Emerald

That depends on you. Some people are less oriented to wanting lots of sexual experiences than others are. You just have to be really honest about what you want. So, ask yourself, "If I settled down with this person for the rest of my life, would I be willing to sacrifice any future sexual relationships with other people?" For you the answer may be yes or no. Either way, be very honest with yourself even if it's uncomfortable.

I've found that it's very difficult to fantasize in the abstract about an ideal man. Like I can't imagine a random attractive, knight in shining armor kind of guy and really have it hit the arousal button. I'm bi-sexual and can fantasize about random attractive women, and that works... though it's very surface level. But it doesn't work toward men the same way. I have to fantasize about a real man that actually exists in life, that I already have an attraction to, to get aroused by a fantasy about him. And the fantasy must be laden in the context that we already exist within. Otherwise, it's very dead and platonic feeling. And porn doesn't work. And erotica doesn't work. It's all too abstract and it doesn't stimulate my heart center in the way I need to actually feel the rising up of the erotic emotions that give way to attraction. The only way to get those feelings through a fantasy is to paint an entire scenario where some kind of intimacy and emotional tension happens. Of course, that's very hard to get through a fantasy. So, it's not an active process and there is never a decision made with the conscious mind as to whether I am attracted to a guy or not. It just blooms at random. So, if I'm walking around a mall, I will register an attractive man my age and a little old woman with the same degree of platonic feeling. It's all so very neutral. I feel like men kind of scan and strategically figure out if a woman is above or below a certain line for them in a very mind-based laundry list kind of way. And I feel like this logical scanning process is going on constantly. But it seems that the more mature a guy gets, the less neurotic this tendency gets and it becomes more subtle. And when a man matures, he integrates his feminine side, which means he can lean into more his intuitions to make relationship decisions like women generally do. That's my impression anyway. You can definitely tell the difference between a head guy and a heart guy, and with the head guy, your intuition will lead you away from him if you've developed your intuition woman. They have an essence about them that's very unappealing, and you can see it in how they talk and how they move. For me (and I wager for most women), there is no rhyme or reason to when an attraction will come about. It's very much like you're in the middle of a still lake, and then suddenly (once every couple years or so for me) something interesting suddenly surfaces to be explored. Now, when I was like 12-15, I would consciously scan and focus toward guys based on looks and style. But once I hit like 16, I was much more picky and not so focused on being in a relationship. By 16 you pretty much discover that there's no scarcity of men in the world... the problem is really to keep them away as most of them are wrong for you and the majority are just lonely or looking for sex. They don't want you in particular. They just want a woman. So, attention from them feels no more special than an acknowledgement of gender. So, at that point when the novelty of male attention wore off and I became more disillusioned with it and wise to the tricks, I started leaning much more into my intuition to decide for me who I'm interested in and being very open-handed about. And I've never had the problem of being luke-warm or finding guys who were luke-warm about me. Yet again, everyone will attract what mirrors them. So, even though I don't have issues attracting luke-warm guys, I have other things that I do attract. So, the intuition isn't always perfect as it also reflects past traumas and problems as well.

Centrists are the ammo that regressive extremists load their guns with. Extremists (by definition) are fairly small in number, and would never get their agendas put in place without the help of uninformed feckless Centrists that they can easily confuse and trick into validating their worldview. And thus, Centrists are always easy to radicalize once they believe that's normal. They are the easiest people in society to weaponize by those with regressive intentions because they have no personal code of ethics beyond appeasing both sides. It's really nothing other than herd mentality dressed up in a respectable diplomats clothing. And this is because Centrists have nothing they fundamentally stand for, other than being in the center of whatever the most socially acceptable viewpoints of the day happen to be. So, all you have to do to trick large swaths of Centrists into greenlighting and supporting harmful agendas is to convince them that one side of the political spectrum believes in it and that it's normal. And you can look at a history book to see how easy it is to convince humanity that barbaric, war-mongering, exploitative, genocidal social patterns are normal. So, he who has control of the Overton Window, has control over the Centrists... which are like 70% of the population. And most of them pat themselves on the back for being so even and fair to everyone. Centrists think themselves in the enlightened position by being 'neutral', and this compounds their lack of real values and their lack of education on political topics. They stand for nothing, and thus fall for anything... because their fundamental agenda deep down is to avoid conflict and be accepted by everyone. But this rather shows a lack of courage and vision. And really just outright laziness. And all regressive radicals have to do is pat them on the head and make them feel accepted and enlightened for them to cozy up to them and see regressive radical viewpoints as more normal. This is why you find so many people on the far right end of the spectrum now-a-days being very strategic in their branding and trying to appear as normal as possible to seem legitimate to the Centrist eye. So, in many regards Centrists are far more dangerous than any other political group, as they hold all the power by shear number. And there is the saying to "Never underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people." They are so easily weaponized. Important Note!!! Just like the term Centrist, the term Extremist is also a relativistic term... just like big and small. You can't say anything is inherently big or small because it's a comparative metric and not an absolute metric. The same way, you can't say any viewpoint is inherently Centrist or inherently Extremist. It all depends on the context and societal structure they exist within. So, Centrism is defined by whatever happens to be the average of the most common viewpoints in a particular society. So, Centrism has no ideology that's solid and universal. Centrism is always shifting with the tides of the society that the Centrism is laden within. So, in a Nazi society, Nazi-ism is Centrism. In a Communist society, Communism is Centrism. In our society, Capitalism and Neo-Liberalism is Centrism. etc. Extremism is also a relativistic term in that it's defined as whatever is on the fringes ideologically. So, it's on the outer edge of what society considers normal. So, in a Nazi society, anti-Nazi-ism is Extremism. In a Communist society, Capitalism is Extremism. In our society, any and all changes to the status quo is Extremism. So, with Centrism and Extremism, neither can (in and of themselves) be a measure of having a good or bad viewpoint. There can be Extremists with ideas that will benefit humanity, and there can be Centrists that have ideas that will harm humanity. So, all views have to be examined on their merits and not how moderate or extreme they're considered in the eyes of society. So, all a commitment to Centrism does is take society's current viewpoints as gospel and poo poos any changes. To be Centrist is to be attached to the status quo and to avoid any critique of unhealthy social structures.

The thing to understand here is that the initial stages of attraction and the deeper aspect of the relationship are very different. But since you're very young you've likely only experienced the former and not the latter. And that's normal. So, when Leo spoke about looks being the most important thing and the personality being the cherry on top, he's talking about relative to the initial attraction phase. Men are attracted primarily by physical signifiers primarily, and are attracted to lots of women. Women are attracted primarily by their feelings of chemistry with the man, which is heavily contingent upon his personality. But if the relationship is to become real and fulfilling, it must evolve past that initial phase. And the concern for looks must (and will naturally) fade gradually into the background the more real it becomes. As far as the deepening of a relationship goes, intimacy is the number one thing. It's about growing the relationship deeper and deeper and holding space for one another. So, if you have a relationship based primarily on looks, all women will eventually lose their good looks. You're 20 now, and you're probably feeling that forever youngness vibe of dating in your early 20s. And you may not be aware of this because you're around a lot of women your age. But for women, looks will always depreciate. For men, they will depreciate too... but a little bit slower. So, if you base a relationship on looks as the primary thing, be prepared for a life of swapping out your girlfriend every five or ten years or so for the younger model just to recapture a relationship with that aesthetic drug of female beauty. And be prepared for the relationships to be shallow and unfulfilling, as a woman's looks will never sustain a relationship. The Coolidge effect will set it and the limerence phase will end. And even if she's the hottest chick on the planet, you will grow used to her and other women will look hotter. Now, you're very young. So, it may be the case that you're not ready yet to move on to the deepening phase of a relationship. You may be more interested in getting new and exciting experiences with many women, which is perfectly valid. Most young men are not ready to really open their hearts until their mid twenties. It's all about the penis before that, and it's just a developmental stage to grow through. And it's important to get it out of your system, as you will likely have a harder time giving up what you've never had when it's time to settle down with someone. So, it's important to really know what it is that you want. If you're focused toward a deeper relationship, you'll go with a woman that you're drawn to in both regards (attraction and compatibility)... and you wouldn't be focusing elsewhere. If you're focused toward excitement and experience with many women, you'll always be looking elsewhere in any case. Now, potentially what happened is that you got into a relationship with someone you weren't attracted to and didn't have chemistry with in the first place. This can be a problem as primal sexual attraction has the function of bonding two lovers together in the initial phase, which is the seed of the relationship that everything grows from. The heat of the initial phase of a relationship certainly has a bonding function, even though it cools down rather quickly by its nature. You have to be able to read your sexual and platonic chemistry with a woman before dating if you want a deep relationship for this reason. You must integrate your feminine side to open your heart and access your intuition which will tell you clearly who you fit with. And be in touch with your animal instincts to know who you have sexual chemistry with. But this is a maturity process. So, don't expect yourself to be older than you are. You're 20, and it's probably healthiest for you to experience a lot of what sexuality has to offer. Do it all now, so that you can see the emptiness in it and lack of fulfillment. And you can easily let it go when you're ready to settle down with a woman in 5 to 10 years. That's my 2 cents.

All cats, big and small, are obligate carnivores. So, that probably really isn't good for the lion to go Vegan. But human beings can. I am Vegan myself. But it's important to give the kitties what they need.

Actually, when I first found Leo's videos... I was like, "Holy Crap! There's another one!" I was shocked to find someone so similar to me. And it was ultimately the fact that Leo was making videos, that made me consider starting my own channel. I had always wanted to share my perspective, and had even fantasized about being a philosopher-type as a teenager, but thought "Nah... I have to be practical." But as time has gone on, I've met a lot of people who are similar to me through my channel. So, I feel less uncanny about my similarities to Leo. But no worries. I definitely am just a person, who is working class going about my working class existence. Kind of socially awkward and kind of nerdy. Leo and I have never met, and I just film stuff out of my bedroom with no affiliation with anyone else but myself. Now, of course, that's exactly what someone in a secret organization would say. But it is true what I'm saying. I'm a one man band.

Even the darkest traits come from innocent roots. So, perhaps you have some aspect of yourself that have been repressed away into the shadow and away from you conscious mind and that aspect uses narcissism to cope with being repressed or various traumas or unmet needs. And perhaps, this is why you're so attracted to women who have these traits. Sex with women that resemble that repressed aspect of yourself if very symbolic of communion and wholeness, so it would make sense for you to be attracted to women like that. But keep in mind that the narcissism is just a coping mechanism that that rejected aspect uses, and not a quality that is inherent to that aspect. So, it's not about integrating narcissism. It's about integrating the aspect of you that has been coping with some trauma or unmet need by being narcissistic. The narcissism is a tool and not an inherent trait. And if you are able to integrate that aspect of yourself and meet its needs, then the narcissism will become an obsolete coping mechanism. And it will naturally fall away. And you will no longer be so into narcissistic women as a result, as there is not need to project your own unmet needs onto them. Another example of this would be if someone has repressed something like greed. And if that person decides to shadow work, they might be perplexed and say "Am I really supposed to integrate greed?" But that's not the point. There is no need to express greed to integrate that shadow. What must be understood is that there's actually an inner aspect of themselves that's using greed as a coping mechanism. Perhaps, as a child, they experienced trauma around not having enough. So, that inner child aspect is still coping with that perceived lack through the vehicle of greed. But the inner child is not inherently greedy. It's a coping mechanism.

You can't get any girl you want. But you can increase your chances of being successful with women in general. But the most amount you'll become successful is 10% of women willing to sleep with you, and 1% that are head over heals for you... though you'll only hurt them if you act like a Playboy toward those in that 1%. I recommend focusing toward the 9% that are attracted to you and willing to sleep with you but not the 1% that are crazy about you... unless you're looking for an actual relationship. Now, this may seem like a bummer that you can never be universally attractive to all women, but that's actually a lot of women. But this reality check is necessary if you want to have a clear idea of the reality of the situation, and not get swept into a fantasy that just exists in movies really.

I just released my first video, if you're interested... A bit blurry because my camera had some issues with it and I had to film on my computer instead. I hope you like it

I'm not sure if this is the right subforum to post this, but I wanted to start a discussion here about Tarot. I think The Tarot is a very helpful tool for looking at things from different angles than we're used to. And this is because it engages the part of our mind that's more visual and narrative as opposed to logical and linear. So, it's kind of like an archetypal language that can be mixed and matched to create new stories that pertain to the experience of being human. I'd be interested in what other people's experiences are relative to interests in or using the Tarot.

Awesome! My email is thediamondnetchannel@gmail.com if you have any questions.

That would be a very unethical way to use Tarot cards... or any spiritual tool/teaching. There are a lot of vulnerable people out there. And there does exist many spiritual teacher (and probably Tarot readers as well) that want power/money/etc. from keeping these people dependent on them. Always be cautious of spiritual teachers/and others who try to tell you that they're your only source of insight. Always remember that wisdom is always internal, even if others can help you retrieve it.

From what I've seen, there are many different philosophies around Tarot reading. For some, it's a tool for divination, and it can be used in the way that you mentioned. But that's not true for me because I don't possess psychic abilities. Instead, I use it as a tool for the querent and I to use while we explore the topics that get lit upon in relation to the cards. So, it's more collaborative like life-coaching. But there are many different ways to look at it. For some, it's a parlor trick. For others, it's fortune telling. For others, it's usuing divination to get clarity. And for others, like myself, it's an archetypal framing device for life's patterns. And I'm sure there are many more perspectives than that.

You're welcome.

I've actually found quite a few people who are interested in the Tarot from a Jungian perspective. It really just depends on how you present it. Also, what helps for me, is that I have a YT channel where I present somewhat "Woo" topics from a perspective that's more palatable to those who identify with rationalism. I'm like a gateway woo...

I reread it again. I apologize. But I don't see it as a cognitive bias. I just mis-read something and I mis-read it multiple times. No need to be passive aggressive.

I have seen that deck but I don't have it. It has some very nice illustrations to it. Normally, when I choose a card, I tend to just imagine that reality is creating a kind of synchronicity through the cards. So, no matter which card is draw, I begin with the assumption that it's relevant. But I do it by feel when I shuffle and cut the deck... and choose the significator card. I get a feel for it. But sometimes it's visual for me too.

So, what you're saying is that Veganism is the "single largest driver responsible for environmental degradation, human health degradation and economic inequality/food insecurity that we see all over the world today." How do you even take yourself seriously? How can a diet that less than 1% of the global population follows be the single largest driver of anything?

Thank you! I'll start releasing videos on it next Sunday.

Absolutely. I think it's very important to read the cards based on an awareness of what all the elements within the card represent as opposed to just the general meaning. And it's these small elements in the card, that can jump out to you and help you find new paths to think through. For example, I was doing a reading for a fellow Tarot enthusiast and he had asked the question of "What are the deeper implications of the Tower card in relation to my life and life in general?" And I had begun the reading kind of scratching my head about how the cards relate back to The Tower. But then, I noticed that the very first card that I drew was the 2 of Wands, which depicts a man at a high vantage point, overlooking the land with a globe in his hand that is yellow and red instead of blue and green. And the typical meaning that I take from this is that he's keeping himself from the world because his worldview is distorted. And he's too attached to his own worldview. And I could only somewhat make this fit with the meaning of The Tower card... which tends to represent the breaking down of systems and the chaos that ensues. But then I realized, that the man in the 2 of wands is standing up on top of a Tower. It's an obvious detail but I had overlooked it at first. So, I could then see that there is a connection in that, when the Tower falls in someone's life, it brings them from illusion and the high and safe place that they're used to look from... all the way down to the ground. And often painfully, as when we are attached to our worldviews and ideas about the world, it is painful to have those illusions and security blankets stripped away from us. It is the meaning of disillusionment. But it also allows us to have a closer experience of life. And it allows us to experience instead of just being intoxicated by the illusion of knowing.

There is always an element of danger when it comes to things of a spiritual nature. And this is specifically the danger of becoming ungrounded. If we are trees, and the mind/spiritual represents our branches and fruit and the mundane/emotional represents our roots... then if we are too focused toward our branches without developing our roots, the three can become uprooted. So, it's very important to have a stable relationship with reality and mundane existence before engaging in anything spiritual. But yes, the I-Ching is very similar in that it's a probabilistic system for mirroring meaning back to us. The same is true of cloud gazing, reading tea leaves, and doing Rorschach tests.

The thing that I think is so powerful about the Tarot is that it engages our connection with the archetypes of the collective unconscious. Each card in the Rider-Waite deck (which is the deck most people learn on), corresponds to a pattern within human life that applies to all people. So, using these images, gives us a more intuitive perspective on these cycles we experience throughout our lives. It's similar to how myths teach us about life in a non-linear and non-rational way that is more engaged with emotions and our story-teller nature. This was always how we learned prior to the discovery of rational, scientific, and linear thinking modes. Now, this is not to knock any of those ways of thinking. But we can be quite neglectful of our primary learning mechanism, which is through visuals and hearing stories. So, the Tarot is like a probabilistic mix and match myth, that you can use as a map and framing device to derive meaning from in a similar way to how people would learn from myths, fables, and fairy tales.

I recommend "The Ultimate Guide to Tarot" by Liz Dean. In the beginning part it talks about all the different systems within the Tarot that will really help your readings. There are suits, numbers, colors, astrological signs, correlation between Major and Minor Arcana cards, etc. Once you know these systems, you can read more intuitively, as opposed to just memorizing the meanings of each card separately (though I do recommend this as well).

I plan to make a video or two on my channel. But I also just opened up a second channel specifically for exploring into the Tarot. Here is the link if you'd like to subscribe... https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ9MsKTslg8bSAktOz-tZfg I don't have any content on it yet, but I'll start releasing videos on my original channel and my Tarot channel later on this week.

Great points. I always think it's important to approach everything with an open mind, but also an open hand. I know that a lot of people can use something like the Tarot to get attached to it as a tool or attached to its outcomes. I think, using it as a guide, and taking it with a grain of salt is the wisest thing to do. It's more effective that way anyway, because your mind will be able to let go more and you'll be able to shift more into that intuitive space.