Emerald

Women are the selectors and men are the one's trying to be selected. That's what that means. This is the heterosexual human mating dance. If a woman acts as if the man is the prize, then she's already messed up because she'll be in her masculine energy trying to impress the guy and win him over. And that just doesn't work. It communicates low standards. One of the best things a woman can do is to be in here Yin energy and communicate her standards. Men who are genuinely interested in her will (and only men who are interested in her) rise the challenge. This sorts out the men who are not good choices. As an analogue to the human mating dance, there is one egg and many sperm... and only the best sperm gets to join with the egg. Women are best to remember that they are not the sperm in that scenario. The main goal is not to chase and impress. The main goal is to be receptive and attract but to sort who isn't suited... or have them sort themselves. Also, in a healthy relationship dynamic, the man is more committed to the woman even than the woman is committed to him. If you have it the other way around, there's going to be a lot of disharmony in that relationship because the guy doesn't actually see the woman as the prize. When you have it the other way around, the woman feels anxious and chases the guy around and the guy feels annoyed. And that's because the guy really doesn't want to be selected by her. Also, I didn't say there's "no shortage" of solid men. Most men are not very solid. But there are plenty of solid men. And with the woman being the selector, her job is sort the wheat from the chaff... sorting out men who don't see/treat her as the prize, who are not solid, etc. With this sorting job, 95% of that job is done by communicating expectations and being connected to the intuition.

I agree with your point that desiring a monogamous relationship is as self-focused as any other desire. It's an agenda just like any other agenda. But I do think women are wisest to expect (and by expect, I mean feel entitled to) the dynamic they want. And then, be ready to duck out if that dynamic is not to be had with that particular guy... ideally prior to getting involved with him. Women are wise to remember that they are the selector and the "prize" in the mating dance, and that any man who isn't ready/willing to step up into the role she is looking for him to fill isn't a good candidate for that selection process. So, ideally don't have sex with that person, unless you're looking for casual sex and you know for sure that you're never going to want him in any serious way. And ideally, don't even spend time with him once you know that he's not aligned to your agenda as you don't want feelings to develop with someone who isn't aligned to your agenda. There are plenty of men out there who will be in alignment. Unless you're really just interested in some sexual escapades, it's best to move on and look for a more solid man.

Geriatric lesbian sex cult... final answer.

I am monogamously oriented. So, no. What I'm saying is that all relationships are technically monogamous... even polyamorous ones.

Well, honestly... there is ONLY monogamy in the strictest sense. Every relationship is monogamous because it's always person to person... one to one. Even a polyamorous relationship is really a collection of overlapping/interconnected monogamous relationships. All friendships are monogamous too. The real question is it more ideal to have an exclusive monogamous romantic relationship... or a collection of non-exclusive monogamous relationships. I would say the later is more challenging because of the complexity... but can be done well. But if the question is "Is monogamy right?"... there is no inherent right or wrong. But there is an inherent healthy and unhealthy... harmonious and unharmonious... natural and unnatural. I would say that there are unique challenges in relation to health, harmony, and alignment with nature with any relationship because our instincts and higher nature always leave discrepencies. Monogamy is easier in some senses because it's less complex. But harder because it's more strict.

If you feel unable to achieve intimacy with a woman despite being attracted to women, it could be because you have a disconnect with your feminine side and are thus projecting certain things from your disintegrated feminine side onto women. This will create a sense of one-sidedness and hostility. So, perhaps your drive toward intimacy with women is being blocked and thus only can come out through fantasizing about a connection with a man... despite being less attracted to men.

What you mean is that it isn't inherently morally superior. Morals are essentially made up castles in the sky. You could argue that being a serial killer is moral if you wanted to and find some well-reasoned argument to support that claim. But Veganism IS ethically superior to eating animal products. And this is why... Ethics has its roots in whatever causes/perpetuates the least amount of suffering. Unlike morals, ethics are not castles in the sky and empty assertions or right and wrong. There is a more objective measuring stick for what is ethical... which is the question "How much suffering does _____ objectively lead to or contribute to?" Since Vegans are boycotting an industry that causes suffering and are taking away from the demand for these products, supply in these industries will diminish accordingly. And this means that Vegans (who make up 1% of society) and Vegetarians (who make up 3% of society) en masse are cutting into the demand... probably by 2-3% points. Bearing in mind, it's financially incumbent upon these industries to produce only what they can sell... because it's a waste of money for them to breed more animals than the populace will eat. And it will be priority number one for these industries to cut costs as much as possible and maximize shareholder profits. And when we're talking about 70 BILLION land animals (including 50 billion chickens, 300 million cows, and 130 million pigs) killed each year, 2-3% points make a huge amount of difference. If we're going to round down and estimate that Vegans and Vegetarians (and even those practicing meatless Monday) cut into factory farm product demand by 2%, that's over a billion land animals per year that aren't bred into a life of suffering. And that's not even mentioning marine animals. There is also the issue that we use a lot of farmland (like 75%+ of it) to feed livestock, which accounts for tons of field deaths (mice, snakes, etc.) and the deforestation of lands meant to be occupied by other animals. And I'm sure that this creates a lot of suffering as well. Also, the existence of Vegans and Vegetarians creates demands for new technologies like lab-grown meat, which will be a huge ethical leap forward as it will make the consumption of meat and dairy possible in a way that doesn't contribute to animal deaths/exploitation... which will create less suffering in turn. So, Veganism isn't morally superior. But it is ethically superior.

No. The solution is more open-heartedness.

You have to experience for yourself to know. I see no value in arguing nor any value in you blindly believing me. If/when you have direct experience, you will see it.

But it's also less accurate if you put it in secular terms. And it's core to the whole thing to understand that it does derive from masculine/feminine polarity as these are the building blocks in all of reality.

It’s a feeling state not a thought process. It comes from tuning in to the emotions and the body. You’ll know if you experience it as a feeling instead of as a rationale.

@Evoke similar to what Aurum said, intimate relationships and spirituality go hand in hand. They are necessary for deep exploration into another person. But spirituality makes you more aware. And some of the realities you notice in pick-up situations might put a bad taste in your mouth. Many women who are easy to pick up and sleep with on the first meeting are often that way because of trauma or emotional turmoil. And many men who get in involved with pick-up do so to prove their worth to themselves by getting a woman to validate their existence via sex. So, you may in deepening your awareness pick up on the deep pain underneath the whole dynamic.

I didn’t get this perspective from Spiral Dynamics. I heard about SD years after I happened upon this feminine/masculine perspective and had many insights about it. And it is an accurate name to call it, as the roots of it is archetypal and across many cultures. But Spiral Dynamics also tracks along with these perspectives and insights... but it approaches from a different vantage point. That’s why I can look to SD with a fair amount of certainty that it’s a legitimate system. It fits. But Yellow isn’t in resistance to Green. It sees and honors Green’s place within the spiral. A person in Yellow, would not be discouraging Feminism or other Green movements because they would see that that’s the direction society’s HAS TO go in to transcend from the status quo of Orange. I can tell that you are mostly in Orange as you really don’t understand the Green perspective and specifically seek to decry it and discourage it... perhaps believing we can skip directly from Orange to Yellow. But this cannot happen. Society has to fully integrate Green. But most people tend to overestimate their level on the Spiral by two stages. So, it would be very normal for someone in Stage Orange to believe they’re criticizing Stage Green from the top as opposed to criticizing it from the bottom.

You seem to have no idea about what “equality of outcome” actually means. To argue for “equality of outcome” in this instance means to argue for all YouTubers to make the same amount of money. And you’ve yet to show me a person who’s making that argument. If Feminists are making this “equality of outcome” argument all over the place, then you should have no issue screen-shotting me some evidence that I don’t have to watch a bunch of anti-feminist videos to find.

It has nothing to do with personal preference. It simply is the shift that society is going through and has been for over a century. You can notice it if you let yourself see. The whole world is moving towards integrating Femininity. It has been repressed in the collective for thousands of years. We are working toward an integration of Divine Feminine and Divine Masculine coming together in the Sacred Marriage. And a dethroning of the Shadow Masculine from the power it has wielded over Mother Earth. But Stage Green is just the first step towards integration. Most in Stage Green don’t yet see the bigger picture even as they are instrumental within the unfolding of this process. The level of Feminine integration gets far deeper in Yellow and Turquoise in the individual and the collective as an extension. But no Divine Feminine can exist in Red or Blue and only very little Divine Feminine can exist in Orange. So, until Green emerged, the Feminine has been submerged. And the Goddess has barely begun to peek her head above the surface of collective consciousness. Individuality is important... especially when coming out of Blue and transitioning to Orange. This is probably why you’re very focused on that. But there’s more development to be had beyond that transition. The problem with focusing ONLY on individually, is that you miss the truths of the collective perspective. You miss the forest for the trees. We’d be wise to have no qualms with looking at either perspective (individuality and collectivism). They don’t invalidate one another. They form a Sacred Marriage of their own. So, we need a healthy integration between the feminine and masculine. But this is not possible unless we begin seeing that masculine principled qualities like individuality are not superior to feminine principled traits like collectivism. They are two sides to the same coin. Henceforth, and for the past several millennia, we’ve lived in societies that have regarded the masculine principle as superior and have repressed the feminine principle. This Yang over Yin patriarchal orientation has today led us into corruption and gross inequalities and (as a result) chaos and social decay in our communities. This is especially true as we’ve developed our masculine technology in such a way that it threatens to overpower the feminine... aka Mother Nature.

Since you were ‘unable’ find her tweet and also unable to supply me any first-hand sources of Feminists arguing for equality of outcome , here is Lilly’s tweet... Lilly was commenting on how things were pretty even a few years ago and now all the top earners are male. And she was concerned that “the digital space would repeat the mistakes of ancient industries.” So, as is in keeping with the Green worldview, she sees the disparity in income as a symptom of corruptions within Youtube as a system. She never argued that all YouTubers should have equality of outcome and make the same amount of money. Stop straw manning.

The Feminine Principle is an archetype of femininity that can be found in similar symbols and associations throughout a variety of cultures and eras. Even the word Feminism has a touch of this wisdom. It isn’t called “womanism” because it isn’t all about women. It also has to do with allowing men to connect to their feminine side. Once you experience Divine Feminine, you will understand that each wave of Feminism that has been and currently is is all about leading society into a space where the deep Feminine can become integrated and the reverence for Mother Nature can be once again recognized and honored by humanity. And this is true even as Feminists and anti-Feminists alike are in the process of unfolding it.

Please do.

ACTUALLY, she has an infinite amount of penises... ya dummy.

There are constructions that exist for sure. Gender norms are certainly constructs. And yes, Yin and Yang are two sides to the same coin... each intonation of either energy containing a universe of both Yin and Yang in them. So, if you went into the Yang side of a Yin/Yang symbol, you’d find an entire universe full of Yin and Yang signs as these two energies are never separate. In that more absolute regard, everyone and everything is infinitely Yin and infinitely Yang. But from the human-centric perspective, you have social construct and you have the relative expression of Yin and Yang which are very different from one another. And these are important to parse. Just like how ideas of up/down and big/small are only relevant from the relative human perspective. There is nothing inherently big or small just in the same way that nothing is inherently more Yin or Yang in the absolute sense. But it doesn’t mean that these more human-centric perspectives aren’t important perspectives to look from. If we ignored the observable difference between up and down, as human beings and said “Up and down is just a construct. There is no true up and down.” we run the risk of falling off a cliff. So, even though Yin and Yang in people is infinite on the absolute level. From the relative level, men tend to display more Yang traits and women more Yin traits as their natural set-point. It’s kind of like how the number 2 and 2 million are both equally close to infinitely. From the infinite perspective, these numbers might as well be the same. But on the relative perspective, there are real differences between those numbers.

Have you seen Leo’s new video? I personally have not. But there is nothing in @Leo Gura‘s viewpoints that he’s shared hence-forth that would make me think he shares your view on this.

It’s an observable pattern. Usually, when people are invested in the idea that there are no natural differences between men and women, they are doing so for deep seated personal/emotional reasons. For example, plenty of women (especially in earlier waves of Feminism) would deny any differences between men and women because they associated femininity with repressive gender norms and their own oppression. And this person, understandably may come into resistance to their own femininity and anything associated with it. For example, that person may come into resistance to motherhood because of its association with oppressive gender norms... even if that person would otherwise want children. Or one that was common in my childhood was for little girls to hate the color pink (which is only culturally seen as feminine... and is not inherently feminine). And it never reflected their actual feelings about the color pink itself. There was just a resistance to anything associated with femininity because of femininity’s association with weakness/lameness within the culture. And there are many Shadow-based reasons for a person to come into resistance to recognizing natural differences that generally exist between men and women.

Yes, repression of the opposite energy can and does happen when someone conforms to gender norms. But resistance to gender norms can also do the same thing. True freedom from gender norms can’t be found in conforming to nor rebelling from them... as the reference point for either reaction is the gender norm. So, a conformist says, “What do the gender norms say?” And then they follow them. A rebel says, “What do the gender norms say?” And then they do the opposite to what they say. A person with an accurate and integrated view of polarity says “What do I feel is right in this situation?” And they don’t even consider gender roles. If a person is committed to the notion of gender neutrality, they can repress and avoid awareness of their primary energy out of a sense of resistance to gender roles. And to not notice general differences in gender/sex is a symptom of resistance to gender roles.

This happens to men sometimes. It’s not anything you did or didn’t do. I know those questions can come up when it happens, but it very likely doesn’t have to do with you.

You can’t learn this from courses and books. You have to have direct experience of your signature to know. Once you experience it, you’ll see what’s in you.