Emerald

Like I said (in almost all the other posts in this thread), it will work on a sizable minority of women. So, I understand why guys do it, because it increases their chances. So, continue to do it, if it works for you. My issue is with Leo saying that his blunt approach style is rare and that it will make the woman's day even if she says no, when it is not rare and will be mostly be regarded as an annoyance to move past for the majority of women. The majority of women don't really care for cold approach when they're just going about their day, which is important to be aware of or you're going to step on a lot of toes. So, my issue is not with cold approach itself. My issue is with the misrepresentation of what women generally appreciate and experience relative to cold approach, which adds on to the tons of sexual misinformation about women that already exists. And it's going to make a bunch of young guys reading his post think that it will be appreciated by women if he is super straightforward, when it is not. Bluntness like that, makes a guy look like a used dick salesman, and I know this from first-hand experience. So, he's giving terrible advice that's going to make anyone who listens to him look like an ass even if they're really not one. Basically, doing that will trigger a woman's spidey senses. The more subtle you can be about a cold approach, then better. The trick is to make a cold approach feel like a warm approach as much as possible.

Certainly. When I was 11 and 12, my impression of male attention was that it was scarce. So, I was always really excited if I was shown any affirmative male attention, because I thought it meant something about me. Like, "Wow! He really likes me!" But once I got to be about 15 or so, I realized that male attention is not scarce at all and that their interest in me doesn't have anything to do with me as an individual the VAST majority of times. So, I just installed a mental spam filter over the vast majority of male attention. And all cold approaches from strangers automatically go into my spam folder. So, it is a filter of belief... but it's a useful one for avoiding pick-up artists and players and those who are lukewarm.

I think it comes down to going through the motions of being approached and there being a conditioned response of "Ah. This again." So, it's kind of like, most women (at least in America) are used to being approached all the time. So, there is no sense of scarcity relative to male attention, and there have been many experiences with lukewarm guys who are just players. And then, at 16 or 17, realizing that giving a guy like that a try is not really worth the time. And just trying to get through the day. Now, if I were at a club or bar, I'd probably be more responsive to cold approach because of the nature of that setting. But if a guy just randomly tries to chat me up on the street or at the grocery store, it's just a bit annoying and my natural response is to just get on with my day and move on without hurting the guy's feelings... which is uncomfortable as well. So, I don't think it's possible at this point, knowing what I know and having experienced what I've experienced, to really buy into a pick-up attempt. It's kind of like how you know someone is trying to sell you something, and the main focus becomes finding a way to end the conversation. But as for your other question... Personally, it always takes a while for a real attraction to set in. In the initial few minutes, I'll know if I find him physically attractive or not. But a physically attractive guy will become repulsive and ugly if his character is poor. While some other average looking guy, who maybe didn't catch my eye initially will grow on me over the course of days or weeks. So, the initial few minutes is not enough to give a good indicator of attraction as the attraction needs to simmer for a while to really reveal the chemistry or lack-there-of.

I would say that I am an average woman in the way that I respond to being approached on the street. Most women that I know don't really respond to cold approach, and find it to generally be a nuisance. This makes sense from a biological level, because warm approach is often a lot safer and they're able to better screen their potential partners for indicators of stability, which is important for a bond that may lead to children in the future. That said, a sizable minority of women are open to it, even if many of them still find it annoying most of the time. So, a guy who does pick-up will be able to eventually find someone to say yes. And this is why I understand that men do it. Warm approach makes it harder for a man to find a partner, so I understand why it is not prefered. But what bothers me is the idea that most women like this and are responsive to cold approach when most of them are not. Most women are just annoyed by it regardless of who does it and how it's done. This is why I said that cold approach is mostly "meh" for women, especially if it's very blunt and straightforward like Leo suggested. The more subtle a man can be with his cold approach and making it feel more like warm approach, the better the experience will be for the woman. So, even if there's more success with women to be had for a man using cold approach, this doesn't mean that it's women's preference or that it suits women's needs and desires. It's just that some are willing to make due with cold approach, and men doing cold approach will eventually find them.

My issue is not that men approach. I don't really have an issue with men using cold approach. As I said, I see why it's popular for men to use that method because it helps them cast the net wider and be more likely to get a yes. But, I'm generally unresponsive to them because they are a lot like pop-up ads. That said, I understand that pop-up ads exist because they do work sometimes on some people. Also, you're talking to a bisexual woman about how I should be glad that I don't have to approach. Try approaching someone when there's a 90+% chance that they don't even have the "right" sexual orientation, and do it in a very conservative area. So, I empathize with men in this way. So, my issue is with you saying that it's rare, when it is not rare at all for a guy to approach with that line and level of straightforwardness. And to say that it would be flattering for most women and would "make their day" even if they say no, when this is misleading on both fronts. It's actually very common, and is mostly a nuisance to most women most of the time. I have been female for my entire life and I've also been approached by men I know and strangers probably over 500 times. This even feels like a modest estimate. So, none of this is being approached theoretically, but comes from about 16 years of being on the receiving end of both warm and cold approaches. And I'm telling you that your advice in this situation sucks. And a lot of young and inexperienced guys are going to listen to you and fail. So, I know that attraction isn't a logical choice. But it is never instant. It takes a while to coalesce. I've never had an instantaneous attraction to a guy... it normally floats up to the surface after a few days of having known him. I'm sure a lot of women are more open to cold approaches, but I think your method is ham-fisted and will make you seem very common, especially if you think that women are really flattered when you're that straightforward because of the "rarity" of it. I know I would just think you were a buster.

Nah. It would be a little off-brand for my channel. But I do think cold approach makes sense from a male perspective. It just is kind of meh from a female perspective. So, my main issue is that men don't really know how it's perceived from the receiving end. So, some inexperienced guy could hear what Leo said, and assume that that approach is rare and generally appreciated, when it's usually neither.

Yeah. Most of the time, if I'm approached I smile and say thank you to be polite and keep the situation friendly. So, I can see why Leo thought that it would really make a woman's day to hear that. But it's almost like running a script like you would at the mall with the kiosk sales-people who are offering free samples and stuff like that.

I don't know if that's the best analogy. A push into cold water would at least be shocking. But my main point is that it's too common of a method to use to stand out. Paradoxically, subtlety makes you stand out a lot more because most guys who approach are really straightforward.

But Leo was recommending to go up and do cold approaches in that way. To which, I logically assumed the idea was to do that with many women until you get a number or an affirmative answer of some kind. So, from a woman's perspective, it will always feel like scrounging if a guy is that straightforward because you can tell it's a canned pick-up line. So, this is why it kills the meaning and excitement for me, because I know that he's probably just trying to get whatever he can get and approaching many women. Thus, being approached by a man who starts with "You're attractive, so I wanted to talk to you." is just a really dime-a-dozen kind of approach, because that approach is basic af and leaves nothing to the imagination. So, it's just pretty obvious when a guy does a cold approach, especially if he comes right in with a compliment, that he probably does that with multiple women. So, I don't really see any way around that factor. I would literally have to unlearn all of my past experiences with guys who do that and the wisdom of knowing they are probably lukewarm about their feelings for me individually, to be remotely receptive to a guy who does that. But it's not that this is playing out in my head. It's just played out in my life at least 100 times with myself being on the receiving end. So, I'm just saying that it might be effective by the sheer numbers involved... but it's still very basic and boring for most women. And every third approach a woman gets involves a direct statement of "I find you attractive".

This is not a rare thing for men that approach women to do. In my experience, it's a relatively common method of approach. It's a close second to simply engaging in conversation, and not by a very wide margin. And in truth, if a guy is that straightforward like that, it's a bit boring for my personal taste because the meaning behind the action is what I get a kick out of. And if a guy approaches me in that manner, it shows me that he almost certainly does that with every other woman he sees. So, it loses any meaning because it feels like he's trying to pick the low hanging fruit with me. And since the meaning is the aphrodisiac, it doesn't make me feel anything endearing toward him. And if I were to get to know him personally, it also destroys any tension of wondering how he feels which isn't 100% necessary but it still creates less of a magnetism and wonder about him as he already started at 11. So, it probably doesn't flatter as many women as you think it does, unless they're a bit sheltered and really not used to being approached, as this is dime-a-dozen territory. Most women, learn before they're even adults that being complimented by random guys means literally nothing about them as an individual. So, when a guy says, "You are attractive." a woman hears, "Hey. You have a vagina. Would you care for a penis?" Now, I understand that cold approach is the easiest way to meet potential partners for men because it allows them to cast the net wide and you'll eventually get a yes. So, I understand why cold-approach is popular with men... but to women 99% of the time it's like being approached by a kiosk vender that wants to sell you something. So, most women find cold approaches to be more of a nuisance and don't really take them seriously unless they're in a singles setting like a club or bar. Do them anyway if it works for you, but don't think you're breaking any molds.

There is a common email fraud scheme where a guy claims to be a rich Nigerian prince. And he says that he wants you to have his fortune in exchange for giving up your personal information, or something of that nature.

@Shir Since you haven't been in relationships, it may not be clear. But this guy's behavior is not normal, and it makes me suspect a manipulative agenda that extends beyond just wanting a relationship. Normally, a guy won't fixate in this way until he really knows a woman and really likes her. But if he hasn't even seen your picture, and his reaction is this strong, I seriously suspect that something is fishy with him like foul play and catfishing, or that he's got some issues himself. So, I agree with your therapist that you need to tell him a solid "no." This may feel strange if you're not hit on regularly, because you're not used to it. But with a persistent guy it's very important to learn how to just say, "No. I'm sorry. I'm not interested." and if necessary, "...and if you keep pushing the issue then I'm just going to block you."

A lot of it has to do with packaging, marketing, branding, and communication style. And then you should also know your way around some basic SEO. So, getting exposure on YouTube often has to do with things that are purely practical and not in relation to the actual spiritual content you're putting out. Luckily, there are a ton of videos to help you learn these things. So, the quality of the content should be high. But even if a person has high quality content, if their packaging/marketing/branding/communication style isn't there, then a lot of people will just go elsewhere. And this is because, on a subconscious level, people will take a YouTuber less seriously if they don't have a consistent thumbnail style, high quality video imaging, and good editing. Also, for SEO, on the initial front, be sure to tag, title, describe, and talk using words and phrases that people will likely type into Google search and YouTube search. It will be nearly impossible to be found as a small channel to do otherwise, as it's hard for YouTube to recommend your video to anyone, it won't know where to rank you, and you won't have an established subscriber base to boost your viewcount and watchtime upon initial release. But there is also a huge luck factor as well. All the biggest channel growth moments for me, have come out of nowhere and in big spurts. Like I recently just jumped from getting about 20 subs per day to getting about 50 subs per day. But if you have any questions, feel free to ask.

I think that any time a spiritual teacher says anything, it can lead to negative consequences for a lot of people. So, even though Leo says a whole bunch of times to not just blindly believe what he says, the mind almost does this unconsciously. And then, if a person is unaware of this, they'll be stuck in that trap until they do become aware. But this is part of the path. And now that you realize this, you can throw away all the beliefs and move forward. There is a story called "The Parable of the Raft", and the main idea is that you need a raft to cross the river, but once you've crossed the river, the raft becomes a hinderance. So, if anyone gets attached to any particular spiritual ideas or teachings, this can be like holding onto the raft even though you don't need it. So, right now, the trick is to explore anxieties about letting go of beliefs that were unconsciously picked up from Leo's content. And to change those ideas from beliefs to tools that can be either picked up or set down. But this is not really an issue with Leo in particular, even if he does tend toward an intellectual approach and may create more of this belief-effect for that reason. You would have eventually come to the same conclusion about any teachings that you've learned. And this is good. It shows progress, even if it feels like going backwards and losing things.

Just remove all limiting beliefs and approach this potential relationship with a beginner's mind. Relationships are just a part of life, and you need not resist them. Resistance itself creates unconsciousness. Let everything go, and just enjoy your life and the experiences. Don't suppress anything, as you know nothing.

When it comes to making a choice between the same-old corruption with empty promises of progress and the same-old corruption plus Fascism and a moral leader that waters the seeds of hate, it is unfortunately wisest in that situation to choose the same-old corruption with empty promises of progress. Because, even if those promises are empty on the part of the establishment, they are still having a positive influence on the populace. So, in this case, you want to stick to the demons that you know... especially when Bolsonaro is so vile. And this is true even if you are sick and tired of the same-old-same-old coming from the establishment. Electing a Fascist will only give you more of the same corruption and much much worse, to the point where things may never go back to as good as it was before.

Which vitamins can you not get from plants/tubers/nuts/seeds that you can get from fish? I'm pretty well-versed on nutrition, and the only thing you can't get from plants is B-12. But the only reason why is because B-12 comes from dirt and human beings eat a diet that's free from dirt because we wash our fruits and veggies extensively in modern day. And all animals only get their B-12 from the dirt as well. So, this is why we get B-12 when we eat them. Other than that, you can get every essential vitamin, minerals, or amino acid from plants.

You're not really understanding what a Zen devil is and why people are telling you that you're being one. I do personally believe that it doesn't make sense to eat meat because it causes needless suffering to sentient beings. And I do believe that animals suffer unlike you who doesn't believe that animals suffer. But you state your belief in the idea "killing animals instantly for food = no suffering" as though it's a fact... when it's really just an assumption based in no evidence what-so-ever. But eating meat isn't Zen devilry in and of itself. Zen devilry is the use of mental gymnastics relative to canned insights about non-duality to justify all behavior that falls into the realm of self-interest regardless of consequence to others. So, I do think Eckhart Tolle is contributing to suffering when he eats meat. But I don't think he's being a Zen devil, and using a canned mind-based understanding of non-duality to justify eating meat for his own self-interest like you are. So, I would consider Eckhart Tolle's meat consumption to be a problem that he would be wisest to refrain from. But he's probably not jumping through hoops in his own mind to make himself unconscious so that he can prop up an identity of "righteousness" while actively doing things that needlessly encroach upon others' lives. That's the difference between simply doing actions that cause suffering and Zen devilry. So, they're both problems on the relative level, but they have different causes. In order to avoid being a Zen devil, don't use absolute truths invalidate relative truths. This will make you very unconscious indeed.

No. You are a devil for using the truth of non-duality to justify a behavior that contributes to pain and suffering. Zen devils use the truth of no-self to play mental gymnastics with those truths to justify harmful behavior like rape, murder, stealing, manipulation, etc. And they would use an idea like, "Cows don't have an ego, therefore they don't suffer when we kill them. Therefore, it's okay if I kill a cow." Not only are they assuming a lot of things about how cows experience things, they are also using canned insights relative to non-duality to justify something that they themselves find morally quesitonable... And if they didn't find it morally questionable, then they wouldn't bother with the rationalization. This is the entire game of Zen devilry is to use non-dual truths to justify any and all behaviors that they want to do without regard to who it harms. So, it's really about using certain insights to rationalize self-interest over the interests of others or the common good in general. So, Eckhart Tolle and Nasgardatta are probably not doing this, even if they do eat meat. So, they are not Zen devils.

You have to think more systemically than this and go from the root of the problem to solve it, instead of the surface area where the problem starts effecting you personally. The reason why there are so many refugees in your country isn't actually because of policies within your country being naive and allowing in too many refugees. That's not the root of the problem. The reason why there are so many refugees in your country is because they are fleeing a war zone. And that war was caused by corruption in politics. So, aiming for peace between "left" and "right" is a really localized and topical way to attempt to solve those types of issues. In fact, quelling conflicts between people in different political parties is a bad thing, because conflict raises awareness and pushes us forward. I know that I won't kowtow and compromise on a lot of things as I feel just that passionately about them, and a lot of people feel that way. And the conflict between those people is the discomfort that keeps us aware and allows us to grow. And when there is not awareness, that's the fertile ground for corruption to blossom, which is really what you want to be focusing on. But if you really want to nip that specific problem in the bud and strike at the roots of the problem, you need to ruthlessly care about Muslims and why they're coming to your country in the first place, instead of just caring about peace in partisan factions and maintaining your personal comfort zone. Right now, you only seem to care about maintaining the norm in Germany and getting rid of conflict and disagreement between people in your own country... and mostly for your own comfort and fears of "What if". But make no mistake, Germany is not the country that's actually in deep trouble. The country that is in deep trouble is Syria, and that's why they're there. So, regarding Spiral Dynamics, you should be a lot more Yellow about this topic. Strike at the roots, not at the branches. Cure the illness, not the symptoms of the illness.

The reason why I think this is because of the fact that you made this thread in the first place, and seem to be very adamant about defending your decision to eat meat... even against people who didn't directly tell you that you shouldn't. So, this indicates to me that there is perhaps a guilt about eating meat, because you're trying really hard to defend it even against people who aren't directly challenging you on it. So, you seem to be projecting some guilt and then trying to absolve yourself of that guilt.

How did this confirmation happen? Did you watch images of animals suffering with an open heart, and truly feel okay with it? Or did you begin and end in the mind, while using certain rational defenses for why eating meat is morally defensible because of a desire to protect your self-image as a "righteous person" from your own personal judgements? And then did you work backward from the idea "I'm a righteous person", and then find a way to continue identifying as a "righteous person" by using mental gymnastics to find ways to justify meat-eating on a public forum where you can convince others (and thus yourself) that meat-eating is a defensible action and that you are still a "good and righteous" person? My guess is the latter. So, my question is... Why does eating meat make you feel so guilty?

I think astrology is really interesting. It's a lot of fun. Birthday: 4/26/1989 Sun Sign - Taurus (leader of the Earth house) Moon Sign - Capricorn (Earth sign) Ascendent - Virgo (Earth sign) Also, in the Chinese Zodiac, I am year of the Snake which is an Earth sign because of the snake's close proximity to the Earth. And I am specifically an Earth snake as each twelve years the signs change from one element to another. So, my husband is also year of the snake, but he is 12 years older than I am. So, he is a fire snake. But there are also water snakes, metal snakes, and one other type that escapes me. Also, the vast majority of my extended chart which has about 20 or so constellations to it, consists of Earth signs. And all the chart that doesn't directly relate back to the element of Earth are water signs with just two Air signs thrown in there and no Fire signs. If you want to check your extended chart, here is a link to a great website for it that one of my subscribers shared with me - https://astro-charts.com

So, you're believing in what Nisargadatta says just because he's an enlightened master? Why does he know better than you what's right for you?

Seek first to understand why it is that you want that and accept the reasons why. Then, once you see your motivations at a deeper level, you'll be able to see if it's something that you should or shouldn't pursue. But brutal honesty is needed as your motivations may not be as straightforward as they seem at face value. Meaning, that it may not simply be a desire for sexual adventures, it may take root in something deeper... or it may not. It may literally just be a desire for sex. If you feel like you want to do it because you feel like you need validation, then be honest with yourself about that and realize that there is a reason why you crave validation that can never be solved on that level. And then, you'll need to explore that need for validation. Or it could be some other motivation as well.