Emerald

Again, like I said. We need to take personal responsibility insofar as we are able to. And this will create a demand for real systemic change. So, yes. Personal responsibility is a necessary step. But it's also important to realize that personal responsibility won't be sufficient to address this issue. And that we realize who the major players in the pollution game are. One percent of the population that takes an interest in these kind of things might go zero waste. But 1% of people going zero waste will never turn the tides in the way that they need to be turned. And it will never be above 3% fo people going zero waste unless there are major changes to our social structure, government structure, and economic structure. So, unless we realize this, we will keep shifting 100% of the responsibility onto individuals as opposed to the system that creates these issues... and those who benefit most from those systems. Until we address these issues on the macro level, the only people doing the work will be the 1% of people chipping away at a glacier with a soup spoon... and the 1% will almost always be people who more than have their needs met. For the poor and working class people, the focus will be on survival from paycheck to paycheck, without regard to things higher on Maslow's hierarchy. And to expect more is being unrealistic. So, the best ways to combat climate change are when we put the most pressure on big business and government officials. These actions have a much larger net impact than individually going zero waste or doing any other act of personal responsibility. Again, personal responsibility is good and necessary. But it's unrealistic to expect society to change without the power structures changing.

I have struggled financially for all of my adult life. So, many of the options to be greener have been off the table. But I do agree that those who have should make these decisions if they can. But this still won't get rid of the systemic issue, as choice is not something that everyone has. Not everyone has enough dollars to vote with. And their priorities will naturally lie with getting their family's needs met. And we can't really look at people who are poor and point fingers at them because they are doing the best they can with what they have. So personally, thus far, I've had no option to buy solar and I've had to buy gas to make my van go. The bank thing I haven't done because I've never bought my own home. But many green options are off the table... at present anyway. I do plan to do more green things as my business grows and my finances change. But that's just me, I know that many MANY other people are in similar positions and worse, who will likely always struggle with finances. So, it's hard to tell them that they have a choice when they don't really. People are going to buy what they can afford. Now, if corporations paid their workers a living wage, you'd probably find more people in a better position to vote with their dollar. So, this is another way to encourage that trend. But presently, I feel like there's too much focus toward personal responsibility as the cure for the systemic issues of climate change and pollution... when the lion's share of the problem is with corporations and governments who cater to those corporations. But yes... people have a responsibility too. And we should do whatever we can to help. Go Vegan, boycott Chinese goods, support green energy initiative where we can, vote for greener politicians, etc. But we should not put the onus of responsibility on individuals but on corporations. This will yield more results.

I hate to be a raincloud on this one, as I do agree that we should all be doing our part. But the lion's share of this problem isn't with individuals, but with corporations buying the right to pollute by giving a cut to politicians. If we all as individuals did the best we could, things would still not be right because we'd still have huge systemic issues. That's not to say that we should not encourage the positive green trends and to try to reduce our carbon footprint where we can. It is our responsibility. But I would almost say that framing it as a personal responsibility issue, helps the biggest contributors to climate change and pollution to pass the buck off to the little guys and obfuscate their responsibility. The best things we can do for eliminating the threats that contribute to climate change are going Vegan, buying local (and especially avoid Chinese goods as China is the #1 polluter by far), and voting for grassroots funded candidates to get big money out of politics. Here are just a few things we should be showing a demand for... Offer green energy alternatives (and governments could create tax incentives for this) Offer biodegradable options at a similar price-point to plastic and styrofoam items Create jobs for new negative emissions technology (govt. subsidized) Create jobs for people who literally spend all their time cleaning up the ocean (govt. subsidized)

@Shroomdoctor I think looking at this in terms of left and right can muddy the waters a bit. We tend to have the idea that if there is a dichotomy of some sort that it's 'only right' to seeks some kind of middle ground. This is called the "middle ground fallacy." But if you go issue by issue, and not look at it by the metric of the "goodness" or "badness" of all people in either "side", you'll see very clearly which policies and tendencies are healthier for society and more in alignment with he common good. And these should always be supported no matter which group identity they fall under without regard to giving equal weight to both sides... as in reality there are no two sides. I think there is always an attempt to sort of pull the punches when it comes to criticizing the negatives of one group and feeling like you need to make it equal to the other group to be fair and democratic. But this is not so. Some ideas are inherently less healthy for society and will bear out negative results for people. But I will say that the feminine energy hasn't shown itself really in this whole thing... despite it gradually trickling in over the past century or so. Right now we just have masculine destroyers of the barriers to the feminine. And masculine fortifiers of the barriers to the feminine. So, regardless of which side, it's important to "side" with the ones who are actively removing those barriers, regardless of our ideas of which side we believe has the most "personality flaws." It's not about personality flaws or who seems more reasonable or likable... it's about supporting things that will help the greater good.

The collective shadow is rising right now in the form of all the Alt-Right kind of stuff. It's a reaction against the integration of the Divine Feminine, that attempts to keep that integration at bay. It all rides on average men believing that they will have power and be happy if we revert back to earlier times before so called "political correctness". So, the movement rides on the backs of vulnerable men with low self-esteem, who feel powerless in their own lives. So, the Alt-Right creates scapegoats to blame for this powerless feeling, and an ideology that promises to allow those men to take their power back. This is all couched in ideas that have been dolled up to look more benign than what they are. So, they say anti-feminist conspiracy as opposed to anti-woman. They say anti-globalism as opposed to keeping those foreigners out. They say anti-Jewish conspiracy as opposed to anti-Semitic. That way, these vulnerable men won't realize that they're getting involved in Fascism by another name. And when those people in the Alt-Right victimize others... it's not seen as victimization at all. In fact, they see the Alt-RIght has as the place where victims gather against those powerful women and minorities that seek to strip the rights from white men. So, any act of indiscretion and violence is deserved because they have been doing the same things.... haven't they? That's how this group works. They take vulnerable people who feel powerless. Then they blame that powerlessness on global elites who use women, minorities, and LGBT communities as their "freedom-hating" pawns. So, those powerless feeling people can use them as a scapegoat for all their anger and hatred. Then, they use this to attack the freedoms/power of those women, minorities, and LGBT communities... and eventually will take the same from the very people who supported them while they got into power. That's how Fascism has always been able to work. The Nazis felt like they were victims too, against the so-called Jewish elite.

Thank you! I find that usually men come for the sex, and stay because I'm awesome. (blows on fingernails for no reason) It just takes a little longer for men to devil up deeper attractions where for women the initial attraction and deeper attraction have already begun to mix. But the idea with male sexuality does kind of work that way from an energetic perspective. Female attraction starts in the head and travels to the heart (and eventually the loins). Male attraction starts at the loins and travels to the heart (and eventually the head). So, if there is not path to the heart, no one's hanging around for very long. No one's really just looking for sex.

It's not demanding perfection. He doesn't have to be perfect. He just has to be him. I just want the one that I want, and no one else will do. There is no shopping around for me. It doesn't work like male sexuality. It's not objective and general. It's subjective and specific to just that one guy... who to everyone else might seem average. Men are attracted to women initially as merely the sum of her parts. It's very objective and has to do with if she has whatever things he value in a partner... usually physical attractiveness. But for women, they are attracted to men as more than the sum of his parts. No particular ingredient makes a woman drawn to a particular man. It's the magic that happens when those ingredients are all mixed together to create a unique individual and the chemistry that is felt. Now I could 'boo hoo' and say "look at men and how objectifying they are. They're inherently emotionally corrupt and will take anything they can get, and they don't even like me for me. And I'll never find a guy who sees me as more than a piece of meat to have an orgasm in. To them, women are interchangeable sex dolls." But this would come from victim's mentality and short-sightedness. Men get attracted in a particular way because of biology. Women are selective, so they need to shop around. Women get attracted in a particular way because of biology. Men can have thousands of children in their lifetimes... but women only one every nine months. So, we need a much more intuitive and complex system for determining the right partner for us... and that's different for every woman, even though some things overlap in terms of what has the most mass appeal. We need to be selective to find the right partner. And if I don't like that men get attracted to women in that way... though shit for me. That's nature. And if men don't like the fact that I'm only attracted to one guy at a time because they think it's unfair to them... tough shit for them too. That's nature. But this difference doesn't mean that being successful with women is impossible, and it also doesn't mean that intimacy and particularity with a man is impossible. It just means that it's a bit more difficult to cultivate... but just a bit. People are people. And men and women like particular things that can be cultivated to some degree. And men and women both need intimacy. So, when it comes to the nature of female attractions, you should see this as a positive thing. If a girl likes you, chances are she likes you for you. She won't feel that way for other guys. And for someone you will be THAT guy that her day rises and sets by if you just chill out and allow it to happen. No one likes a Negative Nancy. That's the dealbreaker and probably why you haven't had success with women. But I'm sure that someone's taken a shining to you before. You probably just didn't know it because women hide their attractions if they think the guy won't reciprocate. And your closed-off-ness would probably be interpreted as disinterest.

If I'm already in bed with him, I have probably already been crushing on him forever, and I'm just really excited that he's reciprocating my feelings with the same intensity. So, no. At that point, is the time to go deeper and explore one another. If a man doesn't allow me to go deeper at that point it's such an anti-aphrodisiac that kills all the sexual feelings, as I don't even feel like we're in the same room together. I get the clear message that sex will be one-sided. Sex is primarily emotional for me... that's a lot more exciting than the physicality of it. If a guy doesn't share himself emotionally and intellectually, there's very little there for me to be excited about. But if a guy that I care about shares himself openly in that way, I find myself bathed in an atmosphere of loving and erotic emotions. These are subtler than the feelings of climax... but they are somewhat similar and even more pleasurable in my opinion because they're effortless and relaxing, and they are all-encompassing. I can really let go in those feeling-states. So, finding out more about a guy in a sexual/intimate situation doesn't make the attraction go away. It intensifies at that point. Getting to know a new romantic partner is one of the most exciting things there is. Then after about three months it naturally cools down, and gives way to a deeply bonded full-fledged relationship with subtler and deeper feelings of love and intimacy as the trade-off for the hot and smoldering passion. There is no getting away from that.

Again, that's something that I can't resonate with personally. Maybe some women are like that... but that feels like a drag. I'm mostly interested in what he's thinking about sexually in those situations. I want to know if he's having dirty thoughts about me because it excites me, and I want to know all the gritty details. I also want to know his soul because of the intimacy aspect. So, I want to know all the things he never tells anyone and see all the things he never shows anyone. This excites me too to know that I'm privy to something that others are not, and that I am special to him because he feels comfortable sharing with me. So, it's not that I'm scrutinizing or figuring out if he's right for me. I would probably already know that upon meeting him just by his vibe alone. These things are pretty easy to pick up on intuitively. And if I'm already attracted to him and in an intimate situation with him my curiosity is PURELY of a sexual nature.

I heard it once explained that a man wants to penetrate a woman's body and a woman wants to penetrate a man's mind, and in doing so it creates a cycle of energy and connection between the two people. This made sense to me because in intimate situations I'm always really curious what the guy's thinking about often ask. It's a really good sign that a girl is interested in you if she asks what you're thinking about for that reason. But it isn't consciously for the purpose of testing or vetting him. Maybe that's the underlying reason. But for me, it's just a turn on and a genuine curiosity.

But the thing is, I think that most everyone has anxieties when it comes to attraction and dating. I can relate to the mindsets that you've been in, because I've been there, especially in my preteens. You may not believe me because I'm a woman. But even in my most attractive of days it never felt like a guarantee when I've really liked a guy, and I don't suppose it ever will. And most of my attractions have never gone anywhere because the guy wasn't interested in the same way or if he was he just never showed me any signs. I always felt creepy and like I had to hide it when I really liked a guy. Now, I know that it is a bit different for women than for men. So, I have known since I was about 13 that I wasn't totally un-date-able because that's when I started to get my first bit of male attention from my peers. But this for women, is almost alway like being thirsty in the middle of an ocean. Those really don't count for women, in the way they would for men. It's a different experience entirely as the net is naturally cast very narrow and specific. Only very specific men will do. Not the most attractive. Not the most alpha. Not the most wealthy. Not the most charismatic. But usually just one specific guy who is THE guy. Or perhaps some women might have a few THE guys. But for me, it's always been just the one at a time. And if that guy didn't like me... well I guess I have to wait another 6 months to a year until I feel that way about someone again. But you know what kind of guy I was usually attracted to when I was single... introverted, intellect-driven ones who were maybe a bit on the nerdy side who were roughly at about the same level of physical attractiveness (or slightly less as I like to be the peacock of the relationship). That's who's most compatible with me, and I always had a bit of a fantasy of using my (ahem...) "feminine wiles" to lure out the other more intimate and instinctual side of that kind of guy... and also to really dive into his mind and explore what makes him tick. I'm sure I'm not the only woman with this fantasy either. I'm sure this is quite a common one. Now, there are things that are unattractive that that kind of guy could have that would make me not attracted to him. I wasn't attracted to all or most guys like that. But of the guys I was attracted to, most of them were that kind of guy. But if a guy takes things too seriously, gets too clingy, puts me up on a pedestal, or something like this... then it would have made me uncomfortable and made it difficult to get an initial attraction to him. But these are all things that can be worked through.

Was it with the goal of developing one's own femininity? If so, then it wasn't... it was more masculinity and fortification of the order of persona and personality. The feminine isn't something to be developed. It's always there, all the time. So, the way to experience the feminine is to surrender and be devoured by it... and devoured violently if you resist. Let yourself be vulnerable and let the elements take you and strip you down, laying bare all the wounds of your life. If you had been feminine, you'd probably feel very raw and feel like your demons were running amok. The experience of the feminine is often an upheaval of all that's been repressed and allowing it all to hit you. And it's not easy, unless you can completely surrender to it. If you can surrender to it, it's heaven. If you cannot, it's hell. And allowing it to take you, would leave behind the ability to love deeper and experience the light of innocence in its wake. But shifting into the feminine is no easy task. That's why people avoid it like the plague. Recall the sensitivity of childhood, and how every little thing was a big emotion. Big joy. Big sadness. Big anger. Big fear. Being in touch with the feminine feels like this. And for an adult, there is a lot that has been shielded and un-proessed because we have developed an adult shield from these big emotions. It's why adults often feel numb. But if you're in touch with he feminine the shield and masks go down, and it all hits you at once. So, if your idea of the feminine is only about nicer things like love and compassion, then you are mistaken. The feminine bears little resemblance to our cultural ideas about womanhood. The feminine is as brutal as it is compassionate. As dark as it is loving. As gritty as it is beautiful. As ugly as it is liberating. As terrifying as it is motherly. Let the temptress lure you and transform into the ancient hag that devours you... then the great mother will give birth to you again.

I really enjoyed watching that.

It is about non-duality and also about how human beings work in general... probably many other things too. When Adam and Eve were in the garden it was paradise because they were blind and innocent. Then, the snake tempted them with "knowledge" in the form of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Eve (symbolizing the material world as the feminine principle is about Earthliness) was tempted by the snake (also an Earthly symbol because of its proximity to the ground) to eat the fruit (also feminine as the ovaries of the plant are the fruits). Then she tempted Adam (representing the spiritual nature of man, as the masculine principle is all about the non-material... so idealism, spirituality, etc.). So, because they both ate of the fruit, they were both cast out of paradise and sent to roam the Earth and suffer because they no longer have innocence. They lost the access to the garden of Eden (heaven on Earth... a perfect representation of Yin and Yang in its natural flow), and Earth became a lowly place bereft of God and the spiritual. They were no longer able to recognize that matter is pregnant with spirit. The snake also lost its limbs in punishment making it even more Earthly... thus suffering more. Just like our knowledge of how things work, make us feel like our material existence is somehow non-spiritual. And we feel a sense of disconnect as though the mundane world is other than heaven and paradise. We feel like we're just walking meat robots that will die and be forgotten for no purpose, and that the world is cruel. So, the world and Earthly and feminine are suffering for us... instead of a garden of paradise which is the reality beyond our intellectual knowledge.

To me, Spiral Dynamics goes off the rails once you get past Turquoise. I almost want to say that the creation of these higher tiers feels like they were arbitrarily created to give people a sense that they can continue climbing hierarchies which is very appealing in our society... perhaps in general. But personally, I don't find Spiral Dynamics very compelling for personal development in the first place. I think it can lead to a lot of delusions of grandeur and pegging one's self higher on the spiral than they actually are. The ego loves little systems for proving one's worth to themselves and the world. So, it can end up working like personality tests where the model ends up overshadowing the reality. They can be helpful... but only if people are brutally honest and don't make an identity of being at a particular level. But I really love Spiral Dynamics from the social engineering perspective, in terms of being able to see what's coming next and being able to help facilitate those positive changes. So, it helps you play 'weatherman' with the state of society, and that's really exciting.

... 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.