see why it wouldn't work.

    Plenty of bisexual women would kill for this arrangement. No need to bring other men into it if you don't want to. It's not an open fest for everyone, just multiple women and one man. 

    If he has the freedom to date whomever, she will sooner or later want it too. She'll get curious about guys and fed up with the double standard. It's only a matter of time.

    You could do something like "let's only date women we both like", but that, in general, doesn't work well (because there's always the unspoken "...and who like both of us", and because "veto" arrangements in general don't work).

    I've been a member of a polyamory forum for years and years by now. I've read about all the failures and fuck ups. Hundreds of stories.
    Polyamory only works if

    1) all people involved actively want it,

    2) they are free to choose their own partners (with few reasonable limits like "please don't date my sister/ my boss"),

    3) all people are ethical in their choices and considerate of their partners,

    4) generally, all people can stand on their own feet if necessary, ie do not dependent on their partners for finance or care  (I've seen some exceptions to this one, there's been a woman with ME/CFS whose partner was happy to provide for her and grant her the freedom to date at the same time, but the cases where power dynamics are reversed - includingthe man is a jerk who starts dating while his wife cares for a newborn - tend to be fucked up).

  17. Posted · Edited by Elisabeth

    23 hours ago, Ampresus said:

    One final anecdote I will give is something I heard on the tram once. As I was sitting there on my way to uni, I heard a guy and a girl talk about how the guy had found himself in a relationship with 2 girls. He first had a bi girlfriend who liked the idea of a threesome with another girl. So they did said threesome. All three parties liked it so much that they proceeded to do it several times. At some point they all came to an agreement that it was more than just sex and decided to stay together.

    Now how true this is and how long something like this would last I'll leave up to you guys to decide. But it just so happens that my current girlfriend is open for a threesome as well.

    This is actually one of the more healthy ways to form a triad. It does happen sometimes, though I personally don't know any closely committed live-in triads.

    Just know that triads can't be forced. You can never demand from a girl to be equally interested in you and your other partner. It's not going to happen. The "V" or "N" shaped relationship forms are actually more common, more durable and easier to handle.

  18. Posted

    2 hours ago, Ampresus said:

    @Leo Gura I feel like if you try to establish it from day one, she will just get up and leave. Whereas if you try to tell a girl you've been seeing for a while, she's more inclined to hear you out. Would definitely help if the girl is bisexual herself. The only reason this idea came up to my my mind is because my current gf mentioned how she'd be willing to have a threesome with another girl if it made me happier.

    No. If you want to be polyamorous, you have to look for girls you are inclined to be polyamorous themselves. "Say it before you kiss." Anything else is exploitation and a recipe for disaster.

    Be ethical people.

  19. Posted

    On 9/22/2024 at 5:24 PM, Someone here said:

    I seriously don't understand how someone could go from random pieces of metal and whatever else to a computer screen  for example or chat gpt ..AI and quantum computes and so forth . Or a processor or any of that stuff. How did they know it would do that? How do parts have the abilities to be programmed to do that?

    I suggest you try to break down your question into smaller pieces, then perhaps you are even able to answer it yourself.
    1) how did people learn metal processing?
    2) how did they go from crude metal tools and weapons to fine precision processing like clockwork?
    3) how did people come up with laws of mathematics and physics? (do you know anything about Kepler and Newton? they are a great example)
    4) how does a steam engine work? how does a car work? how did people come up with either?
    5) how was electricity invented?
    6) Who came up with the idea for a computer? How did the very first computer work? (If you can understand how people come up with a clockwork or a car, it should not be that much of a leap to understand how someone can come up with the idea for a computer - though it is a qualitative leap.)
    7) how does the internet work?

    8) how does AI work? (Now, to understand this well you might need to know some about computer programming and mathematical optimisation, but there are probably elementary explanations you can read without any of that.)

    See how it's a step-by-step process of innovation, each invention "standing on the shoulders of giants"?
    Does this help?
    I cannot answer your question better since I have no idea about the depth you want to go into, and whether a technical or a historical perspective is more satisfying to you (or maybe you're looking for something completely different).

  20. Posted · Edited by Elisabeth

    Shit, I wrote a long post and lost it.

    In short,
    - the idea that your girlfriends can have women but not other guys is called "one penis policy" and is very much frowned upon - to be ethical, you'd have to do your emotional work to get past that.

    - Polyamory can be healthy and rewarding. However,

    - Polyamory complicates your life immensely on a practical level. Just imagine looking for two apartments in the same house so that you can live all together but still allow for personal space. You may have to pay double the rent.

    - if you think you might want polyamory, DO SOME READING. There are lots of internet resources, but even better, some books. "Designer relationships" and "Opening up" would be recommended, an older one is "The ethical slut".

  21. Posted

    It's ok to need professional help. 
    Find both a psychiatrist and a therapist you feel comfortable with. 

    The psychiatrist can prescribe medication, which will get you out of the worst into a state of mind where you can actually do effective therapy and self-help again. 

    The therapist will not only guide you through techniques. A big part of every therapy is the trusting relationship that you form with him or her. Any emotionally expressive techniques actually do work better, if you have someone nearby who keeps calm when you are not and helps name and mirror back to you whatever it is you are experiencing. 

  22. Posted

    On 14/07/2022 at 0:53 AM, Mindful Bum said:

    @Leo Gura I hear what you're saying, but you still haven't clearly defined mental illness. And for good reason: a clear definition doesn't exist. The mental health field has taken the infinite possibilities of the human mind and behavior, and forced everyone into finite categories that are vaguely defined and usually dependent on self-reporting. Complicating the issue further is the reality that many mental health disorders are defined and diagnosed primarily as a convenience for medical insurance and billing purposes.

    For many people, their first mental health diagnosis comes from a mental health professional that their parents force them to visit and who is financially incentivized to make a diagnosis, prescribe medications, etc., often after a single visit. These kids are given diagnoses/labels that more often than not create limiting beliefs about themselves. These labels follow them through life, shaping their perception and future, despite the fact that the diagnosis was formed from a single disinterested person's interpretation of the patient's responses to a handful of contrived questions. 

    Mental health (and therefore mental illness) is just as infinite and undefinable as consciousness. And the two are intrinsically linked, just like personal development and spirituality. In actuality, there are no hard boundaries between these domains. So when you talk about "the mentally ill" as if it's a real and meaningful category of people, you come across as ignorant. Because if you had even a basic understanding of modern mental healthcare, you wouldn't be wielding such a loaded term so carelessly. 

    The thing is...I know you DO have the necessary knowledge and critical thinking skills necessary to deconstruct "mental illness." I've thoroughly enjoyed the many hours of video content you've published on deconstructing the myth of science. You even specifically mention the limits of modern medicine in this clip from Assumption Is The Mother Of All Fuck-ups. So from my perspective, you are uniquely qualified to help this huge demographic that suffers from mental health disorders--for example, by revealing how most diagnoses are highly subjective inventions of for-profit organizations--but instead, you seem to have accepted uncritically the idea that there are only two kinds of people in this world: those who are mentally ill (/dramatic/dysfunctional) and those who are not...and the former should be ignored? 

    I understand that actualized.org isn't geared toward people suffering from extreme forms of mental illness, nor is it the best resource for helping such people. I'm not suggesting otherwise. What I am suggesting is that you investigate your seemingly rigid beliefs about "the mentally ill" and learn about psychology/neurobiology at least to a point where you recognize we're all on the same spectrum; no fundamental difference exists. 

    This demographic (i.e., those with mental health issues) is MUCH bigger than you think, and your teachings have a much greater healing potential than you think. The effectiveness of psychedelics, meditation, and mystical experiences as treatments for mental illness has shown to be far superior to psychotherapy and/or medication.

    This IS your wheelhouse, Leo. 

    Hear, hear. I must reiterate.

    The boundary between health and illness, especially mental health and illness, is so fuzzy. At some levels at least, there's no distinction between "healing" and "personal development". 

  24. Posted

    So I've been having chronic pain in my right tonsil, accompanied by tiredness, for at least half a year now, ended by two proper streptococcus tonsillitis with fewer and all last week and a month ago. I got penicillin for these and I'm on some kind of long-term penicillin antibiotic treatment now, but the tonsil doesn't seems to be cured, it has just receded into that kind of chronically painful/ inflamed? state. I'm gargling salvea, I've got oral probiotics too.

    The doctors seem inclined to remove my tonsils, which I'd obviously rather avoid. I'm unfortunatelly susceptible to other respiratory tract infections too, I'm afraid what else might get inflamed istead of the tonsils.

    Has anyone experience healing chronic tonsil problems in a less invasive way?