Emerald

... Or perhaps the main impetus of life is not just to pass on the genes. I think this idea gets in the way and muddies the waters quite a lot. You can find a much deeper driving force at work. Think about it... there are gay people, women live for 30 or 40 years after they're able to have children, prior to the invention of Viagra men past a certain age were unlikely to have children as well, there are people who are sterile, etc. There's so much that goes against centering child creation at the center of human life and motivation. Certainly, it's a motivating factor... but it's not THE motivating factor like a lot of people think. So, I feel like you've trapped yourself in an idea of Social Darwinism and measure your own worth based upon that. you feel like you're failing at the main purpose of your life... which is sex... which then invalidates your own existence based on Social Darwinism... which is likely the root of your low self-esteem. It probably also has the underlying effect of believing that gay people, women past child-rearing age, and sterile people are inherently less important and valid than men who are successful with women and attractive women of child-bearing age. And that they're failing at the impetus of life by their very natures as well. And you and them are invalid in the story of significance on this planet. This is a mindset you have... is it not? Is it the whip you whip yourself with, which also whips others?

Well, I disagree on the teaching blue values for the reasons that @Serotoninluv mentioned. But I also don't think that Jordan Peterson is a healthy expression of Blue. He demonizes forward movement and is very resistant to the feminine principle, which is what society desperately needs to integrate if we're going to make the transition to sustainable and harmonious living before the Earth becomes too far gone to save. He is also very erratic in his mannerisms and gets upset easily. He comes off to people who value intellectualism as an intellectual. But he is really a demagogue in intellectual's clothing. He doesn't really care about the free exchange of ideas. His ideas are set, and he says everything that he can to cunningly make them more palatable to the mainstream. So, he functions as a Trojan horse of human regression... which will be disastrous if it takes too much more of a foothold in society.

@kieranperez What I would do is get a 9 to 5 that gives you more hours for now, and save up enough money to move out of "my" dad's place. Get a roommate or two or three so that's an easier transition and "I" have people to split bills with. And it can be a really crappy place, because "I" know it's just a transition. "I" don't want to get comfortable in the room mate situation either. Then, as "I" work "my" 9 to 5 and am in that transition phase between living with "my" dad and living with "my" roommates, I'd already get to work on creating "my" business and strategizing the actionable steps to make that business a reality. Then I'd set up all the necessary components, and set some strict deadlines for getting things done. Also, I'd use my dislike of my 9 to 5 to motivate me in my business endeavors. For example, in my business, I'm going to create a course for people to use to strengthen their persona and ego consciously to be able to function better in life and create a more stable and resilient way of being. So, I have a set start date of November 1st to begin work on that. Then, I plan to have it all completed by March 1st. So, I know that I have a set time to get it done within, and that I need to find time in my schedule to achieve that within the four months I've allotted myself. And changing locations to work on writing it is something that I plan to do to keep me motivated with it. So, I plan to go to a local cafe a couple times per week to do the work of writing the lessons out in the course, which will help me stay focused because I know that I've gone there specifically for that purpose. Do you have any places you can go that are not home to work on your business? Also, do you know what the steps are that you need to take to make your business actionable? Also, what's the nature of your business... do you plan on selling products, writing books, providing some service, etc.?

I'm more attracted to the latter than the former... as long as they are also warmhearted. A man who is logical and introverted and cold is very unattractive. But a man who is reserved and intellectual can be very sexy if he also has a playful and easygoing side.

For me, I am Vegan because I don't want to participate in harming animals when I don't have to do so to survive. It doesn't make sense for me to continue consuming animal products for the enjoyment I get from consuming them if I can get all my nutritional needs met through a Vegan diet. Also, I can barely watch videos of slaughterhouses without it haunting me for days... so I take that as a pretty good indicator that I should not be participating or subsidizing those practices. So, a lot of it comes from listening to the wisdom that my emotions have to offer. As far as the health benefits, I don't necessarily think that animal products are bad for you in moderation. They might be. But I'm honestly not sure. There's so many conflicting dietary dogmas. But I know that I feel better eating a Vegan diet, but I don't know if it's because it's Vegan or because many of the junk foods that I like to eat have dairy and eggs in them... and now I can't eat them unless I splurge and get the Vegan version of it, which is rare. Edit: Also, I think the global warming and wasting resources arguments are valid and important to look at for people trying to create major social change. I anticipate that with the invention of lab-grown meat, animal agriculture will begin being an obsolete practice. But until then, I think Veganism is the best way to go.

I didn't think Leo was. I haven't watched too many of his videos lately, has he switched to Vegan?

But here's the thing. I was attracted to that when I was 22 to 25. But now I don't care about it again, and I'm 29. I phased out of wanting that social status because I found something more in congruence with my natural tendencies. I don't work at a white collar job anymore, I work for myself as a life-coach and I substitute teacher (I guess that one is kind of white collar). I also don't care about living a respectable life-style in accordance with the middle class aegis. Right now, I just want authenticity, stability, consciousness, and an easy-going life. And again, my idea of an attractive man has changed again to men with a "Rupert Spira-like" type of demeanor and a kind of mature and subtle masculinity. So, again, this is not hypergamy... at least not as the theories on hypergamy go. It's more that for women, context matters. And they will look for men who are shining examples of what they value that are also congruent with them in terms of attractiveness.

I guess so. But I think that vulnerability and intimacy of her sharing her feelings with the man and the man being there to support her is more what the attraction is about, and not the crying itself. The only man I ever met who spoke about enjoying that sexually was a friend of mine from college. He was turned on by the idea of being the white knight to a woman in distress. And I guess this wouldn't be an uncommon desire. It's just that the crying=erection thing doesn't sound like something most men would say is a turn-on in and off itself. I agree that there's a lot of men who don't really know how to get in touch with their masculinity in a healthy way. There aren't good examples or supports for doing that. Most of it is taken from the garbage cans of history and cobbled together to create some semblance of the masculine. But looking to history or groups for the masculine in the current day, is not realistic. It has to be sought out internally, as these energies are immutable. Then, if you gravitate toward certain things, your natural energy will come to the table. You're not going to have a society completely free of women who use men for money, ever. There will always be gold-diggers. But I never really looked to money as an indicator of attraction until I was trying to gain social status myself through conforming to social expectations and being a young adult with a white collar career. I really banked my identity on making it into the middle class. Then, I began to find signifiers of maturity and being middle class to upper middle class to be physically attractive. And I would have fantasies about sexual interactions with older men who were in higher positions in my field. So, I would be attracted to a male boss because he represented something that I wanted. It wasn't that he made more money than me. I was just attracted to the projection onto him and sort of seeing him as what I wanted to be like. Currently, this was never the case prior to valuing social status in myself. When I was a teenager, I liked poor tough guys who had long hair, who smoked pot, wore a lot of black, and did edgy things. Because I identified myself with those things. They were things that I liked. So, I liked those guys because they were an embodiment of the things that I was into. So, I sought these things out of a sense of congruence and/or admiration for what the guy was into because I was into those things. It wasn't really about wealth or status... but about the guy leading a lifestyle that I resonated with and would like to join him in. It's just that a lot of women would like to have a lifestyle that includes a nice home and middle class things and all that bourgeois stuff. So, they will be attracted to men who live that lifestyle. So, I think the idea of hypergamy has a little bit to do with reality, but is ultimately a distortion of female nature. Unless a woman is a gold-digger, she's not going to be interested in a guy based on money. She may be subconsciously attracted to wealthy guys if she's trying to fit the persona of someone who would look right with a guy like that. As a highly motivated woman, I have to disagree with this because it is incongruent with my experience of my internal world. I can see in myself that I've always had a strong creative drive and very passion focused life. I enjoy competition for self-betterment, setting/reaching goals, ideation, and serving people in the best ways I know how. So, if it were on the basis of a man's drive to provide for his family, then I wouldn't get so jazzed up about these things. It wouldn't even come up as a desire for me. Plus, women lose the ability to reproduce in middle-age, and yet their behaviors in these ways remain the same. There is still motivation in lieu of the potential for creating and raising a new child. Also, on another note, many of the most powerful men have inherited their power from their fathers. So, a lot of powerful people have just been born into it. So, I believe in more of a sexual transmutation perspective on this matter. Libidinal energy can express as sexual energy if it's kept low. But if someone exalts the libidinal energy it can be used to produce and provide services for humanity... or even to transcend the ego. So, I think that the people who accrue the most power will always be the people with the form of libidinal energy that has been exalted to the level of societal success. This is presently easier for a man to achieve because there is no strong taboo in the most influential social circles of a man taking ownership of his own libidinal energy, where women have to walk a bit of a tightrope if they want to own their libidinal energy and maintain their social status within the most influential circles. But if a person doesn't care as much about social status, they will be able to be more creative without the max level of influence. And we're seeing more of this kind of thing come through with the open nature of the internet.

The best thing to do is to take a broader and non-ideological stance on the issue. Be ready to be a heretic on either of the two main sides in your mind as you contemplate and observe. Then, just say what you've noticed and deliver it in a way that is optimally palatable to everyone's ego. If you come directly at their ego, they will recoil and hide and guard themselves from it. So, instead of coming directly at the issues, you come from the peripheries of the issue and the scaffolding up underneath the issue that holds it up. And level with people when they're correct, even if it seems to go against the "right ideology." For example, people on the right are not correct that the power system issues don't exist. And they're wrong that the power system issues are static and natural and the "glue" that keeps societies together. But they are correct that there is a thing such as masculinity and femininity. And they are correct that biology plays a role in a lot of different things. They just use those truths to solidify and otherwise incorrect worldview that leads to a lot of distortions and unconsciousness because the power systems can't evolve when so many people resist against it. Also, keep in mind that the left's Green ideology is still an incomplete picture, even though it is highly akin to the next step in societal evolution. Detaching from all progressive beliefs and honestly contemplating uncomfortable questions will give you many insights. Be willing to see yourself in a negative light. This may be even easier to do if you don't have too many demographic factors that make these questions even more uncomfortable. But it may be harder in the sense that it's easy to get power-drunk, lazy, or too comfortable just a couple layers down. A lot of men tend to end up in this trap. They start digging on this issue, and find some validating things and get stuck where the nice stories of male dominance and female submission are... in other words it brings sexual pleasure and a sense of empowerment that they may not feel otherwise. So, they don't want to dig any deeper for fear of losing the excitement of that shallow depth. But I don't have to risk getting comfortable because I'm a woman. And I just keep digging to see what's there. So, I have to ask questions like, "Why were women under the control of men across cultures for so long?" "Was that natural or was it a mistake?" "Why have things changed now?" "Are these changes a mistake?" "What function did the oppression of women serve that it no longer needs to serve?" "Is my life wrong because I am an autonomous woman who shares their ideas and does what I want?" "Is my freedom from oppression wrong?" and other such questions like this. These are very troubling and dark questions to ask for me. But when you can go down into the mucky nastiness of the issue, the pieces start to click into place, and you will be able to see more why society has evolved in the way that it has evolved. And you'll be able to see where society is likely going next. So, the number one thing is to dig deeper on the issues and look at them without distortion or wanting particular outcomes in society.

Okay, first off why would men get erections when their girlfriends are crying? I don't think this is something that men typically get turned on by. It sounds more like a fetish to me. Maybe men might get an erection when their girlfriend is in a receptive or submissive pose... this feels very normal. Or perhaps to take that dynamic further into a BDSM kind of extreme dominance/submission situation... also feels normal, but a kinkier brand of normal. But crying = erection, I don't think is a common thing. So, I definitely don't think that's an aspect of male nature... or not that I've noticed anyway. Also, women don't only marry equal or up. There may be a tendency of women to do this in general in terms of wanting a guy who has a good job. But my husband and I have equally low-paying jobs, even though he makes a bit more than me as he is a server at a nice restaurant and I'm a substitute teacher. But he got that job after we got together. What I've noticed in myself and my friends is that women usually seek out men who mirror them in terms of values or identity. Or they want a guy who is equal or slightly lesser in physical attractiveness so that they can be the peacock of the relationship. But women like men as a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. There is no particular ingredient that will make a man attractive to any given women. It's how all the ingredients come together, and the particular taste of the woman. So, I don't think your ideas about this dynamic actually show a lot of truth about how nature and nurture actually come together. It just feels like you're reading a bunch of Red Pill kind of stuff, which doesn't accurately reflect the core of masculinity... and especially doesn't reflect the core of femininity. But again, I'm not really seeing how your ideas about hormones and gender go together with most of the ideas that I've been talking about. Do you believe that society has one set "natural" way to go, and that this is the way that our society has been? And now all these "unnatural" movements like the body positivity movement are coming around and trying to change nature? If so, then you neglect to see the variety in social structures all throughout human history. Expression of masculinity and femininity all comes trough a cultural lens to have form. So, the expressions of the masculine and feminine are varied and always in flux. But the energies themselves are subtle, and remain unchanged. But because they are subtle energies, they have no expression on their own. So, they need cultural lenses to express themselves through. So, humanity has many different "naturals". Also, the body positivity movement doesn't have anything to do with erections. It has to do with people's ability to accept their own bodies for what they are and to feel good about themselves regardless of what they look like. It doesn't mean trying to convince other people that all body types are sexually attractive. It has to do with all body types being valid.

Thank you! I'm glad that it gave you something to think about.

Are you saying that you agree with the bias of the family court's system against men and for women, because women have the better hormones for nurturing children? If so, I disagree. Otherwise, I don't really see how hormones can even really relate to what I had said. I talked mostly about social patterns and power structures. I didn't say that men and women have the same hormones or that masculinity and femininity aren't real. This honestly feels a bit like a canned argument that doesn't really match my argument... but some other hypothetical argument that might come from a Green perspective.

Unfortunately, I've seen this type of situation happen quite a few times. So, there is definitely a bias against men in the family court system. And it all comes from the dynamic that I had mentioned before. I went more in detail with it in another reply that I had just made, so check that one out. But it all comes down to the rigidity of our social ideas about gender. So, society sees fathers as the expendable parent. My friend John got full custody of his daughter a few years back and it was a real struggle. The mother of the kids was alway really unstable and didn't have her priorities right. And when his daughter would stay over there, she would always come back unbathed and with messy hair. And John and his current wife (who is awesome) were always worried about her being exposed to negative things. So, I was really glad when he got custody... but it was a real struggle. She (the bio mother of John's daughter) and John had even gotten pregnant once at the very end of high school. It was really quite sad because John was really looking forward to being a dad and had his hopes up for a family when he had just lost both of his parents a couple years earlier to health problems. But she decided to get an abortion, and she was very flippant about it even making jokes and things like that in front of John about it. So, she just ignored his feelings and was always really immature and uncaring. So, it was just really upsetting to see him go through that. Then they got pregnant with his daughter several years later, and I was afraid he'd get hurt again. But John always looked up to his father and was always family oriented. He even took care of his younger brother once he turned 18. His brother was only a couple years younger than him, but he always watched out for him. So, it's hard to see a very good father and a very inadequate mother go to court for the kids because the courts tend to side with the mom.

With regard to anything related to the relational aspects of life, men's emotions are often overlooked because there is an expectation of lack of emotion. So, men often get the crappier end of the deal in family courts. So, this does relate back to what I said generally. It's one of the fruits that grows off of that tree. Power and success is often expected of men and the opposite of women. So, continuation of alimony to female spouses is an outgrowth of that societal expectation. This likely came about in a time where women didn't work outside of the house and needed it. But now it's not necessary because women can work too. Perhaps making it to where the spouse that makes more money has to chip in their support for the spouse that doesn't make as much makes a lot more sense. It is also thought that emotions and nurturing are in the domain of the feminine, to which there is an assumption that children need to be with their mother most of all and that the father is the expendable parent. It is also assumed that the man won't care that much because care-taking is feminine and unmanly. So, all of this relates back to the domain that I was speaking about. And this isn't talked about much because society sees the masculine principle as desirable and the feminine principle as undesirable. So, society reads more injustice into women's barriers to their masculine principled potential in relation to men's barriers to their feminine principled potential. The latter is assumed in such a way, "Why would men even care about their barrier to the feminine?" In other words, we care more about careers, money, status, achievement than relationships, raising children, emotions, and care-taking. So, to be kept from he former feels more unjust to our society than the latter. There is also an assumption of strength in men and weakness in women. So, it makes the feelings of injustice toward women seem extra terrible and injustices toward men to seem whatever because men are strong and can handle it. It's kind of like if someone punches an action hero... we don't feel bad for him because we know he's strong. But if someone punches a puppy, everyone goes "Awww!" The former is what we expect of men. The latter is what we expect of women. So, it's really the combination of the two assumptions "Masculinity is better than femininity." and "Men are strong and women are weak." That lead to society having more compassion toward women's barriers to the traditionally masculine versus men's barriers to the traditionally feminine. This is true, even if the statements made are very anti-feminine and anti-woman. It still effect men negatively in some pretty harsh ways.

That's an interesting question. From the perspective of power dynamics, the answer is no. Straight white men do hold the most potential for power in society, and they are seen as default. So, because of the way people understand the world, straight white men are in the most optimal position to be in power. This doesn't mean that all straight white men get that power... but they are at least in the race for receiving the lion's share of the all the potential power if they can rank in the hierarchies of society. But power dynamics are only one perspective... and they aren't even the perspective to look at that will actually effectively "cure" the issues that happen within the power dynamics perspective. But from the perspective of emotions and authenticity, the more the expectation of power and responsibility is place upon a person, they will have tremendous difficulties with being in touch with emotions and being authentic. There is a fear of losing one's status within the hierarchy if somebody feels obligated to have power. And men are strictly punished for not being "man enough." I see this in a lot of men. So, they have issues with being in touch with their feminine side. This causes Anima possession, where men basically repress their feminine side. Then their feminine side is in the Shadow and that feminine aspect of self is resentful because it's in the Shadow. So, this repressed feminine side desperately wants to A.) Seek revenge on the man who rejected it, by making him feel rejected. and B.) Be reintegrated. So, the Anima develops a push/pull kind of relationship with the man. So, the Anima projects itself onto women as a whole group, and mirrors the same sense of worthlessness and rejection that it has experienced. And it manifests as a deep resentment of women who are seen as all-powerful purveyors of male worth and status... the desire for which is why the man rejects his feminine side to begin with. And every time a man is turned down by a woman, the scorn of the Anima is projected upon the situation making it feel much worse making him feel powerless in the same way she has felt when the man turned "her" down. Then, this is also coupled with a sexual obsession. This obsession comes from desperate desire to reconnect with the feminine side and reintegrate the Anima. So, the Anima projects itself onto certain women or sometimes a particular feminine ideal (aka hot chicks in general). So, there becomes an obsession with seeking sex with women because it is the only acceptable outlet they feel safe in being in touch with the feminine. So, this causes a simultaneous misogyny and sexual obsession rolled into one... which in turn creates many issues for women power-wise as it makes it more difficult for them to own their femininity and thus their power. The man's inner woman is too jealous to allow that to happen. So, being a man is not a walk in the park by any means. Many of the obstacles men have are quite difficult. But they aren't really related to the potential for social power. There is nothing in their image that stops them from being recognized in that way, which women don't get to have. But with that potential for power comes a lot of expectations, responsibilities, inauthenticities, and fears. And the potential social punishments for not matching up to the ideals of masculinity set out by society.

Green SJWs against all the Blue Conservatives and their traditional value and Orange Libertarians and their money as conveyor of personal worth, status, and character. So to think Orange to Green revolutions think women's marches, Occupy Wall Street, getting money out of politics, Black Lives Matter, Third Wave Feminism, LGBT acceptance, the body positivity and fat acceptance movements, #MeToo, Intersectionality, Vegan activism, environmental activism (like the straws thing), and other such progressive movements. But Liberals aren't the only people progressing up the spiral. In fact, there has already been a major shift in the Conservative way from a more Blue traditional ways to the more Orange Libertarian ways. In fact, I'd wager that the average millennial Conservative is probably a Libertarian as opposed to the Conservative of old like the church-going, moralistic type of person. Then Liberals ever since around 2012, have begun shifting from a more Orange and Libertarian meritocratic way of thinking about the world... like "give everyone the freedom to be successful and pull themselves up by their bootstraps by virtue of their own individual character." to a social systems perspective that's very Green. In fact, many current liberals and leftists have left behind Libertarian beliefs that they now see as quite regressive. But some Liberals have not progressed. This is why a lot of Libertarian Conservatives (who used to be considered progressive) call themselves "Classic Liberals." They are ultimately Conservative by today's standards, but they like to identify with the Liberal values of ten years ago as they still see themselves as Liberal. And they feel like their Liberal identity has been hi-jacked by a bunch of idiots. But it's just a natural shift. It's just that a lot of Conservatives have caught up with them on the spiral, and many Liberals have progressed up the spiral to something they can't yet relate to and aren't aware of yet. But with regard to Green, you can tell it's a Green revolution because it looks to create positive change in social systems to help the marginalized and create a truly fair society. And they get very upset by heresy because their cause is important to them, and they see enemies of that cause to be enemies to justice and fairness... which certainly has a lot of merit. They just tend to think it's done on purpose, where for most people they're just not seeing things from the wider perspective.

This doesn't really sound like her using you. It just sounds like she is a bit immature and doesn't know that it's not always appropriate to talk about these topics to you in the same way she and her girlfriends might talk. She also should develop a little bit more awareness about what men generally like to talk about versus what women generally like to talk about. I see it as the equivalent of a guy always steering the conversation to a very stereotypically male topic of conversation (like body-building or something like that that a lot of women an't related to), and not being aware when the women he's talking to are getting bored. Female friends tend to like to talk about relationships and guys. And to me, when I was younger and single, those conversations with my female friends were always exciting because it gave me a chance to talk about the guy that I liked or to get validation if there were troubles. So, it always felt good and like an intimate friendship thing. When I was in middle school, my friends and I would always talk on the phone (this was before texting). And our favorite topic was boys and anything kind of sexual or taboo... since we were preteens and it was all very exciting and new. And we would always see how many people we could get on the phone line to talk... I think our record was 7 or 8 people. So, it was always a bunch of girls and my friend Joe. And he would understandably complain sometimes about how the conversation would be a little one-track sometimes where the conversation would end up steering to conversations about boys, which he couldn't relate to. Now, it wasn't so bad because we would also talk about shows we liked, our thoughts on the world, or just randomness too. So, it just sounds like your friend is a little bit unaware socially and perhaps has difficulty switching topics. So, I'm going to guess this isn't special treatment for you in particular. It's probably what she likes to talk about in general around all her friends and that she doesn't pick and choose the conversation topics to cater to the person. So, I'm more inclined to see it as a lack of awareness in what the person she's talking to is interested in, and not picking up social cues.

Nothing is ever completely empty of self-focus. Even someone who has transcended the ego does things out of self-focus. It's just that they realize that the self doesn't stop at the barrier of their skin. So, it's normal that your life-purpose is done for ego reasons if you have an ego. There is no escaping it, and you didn't choose it, and it doesn't make you a bad person. Just accept it's the best you can do for now, and continue focusing on becoming more aware. And know that self-focus will still be a thing, even beyond ego.

Funny... I just made a video that relates to the idea of possession. It's about something that happened with me back when I was ten.

I think that this is something that happens in a guy's mind, as opposed to the girl's. The girl probably would just think that the guy is her friend and treat him as such. So, this means talking about things that made here feel this way and that way. That's how women talk to their friends. They don't change their friendship style to accommodate someone's gender. But in the guy's mind he think's he's being 'used for emotional support' because male friendships are different and non-emotional and he has a sexual agenda. So, to him, it seems like "How dare she use me for emotional support, when all I wanted a relationship/sex." But the reality of the matter is that the guy was just pretending to be her friend to get with her... and she didn't reciprocate the feelings. But that's a very bitter pill to swallow. So, a lot of guys rewrite it to make themselves feel better. So, it probably feels a lot better for a man to say, "She used me for emotional support and put me in the friend zone." as opposed to "I pretended to be a girl's friend just to get in her pants, but then she wasn't attracted to me so I kept pretending to be her friend... with resentment." It's easier to project that the girl is the user in the situation. But I don't really think that your situation qualifies as that. Usually it happens when a guy becomes a girl's friend just to get in her pants or to potentially date her. But the girl isn't attracted to him and sometimes doesn't realize that he likes her, so she treats him like her friends. Then the guy makes up stories about friend zones and using him for emotional support.

From a woman's perspective, I can tell you it's possible. I see 99.5% of men in a completely platonic way, so it's rare that I develop an attraction at all... even when I was single. It was always only one guy that ever caught my attention at a time. So, literally everyone else was platonic to me or platonic with a very mild possibility of future attraction. So, this never got in the way of my friendships with guys. Now, a lot of these guys would end up getting crushes on me that weren't reciprocated. So, that complicated things. And it sucks to have a guy-friend get angry at you and tell you point-blank that your friendship "wasted my time", when you just enjoyed that guy's friendship and all he saw you as was a potential sexual partner. But this has helped me screen people out better, to avoid low-quality relationships. At this age, I can tell generally who values my company and who doesn't, and when a friendship will be a waste of my time. It becomes easier to intuit with experience. So, the male friends that I currently have are really great. They come into town every once in a great while and we'll go out to get coffee, to a bar, or to a comedy club. Most of them are into politics, and one of them works in D.C. in the department responsible for fixing the financial deficit. So, I tease him about not doing a good job. But we have fun times. Now, I'm also bi-sexual. So, I'm attracted to probably about half of my female friends... but most I've never been attracted to in a serious way. So, that doesn't really get in the way of my female friendships either.

@eskwire I have dealt with a lot of what you're talking about. The masculine principle rules the world, and the feminine principle is largely suppressed. So, if you were a smart little girl, most likely you learned quickly to avoid associating yourself too much with the feminine to get praise and avoid social scorn. And you may have even decided that your least favorite color was pink too and that you're really more like one of the guys... These are common, anyway. Having said that, over the course of the past century or so there has been a lot of progress made in terms of the re-emergence of the Divine Feminine in human society. A lot of it has been in the form of priming society to be ready for such a re-emergence. But the biggest issue at this point, is that most people don't recognize their anti-feminine biases. And most who are actually looking to undo anti-feminine biases are only looking as far as women's status in society. But that's just one branch off the anti-femininity tree. But this is because they don't know what femininity actually entails. They think of femininity as wearing makeup and heals or motherhood or being emotional. But the feminine principle is much more than these things. These are just the tip of the iceberg with regard to the feminine principle. So, the problem is that we have half of the society that's wants women to fit in the box of traditional feminine ideas, which is like a version of femininity that's stripped of all the aspects that are threatening to the status quo of traditional "Blue" values.... which is honestly most of it. The Feminine and traditional values go together like oil and water. The Feminine, however, is most treacherous to Orange values. Then, the other half of society has found refuge in the idea that masculinity and femininity are mere social constructs. This has been good in a sense, because it's allowed us to progress to this point. But the problem is that masculinity and femininity are in absolutely everything in the form of Yin and Yang. So, most people in this more progressive camp are unconsciously anti-feminine principle and pro-masculine principle... even if their goal is to make things equal and empowering for everyone. So, my recommendation is to learn more and more about the feminine principle and what it entails. The biggest obstacle to feminine integration is an unawareness of what femininity actually is. If you don't become aware of what it actually is, you will continue to repress it without realizing it as this is the social default.

Just forget about what that person said. It really doesn't matter what they think. If you want to find a partner, just put yourself out there. And do your best to be selective when it comes to personality flaws. Like if a person is going to treat you badly, you should feel entitled to turn them down. They are not your only option, even if it seems like it. What are you doing right now to try to get a partner?

Wishing you had never been born can be perceived by others as being ungrateful. And that you have a generally negative outlook on things can be perceived as being ungrateful. And being judgmental of others who are ungrateful and fixating upon that judgment, can also be perceived as ungrateful because you are focusing pessimistically toward your experience of the people in your life. It is often that when we judge others, it is because we are unconscious to those aspects within ourselves. And because we are unconscious, they become part of our shadow and play themselves out without our knowledge. So, others can see our shadows before we can.

How old are you?