Emerald

They say that intermittent fasting isn't good for women, because it throws off our reproductive cycle. Because growing a child is a huge tax on nutrient stores, intermittent fasting give the body the message that food is frequently scarce in your life. The body doesn't know that you're doing it on purpose in a very controlled way. So, it can put a damper in your libido and even stop menstruation, because your body is telling you that it's unsafe for a child to grow there. Also, it will stimulate more testosterone production to give you the extra aggression to find your own food in the wild if you were in pre-historic times. Studies have shown that across the board intermittent fasting is good for men on many different levels. But it's not recommended for women because of how much it messes with hormones and the reproductive cycle. If you do, as a woman, want to do intermittent fasting, it is recommended that you skip a day or two between each intermittent fasting day. That way, your body doesn't register a pattern of prolonged starvation as it would with everyday intermittent fasting.

If you don't mind my asking, in which way do you experience inequality? For me, it mostly comes through the lens of being a woman. And then just looking on the internet and seeing all the misogyny that I didn't know existed prior to the days of the internet... and how it interacts with so many of the insights I had into my own repressed femininity and self-hatred the years prior. And that salting wounds that are so deep that they are on both the personal and the ancestral level. It's like seeing a really ugly part of humanity's shadow, and how it crosses over so many psychological, social, biological, and sexual human threads. It's this really complex ancient dark curse of a thing, that's both a riveting and terrifying monster to hunt. And I'm obsessed with it like a hunter who wants its head hanging on my wall, and a mad scientist that wants to know all its machinations. But the social boundaries are really stifling. People who are of any class that's considered default are very sensitive about anything related to their class being brought up. They're not used to dealing with situations in relation to that class. So, they get uncomfortable easily, like someone entering into a cold pool. But people of classes not considered default are already in the cold pool, so we're both used to it but the discomfort is constant despite its manageability. So, it's difficult to make a person from the default class listen and understand without having a negative emotional reaction or so many ego defenses thrown up. The water is too cold for them, and many freak out even though it's just a temporary discomfort. My solution (that doesn't fully solve the whole problem of Course) is to try to understand the system that's creating those inequalities as deeply as possible. This helps me get more perspective on how and why those patterns have come about, and also the solution for core problems. Plus, it gives me a sense of detachment to view the issues from a less personal perspective as well. It helps me avoid victim's mentality.

It's important to understand the inequality comes as a result of systems. And those parts of systems that create inequalities also squelch consciousness and integration on the macro level. So, if your goal is to have a more conscious society/world that's better to live in, your own inequalities give you the perfect door for exploration of these systems. If you are in a non-privileged position for power, you are in a privileged position for wisdom and insight about the whole system. So, it's just a matter of being able to see what you perceive as purely negative from a different (and better) angle. It may be less comfortable to live with inequality... but it will also make you aware of certain shadows within humanity in ways that people who have more privileges may never have. Through this you can make yourself more resilient, stronger, more aware, and more wise. It will also help you learn how to dismantle these systems so that others in the future don't have to experience the same. Some people crumble under this weight. So, it's important to dismantle them for the sake of avoiding that and expanding society's consciousness in general by removing its bindings. So, even thought the inequalities are difficult to deal with, there is a way to do the alchemy of soul with them, where you turn water into wine and exalt yourself to your highest. Understand that hardship can go two ways. It can help build you up if you're resilient. It can break you down if you're not.

For this, I think it's important to reconcile the inherent perfection of the absolute along with the inherent imperfection of the relative as an extension of the perfect absolute. So ground yourself in the absolute as this is Truth, and the awareness that no matter what happens it's all 100% perfect. But do not forget about the relative or waive it off as unimportant. The relative is also an extension of the absolute, and it's important to live an embodied life if you're going to get the most out of living the human experience. So, understand that everything is ultimately already perfect, but also recognize that so much could be improved relatively. And if it calls to you, seek to understand the systems that produce the inequalities that you perceive. Then, you'll know how these problems can be addressed, and be able to do so. Also, find your motivations. Why do these inequalities bother you so much? Is it a genuine problem that has negative effects on many people? Or is it just the principle of the thing?

It's difficult, that's for sure. But there are people out there. And what I found is that having similar interests is only one piece of the puzzle. There are about ten other compatibility factors that precede that one in importance. So, you don't have to find someone who's perfectly into the same things as you. And even if you did, you may have no chemistry whatsoever. You just have to find someone who shares some of your interests who enjoys out of the box thinking and has their own passions as well. They're out there and by the plenty. But they're also more rare than they are common. So, I totally understand the difficulty. But you can look for some tell-tale signs of a relatively "woken up" eighteen year old girl. She may be a bit iconoclastic, have a major in art, philosophy, or the humanities in general. She might dress unusually, be a loner, and/or hang out with a nerdy/off-beat crowd. She will probably have a very particular taste in music and art. And she will have a clear sense of self and direction. And she'll be chilled out and open-minded. Now, none of these are guarantees of being compatible or that a particular girl is actually more awake. These are outward traits, after all. But this is always the type of girl that I would hang out with back then. And they were always similar in their way of thinking to me, even if they didn't share my exact interests in this that and the other thing. But we always got eachother, and could have deep conversations on a lot of different topics, and there was a clear sense of intimacy between friends because we were cut from the same cloth. I'm still friends with most of them now. This is the type of person that someone with these types of interests and personality-leanings really needs in their life, whether as a friend or as a partner. At my current age, I have come to notice the vibe that I get from someone when we're cut from the same cloth. And it's something that I notice nearly right away. So, my recommendation is to continue socializing and get really good at finding who's cut from the same cloth as you, friendship-wise and relationship-wise. It will make socialization and building relationships quite a bit easier. But my tell-tale signs should help in a pinch... But again, that's no guarantee. Just know, that those kind of girls are uncommon but not THAT uncommon. They're definitely around, especially on college campuses.

I understand. But hear me out, I have a friend who ironically just struck up a conversation with me on FB a moment ago after having not talked in a very long time. Not necessary info, but very ironic because I had him in mind when I gave you this warning. So, very synchronistic. My friend (who I didn't know at the time) transferred to my college when I was in my junior year. He was a few years older than me at the time but he had just started college because he spent a few years in the military. My first impression of him was really negative because I just met him and he asked me out like two minutes later. Then, through word of mouth I heard from like 10 other girls that he had done the same to them. So, my opinion of him was low, at first. But about a week later, I was walking at night from the gas station down the street from my college back to my dorm room, and I ran into him and he was really genuinely upset. He told me that he had just found out that a lot of people disliked him because he asked out so many girls. He was genuinely very surprised by this, and didn't see anything strange in his actions. He's always had difficulty picking up on social cues. But he continued to have problems because of the bad first impression he had given. Most people didn't (and still don't) understand that he meant no harm in his actions and that he can't help his social unawareness. So, I didn't want to risk putting you in that kind of situation by not adding that caveat to my advice. Now, you can still approach girls on campus, but not 20 per day for sure. That you'd probably save for a club. But maybe approach a few per week... but make sure that they don't know eachother very well. If you try to ask out a bunch of women in the same social group, it will likely turn out badly.

You're welcome. Did you read the edit that I made the response. I thought of it about ten minutes after I'd written it originally. But it's really important to keep that advice in mind.

Easy now, kiddo. I'm an old married lady with children. Haha! But yes, the idea is that if you're persistent and cast the net wide, you'll find someone if fairly short order. Also, you have a great advantage of being a freshman in college. So, a lot of freshmen girls are looking for boyfriends. Note: I forgot to mention this but it's important. If you do cold approach, try to do most of it off-campus like at clubs/bars/etc. It should be a place where it's expected. Otherwise, you'll get a reputation as the guy who asks everyone out. And that will kill a lot of opportunities.

It's harder if you're asking out girls you just met as girls get a lot of inquiries, and it takes a while for an genuine attraction to blossom for a woman. So, I'd say the generally the odds are probably 1 in 200, if you've only talked to her once. This might be slightly better since you go to the same college though. So, maybe 1 in 150 for co-eds. And this is true even if you were a male model or something. For most women, if you're too available too soon, she'll be uninterested. But if it's a girl that you know and you've been building rapport with her for a couple days/weeks or so, your odds will probably go up to about 1/10 or so. So, you can either go the easier route of approaching and approaching and approaching girls until you hit one that's un-selective enough to give a stranger a chance. You'll get quicker success this way, because if you approach every girl you meet, you'll eventually get someone to say yes. But if you're trying to build rapport and increase your odds by quite a bit, it's important that you see the girl frequently in a normal platonic social situation throughout the week (i.e. have a class together, work at the same place, hang out with the same people, go to the same parties, etc.) That way, you can build platonic rapport with her for a week or so before you ask her out someplace. There is no guarantee here, of course. And the time investment is a lot steeper (days and weeks vs. seconds). But your odds will go up significantly for that particular girl. And the girl will probably be a bit more selective in general which is good for a long-term partner as it may indicate that they have better boundaries and better self-esteem. So, you just have to know what you want. If you just want to hook up, then approaching as many women as possible is probably your best bet. If you approach 20 women per day, it'll probably take you a week and a half max to get a yes. But if you want to find someone who is compatible with you for a long term relationship, then I highly recommend building platonic rapport with the women that you see on a frequent basis before asking them out. Women prefer this method too. That's why the odds are so much higher. The drawback here is that the time investment is high, there are still no guarantees, and there's a limit to the amount of women that you know. This is why all the PUAs don't recommend this method. You can run through all your possibilities and still get a no after having invested months on handful of women. But this is the method that women prefer. And if you're looking for a long-term partner who is also looking for something steady, you'll generally find a better quality partner with more in common with you, if you use this method.

If memory serves, I'm a 9.

Do the contemplations regardless.

Contemplate on these things... What is America actually? And what is a country in general? What does moral superiority entail? Who gets to decide? How do you know that America is a morally superior country to the other countries? What is the objective of war? How is the winner of a war determined? Who determines who wins the war? What is the relationship between death and winning a war? Is a war a competition? If so, how can we tell who loses and wins? If no, how can we tell who loses and wins? What are enemies? What makes them the bad guys? How do you think the enemy lives their daily life? How do you think they experience being a soldier? What does a countries border consist of? Who decides?

I'm originally from a deep Red place in Florida that's like 95% white (in the area with the poor/working class whites... aka my background), and the racism that I've noticed comes in mild to more severe forms in about 40% of those people. This is a HUGE number of people. So, because white people are the largest demographic that have the biggest sway on election results, that means that people on the Right know that they have to appeal to this group to get elected. So, they create dog whistles as a wink and nod to that demographic of people. This is called the Southern Strategy, and has been employed since the Voting Rights Act in the 60s when there was a political re-alignment. So, this is an example of institutionalized racism against non-white people that continues on into present day. So, I don't know how bigoted Mexican men and black women generally are, nor is it relevant. It's not relevant because there are no candidates running on the "be racist against white people" platform, as this is political suicide. White people are the majority party. So, you can't only rely on non-white voters to win you an election. You have to appeal to white people as the majority demographic. And proposing bills that disenfranchise white people will simply not work. However, a politician running on the Southern Strategy will win votes and approval by promising to disenfranchise non-white people and making good on those promises. So, the social power here is not conferable in any way. So, even if there are some mean black ladies somewhere out there who give white people the stink eye at the bus stop, it doesn't threaten to have any effect on the lives of white people, at all... except maybe hurting some snowflakes' feelings. And that's true, no matter how bigoted a demographic that's non-white generally is, as that party is still a minority and doesn't wield as much voting power or power to stack to the status quo in their favor. So, I suspect the way you're looking at this is by asking, which demographic do you really think are "better people"? Do you think Mexican men and black women are better than poor white people? And the answer is none of the above and no. I guarantee there are good people and knuckleheads in each group, in conferable proportions. People are all over the place on the spectrum of having it together and not having it together. But this is not an issue of character, and framing it as such obscures the real issues. In reality, it's an issue of social power and the workings of a system that give more power to white individuals at the expense of non-white individuals. And it's important to be aware that this system is being leveraged by powerful people in the Right wing to get votes and approval on the backs of non-white people.

I was hoping for the same. I know that a lot more progressive minded individuals voted this time around because they realize there's a lot at stake, and that not voting is not an option as having a senate or house minority is going to effect a lot of people negatively because there will be no checks to the president's power. So, I was expecting there to be bigger wins. But in my state (Florida), which is a swing state, the Republicans won both the governorship and the senate seat by a 50.6 and 49.4 split and a 48.9 and 49.9 split. So, we were very close. I was not expecting that to be the case because I saw a ton more young people at the poles. Florida is a retirement state, so in this I had hope that many of those youngsters came out with a more progressive agenda. I am, however, glad that the Democrats got the House back. But I suppose that the preference for Republicans comes from a lot of people being traditionally minded, and voting for candidates who use traditional values as a mask for more nefarious agendas that actually disenfranchise many of their constituents who are poor and uneducated. Also, there are a lot of Republicans that run on the Southern Strategy which is meant to appeal to white racists. So, any anti-immigration or anti-minority rhetoric is always a huge voter draw in Red States because there are a lot of racists. For example, DeSantis won against Gillum (a black man) and in one of his debates with Gillum, he made an appeal to the people of Florida to not "Monkey" this one up... which is a clear racist dog-whistle. So, I'm sure the racist crowd was like "This is our guy!" But I think it will work in our favor in 2020 that there was no sweeping Blue Wave in 2018. The opposition may come too prepared in 2020 if they fear electing a Democrat to the office of president to replace Trump in 2020. But if they don't expect Trump to lose, then fewer people will be less motivation for the more lukewarm Republicans to go out and vote for Trump to avoid a Democrat in office. They will think Trump is a guarantee and will get lazy.

Same thing here. This is very similar to what I discovered. Here are a few videos that may be of help in understanding what is actually being suppressed. One of the reasons why your story and my story are so common amongst women is because society's definition of femininity is very limited. So, as young girls, we look and we see that by society's definition masculinity is far more fleshed out and superior to society's definition of femininity. And there are tons of people who want to maintain this reductionist way of viewing the feminine. But the reality of the matter is that there's a lot more going on relative to the feminine than society knows. The feminine principle is interesting and deep and fits like a glove. It's dark and gritty as much as it is light and innocent. Here are some videos of mine that center around this topic.

Tampa sucks. It always feels like someone's being murdered somewhere nearby in a drug den. It's kind of run-down, and I don't like the vibe there. Yet again, it could be just the areas I frequented when I used to go there a lot. Orlando is alright. Traffic is pretty bad and everything is 20 minutes away from everything else. (I'm partial to this option on a selfish level... but only because it's less than 2 hours from me in St. Augustine compared to Tampa which is about 4 hours away and Miami which is about 5 hours away.) Also, because Orlando is in Central Florida (pretty much smack in the middle of the peninsula part of the state) it would be about a 2 to 3 hour drive max from everywhere that isn't in the Panhandle. But the Panhandle is pretty far away from almost all the big Florida cities anyway. Tampa is also relatively close to the center... but it's a tad bit more South and closer to the Gulf of Mexico. Miami is pretty cool. I went there a couple weeks ago and had a great time. That said, I've only been to Miami three times in my entire life, and the other two times happened before I turned ten. So, I'm not sure if I think it's cool because I've only seen the cool parts. But it would be a really far distance to drive for anyone who lives in North Florida, Central Florida, and/or the PanHandle. I've never been to Ft. Myers so I can't advise either way. I know it's close to Naples, which I've heard is a very nice place to go. Hope this helps.

@Leo Gura I might come meet you in Atlanta or Miami as I'm almost right in the middle of the two depending on the schedule. It would be nice to meet you and others interested in the same type of things.

The self is an illusion in the sense that it isn't a thing in itself. It's more of a collection of thought processes. But when it comes to Yin and Yang and the interplay between the two, these are aspects of reality that can be observed. They are phenomenologically real. So, don't let this discourage you from exploring what you're experiencing. It's just a different perspective that is still valid from its own platform. So, don't let non-dual beliefs get in the way of self-exploration.

True. I think that a lot of people tend to get into all kinds of ideas about what's natural in humans because there is an underlying assumption that we aren't being natural right now. And this idea that once we "find our way back" to being natural that all the bad things will go away. But the reality of the matter is that we've always been natural the whole entire time. So, monogamy is natural, polygamy is natural, polyamory is natural, etc. But I do think people have an underlying reptile brain charged lean toward polyamory. I know it is true of myself as I still get crushes here an there. But I also prefer monogamy for a wide variety of reasons... even if it means that I have to sacrifice my desire for kindling new romances. For me, the sacrifice is worth it. For others the sacrifice may not be worth it.

You must understand that your worldview is very debilitating to your psychological health, and as a result there are many neuroses that come up. So, not every man is the way that you are... even though the potentials are there if they start adopting a similar worldview. All of your stuff is cranked up to 11 because you're in a worldview that creates a 'contents under pressure' effect. So, no. Even though it is quite common and normal for men (and women for that matter) to think about sex often, not all men are so fixated upon all women sexually in the way you described. A sizable percentage of men (maybe even the majority) have some degree of discernment and don't have an intrusive level of sexual thoughts. This degree of fixation only happens for men who strongly resist and reject their feminine side and Yin in general in a very extreme way. This is because sex becomes the only acceptable outlet for connection with the feminine. And that connection is desperately needed... but can never actually come from female sexual validation either. Now, it is common for men to be in resistance to their feminine side because of societal pressures placed upon them to perform masculinity and reject femininity. So, sexual obsession is quite common for men in general because of this. But even though it's common, it's not normal or healthy for men to be sexually obsessed... even though it is normal for men to be very interested in sex. Also, your ideas of what constitutes self-love and self-esteem are so far from reality. So, you seem to believe you have them, even though what you describe as self-esteem and self-love are diametrically opposed to what they actually are.

You don't have to be dishonest to market yourself... especially if you're a spiritual teacher. Just understand that, at this point in human history, your business may not catch as many people as someone who's willing to be ruthless and manipulative and talk about attractive nonsense. But you'll attract a better quality audience, that values your honesty. And if you market yourself the right way, you'll attract those who are looking for a person like you. I have a YouTube channel and I'm very big on being transparent and honest. So, I always share my perspective, observations, insights, and interpretations... and I always make it clear which of these I'm talking about. And I do my best to be thorough and avoid falsehood. I really do my best. And this is a lot of the reason why my audience resonates with my work. People can often tell when a person strives for honesty, and a lot of people are looking for that... especially in a teacher. So, I may never be as successful as those who sensationalize to get attention or use dishonesty to manipulate... but I am already modestly successful and my YouTube channel will hit 1 million views by the end of 2018, most likely. So, what kind of success would you be looking for? Do you want a wider audience for the sake of sharing your insights with a wider audience? Do you want to be able to make a living from being a spiritual teacher? Something else? I can maybe give some pointers once I know.

From the most down to Earth and mundane perspective that is absolutely true. In our daily comings and goings ALL people are never less than 99% similar, whether they be male or female or whatever other qualifier (race, disposition, socio-economic status, etc.). In fact, that 99% is more like 99.99999%, as we are very similar. I bet other creatures can't even tell a female and male human being apart most of the time... if they had the faculties to think in those terms. So our divergences in sex really do only come up here and there. People like to exaggerate this difference because we want to make everything sexual and sexy... and we try to polarize as much as possible. Men tend to like doing this more than women though in the current state of affairs. Women see themselves as mostly similar to men, while men see themselves as mostly different from women. But in quite a lot of people, we try to imagine the genders as being more polar than they actually are. This is why we see extremes of the feminine and masculine on television and in cartoons there is a clear exaggeration of feminine and masculine traits. So, human beings are incredibly androgynous by their very nature. So, because of this, there is also a mix of masculine and feminine in people on the perspective of subtle energies and it can be notices that men tend to gravitate a bit more toward the masculine pole and women more toward the feminine pole. But these energies don't come from gender... but gender comes from them. There are also a lot of differences from the perspective of sexuality as this function (heteronormatively speaking) is the reason why sex exists in the first place. The function of having males and females in a species is to be able to make babies... nothing more than that. So, that's why these differences are more pronounced.

@Silvester I made a video on the topic of good and evil several months ago. In the video, I describe what I've experienced about good and evil as experiential realities. They do exist as warring internal drives... but it's not how most people think about them. I'll link it below...

What positive emotions are you getting form the hedonistic pleasures? Also, is there anything that you genuinely enjoy right now that is not hedonistic but expansive, even if it isn't something that you'd think of as being "high consciousness"?

Why do you keep doing this?