Emerald

Jeff Bezos???? He's one of the richest men on the planet. I'm sure there are 10s of thousands of women (including very attractive ones) that would literally throw themselves at him because of his wealth and fame alone. Plus, he's not a bad looking guy. And I don't mean escorts would be interested in him. A man of his standing and wealth will be attractive to many women. If he wanted to get a genuine lover who was some very attractive 25-year old supermodel, he could easily do that. But he probably just prefers his wife for more emotional reasons. Once you're that wealthy, access to sex with hot women is a given. But men don't get married for that reason. External pressures not-with-standing, most men ask a woman to marry them because they love the woman they're with and they want to deepen the commitment.

My list comes from my experiences with Ayahuasca in combination with learning systems of archetypal symbolism to understand dreams and synchronicities. Understanding the archetypal Feminine and Masculine is very helpful in decoding anything based in mythos. It can also help you recognize if you are in resistance to one or both polarities... and to help you drop that resistance. For example, prior to my first Ayahuasca journey at age 20, I was fully of the mindset that Masculinity and Femininity were pure social construct. But once I had the experience of ego de-centering that came with that experience and I no longer had any identity to lose or maintain, the aperature of my consciousness expanded. And I was out in my friend's backyard and night. And I was sitting there. And this one was my most visual journey, where I was feeling so connected with nature and watching the plants grow around me. And I got hit by a sudden insight that the most accurate word in the English language for describing the subtle energy of the night and the plants was "Femininity". And it was so completely different from human gender norms. And the same energy was within myself... but deeply repressed. And it became clear that everything I valued was in opposition to this energy. And furthermore, everything in society was working in opposition to this energy. So, in the years after that I sought a lot of ways of being to reconnect with the Feminine. And I sought it out in both Feminism and traditional Femininity... but could not find it there. And that's what led me to Jungian Psychology. And this is where I learned conceptually about the archetypal Feminine and Masculine... and because I knew what Femininity actually was from my experience, I could sense the "vibe" of the Feminine. And in any dichotomy, I can intuitively pick out which is Feminine and which is Masculine. Once you have experienced these polarities directly (outside of rote gender roles), you can easily intuit it. It has a very distinct vibe. And in my later medicine journeys of recent years, I typically experience myself as my small human self (which is Feminine) and my eternal self (which is Masculine). The experience of awakening in these journeys is quite a bit like being Shakti and waking up to the fact that I'm also Shiva for a brief time. Like, I am a temporary flower growing from an eternal tree... and I am the eternal tree itself. I am both in one. But for this lifetime, I prefer to be embodied as the temporary flower. And that is my way of embracing the Feminine in this life... which is difficult because my temporal Feminine self is very curious about my eternal Masculine Self. So, I am not parroting anything. The list of dichotomies that I made is accurate to my experiences of the vibes of these polarities. And once you experience them directly, you can easily pick it out. But most people don't understand what Masculinity and Femininity actually is on this level. So, they default to a shallow understanding of gender norms and how women and men are... or (worse) how they ought to be.

I'm saying that unstable women are significantly more likely than stable women to be receptive to pick-up. You gotta be at least a little crazy or in an unstable situation in life to be receptive to it.

That happens in Tampa too. When I was 16, I went to Tampa with my then-boyfriend who used to live in Tampa. And it was revealed that his female cousin, who was 13 or 14, was sneaking into strip clubs, doing drugs, and drinking. She was really rough. Really, every single town or city has these patterns. But any place that's a bigger city with a night life is going to have them extra.

There are plenty of attractive and unattractive unstable women. And there are plenty of attractive and unattractive stable women. I don't think there's much of a correlation there between instability and someone's natural appearance. (Though perhaps women who hyper-focus on their looks and focus heavily on beautification might be more likely to have insecurities) But I do think that the men who believe that there is a correlation between hotness and craziness have psychological patterns that make them more attracted to "crazy" women. And this makes them draw the false conclusion that all attractive women are unstable and crazy... because the ones they find attractive are unstable and crazy. For example, a guy who's more avoidant will find a woman who has an anxious attachment style more attractive than a woman with a secure attachment style. The psychological attraction will be off the charts because he is afflicted by the same problem, but copes in the opposite way. So, the statement that "Hot women are always crazy" is really just another way of saying, "I have a pattern of being attracted to crazy women. And when women aren't crazy, I don't find them as attractive."

Location could also be a factor, as Vegas has a reputation. But I sense that it's really any woman from any area who is open to passes from random men who run game. It's a bit of a tell about her level of scarcity of connection and her risk-taking tendencies.

It's likely just because you tend to meet women through pick-up that you meet so many women with mental conditions. You also have some avoidant tendencies where you devalue social connection with other people, which will make you very attractive to anxiously attached women who have familial patterns around abandonment and feeling a need to earn love. And an avoidant partner will kick their anxiety into hyper-drive and bring the otherwise dormant crazy right out of them. But consider that women who are receptive to pick-up are more likely to be less stable than the average woman. Honestly, it's a huge risk to get involved with some random guy who approaches you in a club or on the street. And women who are more stable are less likely to take that risk. Like if I think of myself and my female friends (who all have varying levels of stability with some being very stable and others being very unstable, and with myself being mildy unstable)... the more stable ones are less likely to be open to sparking something up with a random guy. And it also implies that her social circle is lacking in some way or that something is amiss in those areas of life, which implies drama or issues with social attachment. Otherwise, why wouldn't she just get involved with a man she already knows and can go slow with and build feelings for organically?

All people have always relied on other members the group for survival. For 97.5% of human history, we were nomads, traveling about with 20-30 other people. And everyone relied on everyone else for safety in numbers and the pooling and preparation of resources. And specialization was fairly minimal at that time because everyone had the job of the procuring resources and keeping other members of the group safe. And everyone in the community contributed in similar ways to the survival of the group because of the minimal specialization. (Specialization arose 12,000 years ago) And that's because it was prior to the agrarian era (which also began roughly 12,000 years ago) where we were able to grow and store a surplus of food. And it was also prior to the dawn of civilization (which began roughly 7,000 years ago) where we have military forces and enforcers of the justice system to keep everyone safe. And there has never been a time where a lone man and woman couple were traversing the wilderness together... and where the woman solely relied on her male partner for safety. Those tasks have always been a group endeavor. You seem to be projecting the fairly contemporary single family household dynamic onto all of human history, when that didn't even remotely exist until relatively recently in the human timeline. And that's far too individualistic to be accurate to how humans have operated, prior to the modern era as we have always been a collectivist species. Now, I'm certain that the men in the group played somewhat more of a protective role to guard the group from attack by wild animals and other groups of men, because men are stronger... and those protective tasks were not yet borne out by societal institutions and societal infrastructure more generally. But archeological studies have shown that these tasks weren't quite as gender-stratified as they came to be in the agrarian era (which began just 2.5% of human history ago). So, men and women both got their safety needs met within the context of the group. And even now, humans cannot survive without other humans regardless of gender. We can just have the illusion of not needing the group because we don't need to socially interact with other members of the group to get the resources they provide. But if the farmers stopped farming... and the grocery stores owners closed up the stores.. and grocery store workers stopped doing their job... and the hospital workers stopped working... we'd all be royally fucked. Of course, that idea isn't quite as romantic as the idea of a lone man keeping his damsel in distress safe. But it is the reality of the situation. We all rely on other people for survival and safety. And especially in the modern era, men don't contribute more towards the survival of the group compared to women. Nor does a woman need to be in a relationship with a man to get her safety needs met as she already benefits safety-wise from the military, the police force, the medical institution, the FDA, etc. AND (on a more personal level) her wider social circle.

What I'm saying is that polarizing away from feelings and seeing them as an invalid or inferior source of wisdom will create major blindspots to Truth. For example, it is feeling that allows us to realize truths that cannot be experienced purely intellectually. Like in the case of the realities of suffering. Without feeling, we can approach the topic of suffering only intellectually. But we cannot glean the real wisdom to truly understand the situation. I see it all the time on this forum, where so much foolishness is normalized through complex intellectual frameworks that inadvertently normalize what ought not to be normalized.

It's really just a tell about the person who's saying it. Like attracts like. Typically, one of the biggest tells about how a person operates in the world is in how they describe other people... especially romantic partners. If a person is fairly positive about other people, that person is probably seeing themselves reflected back to them in their choice of company. The same is true of a person who has nothing good to say about other people. It's like if you hear a woman talking about how all men cheat and are horrible people that can't be trusted. And I have no doubt that the woman is actually experiencing that, because those guys really do exist. But it is more of a tell about her... at the very least about her self-esteem and sense of self-worth creating a lack of discernment... and at most, she's a crazy one too. So, when I hear men complaining about women being crazy and unhinged... at best, I think he's got low self-esteem and isn't discerning enough about his choice in partners... and at worst, he's also unhinged as well.

I just said that the sense that sex and relationships are truly scarce is an illusion that more has to do with a particular man's mindsets about the situation. That's why some men don't struggle, while others do. It's about the head game. I fail to see how that's a politically correct take. Do you know what politically correct means?

I have children. My son is 10 and my daughter turns 14 in 2 days and is going into high school in a few weeks. And I would say that her social group does seem to get together.... not quite as much as in my generation. But still here and there at least. But a lot does happen via text as well. So, I think that a lot gets lost. And I sense that it's moreso early-20-somethings that are struggling more who are not in a school environment.

That is what meant by only 1 woman who's open to hook-ups for every 10 guys who are open to hook-ups. I didn't mean that regarding the ratios of men and women in number of individuals in the establishment. I was assuming an equal number of men and women out at the club/bar.

@Joshe Honestly, building a social circle is super beneficial in so many ways. It also allows attractions to organically develop, which is what most women prefer anyway. It's a shame that the past 20 years has seen such a decline in social connection. A lot of the guys who are struggling now to have sex and find a partner would not be struggling 20 years ago. They'd just be in some co-ed social circle as a teenager and some girl in the social circle would take a shine to them and that'd be it.

One time, when I was a teacher (I was about 25), our van broke down. So, I had to take a cab to work. And I got into the cab and there was this very rough looking middle aged man driving the cab. And he started asking me the usually cabby questions. And I was telling him that I was a graphic design teacher and some other random factoids about myself. Nothing too crazy. And he was like, "Wow! That's amazing that you have that going on for you. Every single woman that I know is on pills." And it just blew his mind to be interacting with a woman who wasn't a crazy drug addict. He had no idea that he had simply been interacting with unhinged women because he was an unhinged guy. To him, I was like this rarity just for having a job and not being strung out. So, he thought that these compliments would mean a lot to me... because clearly, I'm also aware that "all other women except myself are crazy druggies". So, it must have been some amazing feat of willpower for me not to be. But for me, it was really just a tell about himself. He was a rough guy. So, he was hanging out with rough women. Like attracts like. So, if half the women you've met are met are mentally unhinged...

Some truths can only be made conscious through feeling.

Again... you're confusing polarity with gender dynamics, which is leading to a poor understanding of polarity. This is the issue when most people talk about this topic because they get so focused on sexual relationships between men and women that the real value of this understanding is missed completely. This isn't about what men and women do. Gender norms and patterns often follow these general lay-lines but sometimes diverge. And it is far more complex because the opposites grow out of one another. For example, because of the Masculine's loftiness and aim for perfection... this begets the orderliness of geometry. And that geometry is what contains the chaos of the organic forms of the Feminine which are found in nature. What you're referring to is that the Feminine is chaotic and needs the geometry and orderliness of the Masculine to contain it. Think of it like putting organically shaped objects into geometrically shaped objects... like putting clothing up into a drawer or putting dishes into a cupboard. Or if one creates a schedule for themselves, they're putting a Masculine geometry around the Feminine chaotic nature of day to day living... which could be part of a Masculine progression towards a lofty Masculine goal. But you must also consider that youth is Masculine principled while age is Feminine principled. So, young women will naturally have a lot of Masculine polarity traits like idealism. In fact, women as a whole group are more Masculine than men in terms of their ability to create fantasy scenarios in their mind. Yet again, this runs into the archetype of the Wise Woman... which is about inner knowing and wisdom. So, it becomes Feminine again from that angle. So, you must understand that these dichotomies are a specific angle to look at these polarities. But because the Masculine grows out of the Feminine and the Feminine grows out of the Masculine, you will always find a Masculine angle through which to view the Feminine and a Feminine angle through which to view the Masculine. These qualities are inseparable.... like Yin and Yang. Don't confuse them with what men and women generally do... but you can also understand what's at play with patterns around men and women as a whole group. And you can notice where polarizations exist.

How can one demonstrate the opposite is true? These are understandings that I've gleaned from my medicine journeys in my ability to pick up on these subtle qualities... as well as reading Jungian authors and learning to understand archetypal symbolism in literature and in imagery. Remember, these are not about gender norms... or about men and women very much at all. Sometimes men (as a whole group) will have more of an Feminine archetypal quality than women have (as a whole group)... as these qualities are only named Masculine and Feminine as a concession... because they are the closest words in the English language to describe these qualities. But they are named for this because human beings understand these polarities through a gendered lens... but not because these qualities are actually gendered.

You're not understanding what groundedness and loftiness means in this context, if you believe that women are loftier than men. (First off, this isn't about male and female... it's about Masculine and Feminine, which supersede yet inform human gender) The Feminine is the physical and worldly. Grounded means that which is grounded within 3-D reality. It's more accepting of ordinariness and mortality. The Masculine is the spiritual and non-physical. It's the mind and all its abstractions. It's geared towards trying to overcome and become more super-human and immortal. Many inventions come out of the Masculine loftiness. Consider who is more grounded... a mother just living for the day and tending to daily tasks and doing ordinary things with her kids... or Elon Musk trying to take us to Mars or Peter Thiel dreaming of making himself immortal by putting his consciousness into AI? The reality is that men (as a group) are significantly loftier than women... which is sometimes good and sometimes bad... as is the case with all of these dichotomies. But it's important to look at these more as polarities rather than indications of what men and women are like. Otherwise, one will mix up gender norms with polarity... which will lead to a poor understanding.

My experience of social circles have been more like a consistent interaction because of existing in similar spaces as dozens of people. So, one would need to set up some kind of situation like that, where one is interacting socially with many people. It's easier to do in school, where that's the default. But one could also get involved in social activities as well, where they interact with many people. I recommend a meet-up group or something like that. Or take a class. Or go to church (if you'r religious). Basically, find a context where regular meetings and socializing is already normalized. The goal is to build a circle of 150 acquaintances and a few close friends. Most importantly, that's good for meeting basic human social needs (which is necessary anyway for psychological health). So, even if it didn't lead to a romantic relationship, it's important. But it also gives a context where one can make the acquaintance of potential partners. It's honestly the way that it's always been done. Our social contexts are a little threadbare now-a-days because of everything moving online. But it can still be done with a little legwork.

Below, I will post that which is considered archetypally Feminine and Masculine (respectively) to understand these polarities from a symbolic and energetic lens (which is very different from societal gender norms, which are often arbitrary... like women wearing pink, etc.) Keep in mind, this relates indirectly to human gender in general as the Masculine and Feminine are found interplaying in all living and non-living systems. But you will notice that men (as a whole group) have a slight lean towards the Masculine Principled qualities and that women (as a whole group) have a slight lean towards the Feminine Principled qualities. But keep in mind that these arcetypes/qualities were called Masculine and Feminine because of men and women's slight leans towards one energy or the other... but these qualities are only somewhat correlated to human gender expression. So, these polarities superseded yet inform human gender expressions. Here's the list (Feminine first/Masculine second) Being vs Doing Tangible vs Intangible Earthly vs Spiritual Physical vs Non-Physical Grounded vs Lofty Wisdom vs Truth Cycles vs Progressions Imperfection vs Perfection Contraction vs Expansion Emotions vs Thoughts Intuition vs Logic Chaos vs Order Organic vs Geometric The Unconscious Mind vs The Conscious Mind Relationship vs Singularity The Everthingness Facet of Infinity vs The Nothingness Facet of Infinity Sovereignty vs Leadership Internal Knowing vs External Knowledge Mystery vs Clarity Ordinariness vs Extraordinariness Mortality vs Immortality The Body vs The Mind Receptivity vs Radiation Receiving vs Giving Surrender vs Overcoming Inherent Worthiness vs Earning Collective vs Individual Connection vs Disconnection Intuitive Operation vs Algorithmic Operation Internal vs External The Fall and Winter vs The Spring and Summer The Moon vs The Sun The Roots vs The Branches/Fruit Limitation vs Unlimitedness

Exactly. I have had a few one night stands before too in my early 20s. And it was just so much less interesting because there's no feelings or emotional stimulation there. So, I can only imagine that women who get picked up by a pick-up artist are mostly looking for some brief fun but are less likely to consider them for longer term relationships. I just don't see why a woman would give a chance to a random guy if she already knows a bunch of guys from her social circle. So, I would imagine that the divide of "men are most interested in pick-up as theirmain dating stragegy" and "women are most interested in finding a guy from her social circle as their main dating strategy" probably creates a difficulty for men.

If you learn how to flirt and be playful with women you're interested in, that will help your chances quite a lot. There are plenty of men who have never approached a single strange woman in their entire lives and still have had relationships and hook-ups and things. You just have to interact in a relaxed casual way and engage in playful banter.

Gotcha! I thought it was interpretation number 4... but it was actually interpretation number 3. But at first, I read it as interpretation number 2... and for a split second, I was like "Oh no! They got to him!"

I was confused by what @Leo Gura said because I could interpret it two ways... or really four ways. "Soon enough Swedes will be fucking aliens." could be interpreted as... Soon enough Swedes will be having sex with immigrants. Soon enough Swedes will be immigrants in their own country because immigrants will replace them. Soon enough Swedes will be having sex with literal space aliens. Soon enough Swedes will become literal space aliens. I think he meant the fourth one... but I thought (for a second) he could have meant the second one too.