Emerald

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.

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.