Emerald

Any movement that disrupts the status quo in any meaningful way will rustle a lot of people's Jimmies. Trust me, as much resistance as there is toward Third Wave Feminism in the current era, that level of resistance probably can't even hold a candle to the resistance to First and Second Wave Feminism. So, every effective movement always has a huge hater-base. People just don't like change, and they get scared. So, it doesn't actually matter what you call it. The people who are against it now because it's called Feminism would be against it if it were called Equitism too. This is because if Equitism were truly about acheiving equity in an effective way and not just about pretending that we've already achieved equity, women's issues would still be focused upon disproportionately because women are disproportionately negatively affected by the dis-integration of the Divine Feminine. So, those that think in terms of Feminism focusing on women's issues unfairly, would still perceive this disproportionate attention to women's issues in Equitism as unfair and would be against it. But this common mistake, is just lack of nuance and not thinking systemically about societal issues. But truly, the vast majority of Feminist schools of thought are about achieving equity. Also, notice that it isn't called Womanism for a reason. Men have a feminine side, and so Feminism is for them too. And contemporary Feminists talk a lot about how the expectation of unrealistic hyper-masculinity in men, causes negative effects for the individual man and society at large. They also talk about how this can especially have an impact on gay and bi-sexual men and men who are simply not naturally masculine. So, there is actually a reasonable amount of focus toward male issues, even if it's not focused on to the same degree. So, understand that the intention of Feminism is to achieve equity. It's just that the path to equity is not solely about treating people equally in daily life and pretending like everything is already equal. That's just not an effective solution to our deep systemic problems. It's about actively removing systemic barriers to equity in whichever way is effective, which sometimes takes counterintuitive paths that can be read by less nuanced thinkers as unfair due to unequal focus. And it isn't passive. It's a very active process. And to remove barriers, we have to notice where barriers exist and be able to recognize which barriers are causing the biggest societal issues. Then when issues come into conflict with one another prioritize the bigger issues and not get derailed by smaller ones. And it's not that men are excluded from this. Many issues that uniquely effect men, stem from the issues that Feminists are trying to dismantle. For example, many men are upset that family courts tend to rule in the favor of the women getting custody of children. This is genuinely a huge problem. And I've heard many guys attribute this problem to Feminists, as though it's something that Feminists caused or something that Feminists support. But this problem wasn't caused by Feminists. It's actually a bias that stems from societal ideas which Feminism is diametrically opposed to: taking gender roles as absolutes. So, the same people who believe in their heart of hearts that women are inferior in the workplace, are the same ones who believe that men are inferior care-takers for children and are the expendable parent. Feminists tend to be VERY against these gender stereotypes. So, the men who blame Feminists for this issue often don't realize that they're fighting against an ally. Then, a sizable minority of those same men who lament the unfairness of family courts, inexplicably turn around and support beliefs in rigid gender roles, which then ends up percolating through the entire society. And then, once that idea percolates into society as a basic truth about humanity and is thoroughly incepted into the minds of the lawmakers and family court judges, it results in the disproportionate granting of custody rights to mothers over fathers. So, I see this situation as being like a dog chasing its own tail and trying to bite it, then getting angry at at someone else when it gets bitten. It's a very bitter irony. There is another version of the picture you posted of the people standing on boxes. In the picture, it's the same people with the same differences but none of them are on boxes. But they can all see perfectly. It's because they've gotten rid of the systemic barrier that was causing the inequality in the first place because the fence is gone from the picture. Edit: Also, you totally should let people know that you're a woman. I already knew. But many of the guys on here are pretty receptive. I know that implicit biases exist all the same though. And it is frustrating being subconsciously written off by many people in life: male and female. But there's no stakes on here. So, my policy is to always just be as honest and thorough as I can be without hedging myself, and I've seldom had the issue of being purposefully disrespected or noticably written off based on my sex.

Feminism strikes more at the core of the movement than the word "Equitism". As much as Feminism is about gender equality, the deeper implications of the word are that it's meant to aide in the re-integration of the Divine Feminine. So, really it's a movement geared toward undoing the Feminine repression that has fragmented human society for thousands of years. So, esoterically speaking, Feminism is an incredibly appropriate word for its end-game.

Basically, what you're afraid of is suffering eternally. And because you don't know what the afterlife holds, you fear that it will be Hell and you want to know how to avoid it. I used to freak out a lot about the after life before I had my ego transcendence experiences. When I had them, I realized that I was in integral part of God and always had been and always would be. And as such, I was unshakably valid. And suffering and fears about what would happen to me after death completely vanished, still never again to return. It's one of the main things that has stuck with me pretty well from the experiences. So, I realized that all of reality was Heaven and always would be even if outward appearances deceived. So, I can't tell you that there's not some other dimension or an infinite amount of other dimensions called "Hell". If reality is truly infinite it makes sense that everything exists. But I can tell you that everything is always going to be okay, and that suffering will always be an illusion and that God will always be there and you'll always be inextricable from God when all is said an done.

Both men and women's issues are important. I agree with that. But some issues in the world hold more weight, and it's wise that they are prioritized over others especially if two unequally weighted issues come into conflict with one another. So, if two issues run at cross purposes to one another in some way, the bigger issue should get priority and more focus. For example, the issue we were talking about is that many guys are worried about the "metoo" movement because they're afraid of being seen in a particular light or being accused, which is NOT a non-issue. It can certainly be something difficult to navigate for an individual person. It's just that it's a small issue in comparison to a bigger problem. So, the issue of male discomfort at these stories coming to light shouldn't get equal priority to the bigger issue of the systemic problems that create so many "metoo" stories in the first place, and those stories being brought to the light of consciousness. But it's what I see so often, that so many people think those issue are equally worth talking about. And the same people get so triggered and identified with the issues at hand that they want to use their own self-focused concerns to steer the conversation away from the bigger issue, and many use their part of the dialogue to invalidate and to point out that the solution is being done incorrectly or in a way that creates too many discomforts. To focus on both equally is to be slanted in the favor of the status quo as it is to say that both issues are of the same level of importance and do the same level of damage. And it's so often that so many people like to shift the focus from the real victims, to themselves and their discomfort with the social changes going on. And they pick that as their hill to die on. Or they get blinded by ideas of absolute equality and pick that as their hill to die on. And it's not just you. I see it a lot. Ironically, the dogma of absolute equality is actually a blind-spot created by liberal-minded people, who want to weigh all concerns as being equal and all opinions as equal. But this is not true of how reality works. It's the illusion of "wokeness." The limitations of this absolute equality dogma has been a huge awakening for those on the left in recent years.

Unfortunately, there's bound to be a lot of 'burn the heretic' kind of people that are in Green. The world changes through both subtle ideas percolating into society as well as ideas being forcefully shoved down people's throats. So, human evolution is volatile like that. But my recommendation for this is to just go with the flow if you think that the people are causing good changes in general. Try to prioritize positive social change over personal discomforts, unless a person's being totally unreasonable. Then, be nuanced about why you think they're unreasonable, and that it has more to do with being unreasonable as an individual, than with disagreeing with them or thinking that their vision for the future is bad. This can be difficult. But basically just practice some social acuity for whichever group you're in. If a group will be offended by your way of sitting (which is a bit nit-picky, even if it has merit as an outgrowth of problematic social structures) just be mindful of adapting yourself to that particular group. Basically, prioritize, pick your battles, and don't choose the smallest hills as the ones to die upon. But also, I don't recommend being around a lot of "gotcha!" kind of people either. I can't be myself around dogmatic people at all. So, I tend to avoid people who will moralize and can't have an open conversation. Also, many people try to show off their "woke-ness" and criticize others for not being as "woke" as them, calling them on every issue even if the person is making genuine attempts at understanding their point of view. But there are plenty of deeper thinking Greens who aren't like this. And even if they aren't open minded to certain ideas, they will have a reason behind it that makes sense within the social structure. Now, when I read this, I'm wondering if your aunt really felt uncomfortable because of your posture. Is she typically very nit-picky about social justice issues and stuff? I say this because usually it's younger people who tend to get hyper focused on small things like that. But I guess if you were sharing a bench and taking up all the room, she might have been upset at that. But that picture isn't even a picture of man-spreading. In fact, if I see a man sit like that, I tend to think of it as the male version of female cross legged position. And I've never related that position to being masculine or dominant at all. It's basically men getting away with the comforts of the cross legged position while not seeming too feminine or squishing "themselves". But I would just make sure that you read the situation right and that it isn't just projection. Sometimes, I can feel uncomfortable in situations where I belong to the privileged class, like sometimes when I'm around people of color that I don't know. So, I get like hyper-aware of how I'm behaving and nervous that they're interpreting my completely neutral behavior as racist. Then I try to hide my discomfort, which makes me awkward. And then I'm like, "I'm acting awkward, I hope it's not because they think I'm racist. I don't want them to think I'm a bad person." And it just becomes like this psychological snowball effect of projection and discomfort giving way to more projection and discomfort that's difficult to remove myself from. But this is totally my own projection onto them. They're probably just existing and thinking about totally other things and not even paying attention to me... then I just start acting like a spaz. Basically, it is my own self-judgment projected onto other people in the form of imagining their thoughts about my being a crappy person, which is what I fear people perceive me as because I identify strongly with being a good person. Basically, the human personality (and all other systems) have to have Yin (femininity) and Yang (masculinity) to exist and function. So, the main way to access them is simply to release resistance to both energies and naturally let them be integrated. So, it isn't so much trying to embody them both. It's just allowing whatever comes up to come up. Well, don't fear matriarchy because it isn't really possible at this point. Society can't ever really work that way. Esoterically speaking, at matriarchy requires Mother Nature to be in charge. So, we're just too evolved as a human society for us to be in a matriarchy. Basically, nomadic times where we moved to adapt to natural cycles as opposed to manipulating nature for agriculture and settled society, was matriarchal. Not in the sense that women ruled, but in the sense that nature ruled. It's humanity's childhood. In fact, patriarchy cam about largely because esoterically-speaking patriarchy is all about invention and dominance over nature. So, up until about the industrial revolution our focus was toward bettering the patriarchal system to give us new innovations and technology to create a protective wedge between us as an under-developed human species and the mightiness of Mother Nature. This is why the feminine has been resisted for so long, because the goal prior to the modern era was to survive and insulate ourselves from Mother Nature though innovation and refinement of civilization. We had a fear of the feminine, that still lingers in the unconscious today because of the link to Mother Nature's most destructive forces. But at the end of the Blue stage, when Orange was first dawning in the form of the industrial revolution, we finally got to be very effective at manipulating and insulating ourselves from the forces of nature. Even our instincts were largely stifled under so many layers of empty civility. And human society was becoming really effective at insulating ourselves from nature and dominating it. So, Alan Watts once said, "The tree creates apples, and the Earth creates people." (paraphrased). So, we as humans are an outgrowth of the Earth. So, because we reached a point where we had become super effective with patriarchy and planetary dominance, the Earth as a system (which we have a deep connection with) triggered a change in human beings and a change in social structure began. And that's why I believe Feminism didn't come up until about 100-120 years ago. That's when patriarchy started to reach a critical point, where its growth and development started to go from benign to cancerous. It's probably why the Amish stopped when they did. But one of the ways I think it will become more possible to integrate the Divine Feminine back into society, is changing more surface level power structures. So, when a woman goes into labor, the cervix has to dilate and many structure near the birth canal have to change position to allow room for the baby to be born. So, I see the shifting of societal taboos as being a way to prime society in a similar way, so we can collectively "give birth" to the feminine. I'm not really doing any particular practices to embody these energies. Sometimes just knowing that something is masculine or feminine can be a barrier in and of itself, because the mind gets in the way. The main thing I've done is to be aware of things that are generally filed into the masculine principle and feminine principle across cultures, and observe which ones I like and which ones I don't. Usually the feminine things I have a resistance too by nature of my conditionings. So, it's really a matter of understanding that I do have biases and trying to understand them at a deep level, and understanding that femininity is more than society thinks it is. But the majority of these understandings came from a time period when I was reading about the topic a whole bunch. It helped me empty my cup of many feminine resistances. But whenever I'm looking at something, I can notice it in a symbolic way and a non-symbolic way. So, I can notice how my mind tries to super-impose symbols over reality, and how that insulates me from being. So, it's a way to switch my focus from an esoterically masculine perception of the world which is based around utility to an esoterically feminine perception of the world which is based upon being. But I'm not sure about turquoise either.

That could be. I'm curious to see what Leo says about Turquoise, because I've never really gotten a clear idea of how it works.

I recommend ALL the books by Jean Benedict Raffa. She has three of them and one in the works. She's my favorite. I also recommend "The Heroine's Journey" by Maureen Murdoch, "The Pregnant Darkness" by Monika Wikman, "Androgyny" by June Singer, and "Goddesses in Every Woman" by Jean Shinoda Bolen. I also recommend perusing the work of Carl Jung, whose theories form a large part of the basis of the ideas these books were written from. You might also try reading work from Merlin Stone, Marian Woodman, Robert Stanford, and others like that. Jean Raffa always has really good bibliographies of suggested literature in the backs of her books.

At stage Orange, for men, female sexuality is seen as commodity that women are the gatekeepers of. It is seen as a hot 'item' to enhance a man's status through displays of value to one's self and others through female attention. So, attention from women, having money, having success/status, perhaps wearing brands, and being in the in-crowd all kind of meld together as Orange sexuality. So, sex is quite shallow and transactional at this stage. Men seek to have their power (and thus status) reflected back to them through the confirmation and 'earning' of female attention and approval. Women may also seek to have their desirability (and thus value) reflected back to them through male attention as well. So, at Orange, no one's really even having sex for pleasure. They're having sex for status and a confirmation of their own value. And Oranges will just assume that this is the way sexuality naturally is. They won't realize that it's an adaptation to the Orange society. They see sex as a value exchange first and foremost. But at Green, there is room for really intimacy and connection. There is also room for focus on pleasure in sex, instead of just status and value confirmation. So, I would say that pick up is definitely Orange, because the pick up community is very geared toward the "sex as transaction" model of human sexuality. But there can still be hook-ups and promiscuity at Green. But is more for fun and mutual exploration, than as a means to add value to one's self in the sexual marketplace. Think "free love."

I guess you can call it Eco-Feminism. But there is a small niche of books written by authors (most of whom were/are 2nd wave Feminists) writing from this perspective through the Jungian lens. My favorite of which is Jean Benedict Raffa. But the idea of the link between nature and the Divine Feminine is known in most spiritual circles. So, any kind of dominance or raping of nature is seen as an outgrowth of a society that has rejected the Divine Feminine. So, this link is well-known in smaller circles but hasn't percolated out into the mainstream very much. But I suspect that it will be the future of where Feminism will go after all the invisible repressive social patterns have been made conscious by the contemporary brand of Feminism. Almost like Feminism and other social movements like Conservationist movements are slowly all boring their way down to the very roots of the issues that they're trying to solve... which is the disintegration and imbalance between Yin and Yang in human societies.

I guess it all depends on his tone and body posture when he says it, and if it feel appropriate for the situation. It's more of having acuity for what's appropriate in a given situation. Also, if it feels contrived in any way or too cinematic or performed; it'll make me feel super awkward. Like, I'll be super aware and go into my head like, 'I think he's in his head right now. Trying to crack the code.' It tells me he's not really being present and isn't really secure in just being a human with me. Plus, it steals me out of the present too. Now, if I'm super attracted to him, I will love everything that he's saying to me, just because it's him that's saying it. The guy could probably say some Pinky from Pinky and the Brain level stuff, and I would find it just charming. But if my attraction is just developing, that might feel like a bit too much pressure. But these words won't make me more attracted unless I'm already very attracted. But I get an intuitive sense for if a man is capable of intimacy. It's about how he carries himself and how he acts and speaks. But it is just a projection at first too. But his affectations will be a pretty good indicator if he feels secure enough in himself to be intimate with someone else. Basically, if a guy seems like he has a chip on his shoulder, it'll clue me into some potential barriers to intimacy. Also, niceness is very non-active. It's just a very normal and general mode of behavior. Kind of like a clerk at a grocery store. They can be nice, but you wouldn't necessarily say that someone with surface level niceness is compassionate or particularly empathetic, emotionally sensitive, or warmhearted. Nice is an easy mask to wear. But the others take some skill, depth, and wisdom. They're more admirable traits. As for believing in the Cupid's Arrow, not literally. But I think the myth comes from the way that an attraction strikes women, and occasionally men. My attractions really have come up due to no logical reason. It's just that I start inexplicably start intensely liking someone and wanting to be around them because it produces the best emotions ever. Like imagine your body got a little hit of ecstasy every time you thought about or interacted with a particular person. And that was the only person who gave you that feeling. No one else pushes the ecstasy button but that person. That's what my attractions have been. And they come along only once in a very great while. But again, you're always kind of playing the lotto to a certain degree if you're trying to get a woman to fall in love with you to that depth. You can try every trick in the book, and if it doesn't happen it just won't. But you can increase your chances by being an awesome person in general and getting rid of deal breakers and being aware of how female attraction works. But the one you want may never be interested. Which is a difficult truth to handle. But someone will be, and they will like you very intensely just because you're you. You won't have to act any which way. But if you're just interested in pick-up or something like that, you don't really need a woman to fall in love with you. There are a ton of women who are just looking for a good time, who aren't interested in (or sometimes not even capable of) deeper attractions. In which case, you can learn some techniques and be relatively successful for one-night-stands and brief flings. But if you're looking for intimacy and a real relationship with another human being, it's important to understand what makes them tick. It's also helpful to know how random it is. A lot of guys will feel like they messed something up or that something is wrong with them if a girl doesn't have an attraction to them. Guys tend to be attracted to lots of women based on looks mostly, so they might assume women are also attracted to lots of men and that the lame men get put into the friend zone. But it doesn't work that way. Everyone in the world (except maybe Edward Norton... just sayin') starts in the friend zone. But usually only one makes it out. Maybe a few, if a woman isn't quite as pointed with her attractions as I am. But it's a really intuitive process and the choice happens on a subconscious level.

I made a post answering a similar question to this the other day. I'll copy-paste what I wrote... "The core idea of Feminism, is that women are not inferior to men. So, this core idea when looked at in a vacuum is a very Green idea, and mostly presents itself as Green in the average contemporary Feminist. That said, Feminism is not a monolith, and there are many different schools of thought within the umbrella of Feminism that are at Blue, Orange, Green, Yellow, and probably Turquoise. But I don't know a lot about Turquoise, so I'm not sure. There is no Feminism that is below Blue though, because Feminism originates as a late-Blue idealogical development. So, as a "technology", it isn't really compatible with any paradigm originating in early Blue and before. This is because society naturally skews polarly patriarchal in pre-industrial societies. But industrial societies (which are late Blue/ early Orange) catalyze the dawning of Feminism as an ideology and are also a sign-post that the pinnacle of patriarchy is on the horizon. Feminism at late-Blue at its dawning would be like First Wave Feminism, where women wanted to have a vote in the way society runs. But most First Wave Feminists were known to be dogmatic about things like prohibition and sexual purity. And much of the desire to have a say in society at the time was coming from a place of trying to have a say in defending patriarchal values. Modern-day Blue Feminism would be like TERFs (Trans-Exclusive Radical Feminists) or other radical Feminists that believe that we need to engineer society to make men and women separate, to avoid male tyranny. Similarly, Lesbian Separatists are also Blue. These types of Feminists tend to be really out of touch, because society is past Blue in the first place. So, society could never really go in that direction. And societies that are still in Blue would have no tolerance for those ideas. Feminism at Orange in the past (which was a major development in Feminism) would be like Second Wave Feminists, who wanted women to be able to join the workplace to be able to have individuality, goals, success, money, and power. Feminism at Orange today, is a little bit out-moded and often gets criticized by deeper and more comprehensive forms of Feminism that are more Green. So, an example of Orange Feminism would be like Pop-Feminism. Think of Dove Commercials and Beyonce- "We Run the World Girls", kind of ideas. It's very watered down to appeal to the Orange masses and to sell empowerment to women. Or the type of Feminism that Green Feminists pejoratively refer to as 'White Feminism', where the only issues that are focused on have to do with (mostly wealthy and white) women breaking the glass ceiling and rising on the corporate ladder, to prove that women can be just as (fill in the blank) as men. Deep down, this stage and these types of Feminism are still very patriarchal, even if it appears relatively equal on the surface. Green Feminists start to realize this on a shallow level. Yellow Feminists realize this on a deeper level. Feminism at Green would be the dawning of a basic awareness of systemic thinking relative to social structures and social structures only. The most popular form of this would be Intersectional Feminism, where Feminists are actively questioning how various privilege structures work within society and how different privilege structures act differently. Most Third-Wave Feminists are at Green. Despite its advances and deepening of awareness, it is still quite dogmatic. They often start to become more aware than the people around them about social patterns, and begin demonizing and blaming people who don't see the same patterns that they do. They also tend to believe that masculinity and femininity are nothing more than social constructs, to avoid uncomfortable truths that they fear may send them backwards. It's not really a very happy place to be at with regard to Feminism because a lot of Reds, Blues, and Oranges tend to lambast them, each group with a different reasoning. That's why there are so many Feminist cringe compilations circulating around the internet. Many Green Feminists don't know how to react effectively to noticing power structures that they've never noticed before, and they don't know how to fix them. So, they get nit-picky and defensive. And there are a lot of truths that they've yet to discover that occur on levels deeper than social structures. But they don't know that yet. Gender inequality can't be fully resolved at this level... just managed to make people feel more comfortable. Feminism at Yellow, would be when systemic thinking deepens beyond the social level to a more esoteric level and spiritual level. This is where the roots of the issues noticed at Green can start to be recognized. And with this, the demonization of the less conscious goes away. Here, instead of focusing only on gender inequality, it is recognized that gender inequality is a symptom of a deeper problem. And there is also a realization that femininity and masculinity are real in the form of Yin and Yang, and that these energies reflect in all living and non-living systems. And in this realization, there is an awareness that the imbalance between Yin and Yang is reflected as the core of most of our social problems that extend FAR beyond gender inequality. At Yellow, it is recognized that the Feminism is intrinsically linked to the Feminine Principle and all of its traits and expressions. It is also recognized that even Feminists at Green tend to unconsciously support the imbalance between Yin and Yang, because they don't realize when certain things are masculine or feminine. So, they are unconscious of their masculine biases that exacerbate the imbalance. It is also recognized that this imbalance reflects as a society that devalues Mother Nature and focuses more toward society at nature's expense. It is also recognized that Feminism is a natural outgrowth of post-industrial society. A patriarchal society that is post-industrial is VERY dangerous to Mother Nature as the imbalanced human system can threaten to break the natural systems. So, the feminine is in need of being reintegrated. There are very few Yellow Feminists. I think it is what will come in the future. Feminism at Turquoise, this I'm not sure of. I would imagine that it's probably about acceptance one way or another. And recognizing things are perfect either way. Either, we will be able to transcend our patriarchal past and integrate the feminine, and continue evolving and existing as a species. Or humanity will be unable to transcend its patriarchal leanings, proving that it is simply inherently patriarchal and the imbalanced system will break the planetary systems and will destroy humanity with it. But either way, the Earth is just a spec in the infinite expanses of the universe. Things get destroyed all the time. Nothing much would be gained or lost either way. That's just a thought though. I'm not really sure about Turquoise."

My attractions have always largely been about projecting some latent aspect of myself onto him. And in having connection with him, I feel more myself. So, for me, I tend to be attracted to reserved men who I imagine to have a lot of depth to them. And I like men who have a heart and are interested in deep things like art, psychology, spirituality, etc. I like a man who is just as much playful as he is capable fo being intellectual and serious. And I like a man with subtle un-pretended masculinities who is very cool headed and warm-hearted at the same time. And when I fantasize about being with them, I imagine that they are both emotionally aware (aka sensitive) enough to understand me and to be able to carry on a conversation with me about topics that I'm interested in. If I feel like he won't understand the things I'm interested in or be able to carry on a deep conversation with me, it's deal-breaker. So, for me personally, I like guys who already embody traits that I want for myself. So, if a man has a high degree of equanimity and peacefulness to his personality, I will tend to admire him because I aspire to that. Or if a man is okay with himself and doesn't need a lot of theatrics, I will tend to admire him because I aspire to that. And if a guy is reserved, I can also project qualities that I want in myself onto him, even if he doesn't have them. So, allowing for some silence can work in your favor. But if you wonder why women who you're not romantically involved with don't respond with attraction to niceness, it's because niceness is very basic and just not that much of a turn-on. It's just the absence of a deal-breaker in my book. Now, warm-heartedness and compassion are different. Those are much less common than niceness and deeper than niceness. They are also like a breath of fresh air. But if a man is into spirituality. That's good because we have a common interest. That said, there's no guarantee that his interest in spirituality will lead to an attraction. Now, with regard to a man being emotional, I would exchange emotional with emotionally sensitive or emotionally aware. Emotional to me means unstable and volatile. Basically, a man who can't control himself and has emotional outbursts and a lot of rage. Conversely, if a man is tuned into his own feelings and has a high degree of empathy and emotional awareness, it is one the sexiest things ever. That means that the man is capable of a level of intimacy that is rare to find in a man, because they fear seeming weak. So, it also means that he's comfortable enough in his masculinity to embody a trait that's typically seen as feminine. But again, women's attractions are highly selective and counter-intuitive. They don't have to do with any one particular trait or even a laundry list of all the "right" traits. It's more about chemistry, projection, luck, and context. So, your friend's crush probably just didn't want the experience of being with him because the Cupid's Arrow just didn't strike. But she probably liked the other guy because he was more mysterious, and she probably projected a lot onto him before she realized that he was an ass. The best advice I can give you is to rid yourself of deal-breakers and to know your strengths and interests. Be authentic and unapologetic about yourself. Also, perhaps plant a subtle seed that tilts her mind in a romantic direction in a very ambiguous way, but immediately go back to being platonic. Then, give her some space and time for her mind to do what it is (or isn't) going to do. The ambiguity may get her interested in what's going on in your mind, so that she wants to know more. But less is more.

Like I said female sexuality is generally holistic, but there can be dealbreakers and barriers to attraction as well. So, the particular traits work together to create something greater than the sum of its parts. But that doesn't mean that the attraction is unconditional and that the parts don't matter. In fact, it's extremely conditional. This is why women are a lot pickier than men. For example, I'm only attracted one guy at time. That's the only way for the attraction to be emotionally potent because the meaningfulness of the attraction adds to the aphrodisiac effect that the man has on me. If I'm attracted to two guys at once, it's like I feel 1/8 the effect of the aphrodisiac toward both of them combined as I would toward just one guy. And if I'm not through the moon for a guy the emotional payoff of dating him or being intimate with him is tepid at best and depressing at worst. But yes, the reptilian brain is also involved in attraction. But that isn't a conscious strategy that women employ. From the subjective experience, attraction either arises for no conscious reason or doesn't arise for no conscious reason. I'm not saying biology is null in this whole intuitive mix. It's part of the mix. But as an individual woman, it just comes on like a Cupid's Arrow.

Listen, neither John Gottman nor David M Buss have as much experience with being a woman as I do. I have almost thirty years of experience with this vehicle. So, I don't have any strategies that I consciously employ in developing an attraction to a particular man. It comes about intuitively and out of nowhere. Usually, what happens is I know a guy, and he's just a guy to me, just like anyone else. Then, I think about him one day and realize that I feel really good when I think about him. Then, I want to think about him more and be around him more. So, it's just the presence of positive romantic and sexual emotions that make me attracted to a guy. So, I would say that women's attractions to men are more holistic. No single trait will guarantee that a woman will be attracted to any guy. It's more that a man is more than just the sum of his parts and has a magic pull to him, that only I can see. That said, there can be deal breakers that get in the way of an attraction. For example, if I start to get an attraction to a man and imagine that he's a really warm-hearted guy and start admiring for that, then I see him kick a puppy. Well, the illusion is broken and he loses the magic. *Also note: For me (and maybe many others) All men begin in the friend-zone. They aren't consciously put there. Most just never make their way out of the friend-zone.

Thank you.

Women don't have an attraction strategy. They're just intuitively attracted to whoever happens to strike their fancy. It's a total Cupid's Arrow. But for women, context matters. When I start getting an attraction to a guy, I go into many fantasies about spending time with him and how he might react and what it might entail. So, if I imagine that I can have a lot of good emotions and experiences with a guy I will develop an attraction that that one guy. So, because many Orange women desire status, their fantasies are probably centered around the status a man can bring to her life. A Blue woman might fantasize about marriage and settling down. But Green women don't care about that to much. It's all about the potential for intimacy, having similar interests, and mutual exploration.

Please stop straw-manning. I didn't call you a bigot, and I didn't attack your character in any way. I'm just saying that you're unconscious to social patterns and that unconsciousness isn't a virtue or solution those problems. This is true no matter how much you genuinely value equality. But if you really value equality, I recommend learning how to think systemically. Sometimes the solutions are counter-intuitive.

The thing is, you are not even understanding anything that I've said. I've told you a bunch of things, then you respond with mostly straw man arguments against what you think I'm implying, and tons of platitudes to defend your own personal character (despite the fact that I never once attacked your personal character). Your personal character is fine, I'm sure. In truth, I wouldn't have even stopped to answer you question if I thought you were a willful asshole. But I thought you would at least be a little bit more receptive to what I'm telling you about the world that you don't already know, and why the state of things are the way they are. I feel like you're making concerted efforts specifically to avoid understanding what I'm saying, because it contradicts your worldview and your ideas of what equality means. I'm trying to pop your bubble, not hate on you. But character isn't really the issue in most cases. Unconsciousness is. Most of the world's problems are propped up by well-meaning people. And when you let go of your idea that you're not unconscious, then you might be able to empathize a bit better and get a clearer idea of what's going on in the world. But you're afraid of that, because you're content with comforting yourself on the idea that you're a good person and if more people were like you the world would be better. But that's just not the way things work. That's fantasy land. You can't wish the problems away with sunshine and rainbows. But the only way to transcend these issues is if a large percentage of society understands them at a deep level. That way, we don't unconsciously fall into negative patterns that contribute to those issues. The fact of the matter is, if we ignore problems and sweep them under the rug, they don't just magically disappear. They just rot there and get even worse. And these problems may not be super clear to those who aren't experiencing them daily. So, ignorance is not a solution. Unless, you're unconsciously trying to solve the problem of your own discomfort. By which ignorance is a wonderful solution. But otherwise, if you really care about equality and freedom as more than just an ego concern, willful unconsciousness to social patterns is never a good solution. It can be helpful to think more systemically. That way you can see that social problems are not personal. So, if you're contributing unconsciously to a social problem, it's not your fault. But understand that if you're unconscious you will be certainly working as a cog in that machine. Sometimes the most obvious solution is all wrong. So, if you think more systemically, you can entertain different perspectives a bit better. The first twenty minute of the video goes into the basics of systems thinking, and the second twenty or so is about how to apply it to the inner world. So, hopefully this will help you get a better grasp of what I'm trying to say.

If you don't want uncomfortable answers, don't ask uncomfortable questions.

I'm not trying to spread rumors about him. I just always thought that he was. It was the impression that I got mostly because of his mannerisms. So, when you were talking about the other yogi, I thought that you might have been referring to him because Shinzen was in a lot of videos with an attractive woman. So, I was like, "Well, that would make sense." But for the record, I am not saying that Shinzen Young is definitely gay or bringing it up just to stir up controversy or something. It was just my genuine first impression of him.

Okay. But is it Shinzen Young? I'm sure he has the iron-clad discipline to be celibate. I'm not questioning that. But he also has always pinged on my gaydar. So, perhaps practicing celibacy with a hot wife is not as much of a challenge for him as it would be for others.

I'm not arguing with you or trying to point fingers. You read it that way because it's probably what you expect. I don't think you're a bad guy at all. I just think you have blindspots. So, I was just trying to answer your original question to make you aware of why people are acting like they are to give you more context. But, I assumed that you were heterosexual because most people are, quite frankly. Plus, your post made it seem like you're a guy concerned about dating women in the modern world. So, I just assumed that you were. But if you're not, I apologize for assuming. I'm bi-sexual myself. Also, I'm not assuming that you've had an easy life. I'm only assuming that you've never experienced the experience of being woman. And with that, I assume that you haven't dealt with the sexuality and dating landscape from the vantage point of a woman, which has very specific perils that men don't have to deal with. It is these issues, that men often get uncomfortable about and don't like to talk about. But it isn't just willful assholes that contribute to these patterns. The real culprit is unconsciousness. So, even peaceful and caring guys can unwittingly allow and even contribute to these negative patterns without meaning to. So, everything that I've written to you so far is not meant to be a personal indictment. It has been an attempt to show you that you have some blind spots. The first thing is to let go of the limiting belief that everything always needs to be 100% equal to be fair. Sometimes blind mechanical equality can enforce pre-existing inequalities. But it's perfect that you're an agnostic for the analogy. So, Christianity is the most popular religion and Christians get certain privileges in society that people who are agnostic (or any other non-Christian religious orientation) don't get. Because Christianity is so popular, they tend to run with the idea that their religion is best, without being checked on it too much. And they can often think that they're being discriminated against, just by people having a different set of religous beliefs. So, it can be an uncomfortable situation, for example, to be at a public event when everyone bows their head a prays to Jesus. It makes it a social expectation to conform to Christian norms. Or if a Christian person confronts you and asks you what your religion is or tries to convert you, it can be a very uncomfortable experience where you might be tempted to lie just to avoid it. Now, not all Christians are like this. And certainly, most of the Christians that are like this mean well. But it doesn't make the experience any more comfortable for non-Christians. So, if you as an Agnostic complained about that and noted your experience to a Christian. And then the Christian didn't really address your experiences and just answered with, well not all Christians are like that. Anyway, I believe that everyone should be able choose whatever makes you happy and so should Christians. So, those bad Christian shouldn't do that. But it's also important for the non-religious not to Christian-shame too. There are bad people on both sides. But they are not really being empathetic and they aren't really listening. They are just trying to defend themselves and the thing they're identified with. The conversation is meant to shift the focus from real problems to their problem with the solutions.

That's why I seek to drop the ego permanently. I am not interested in transcending life itself or extricating myself from the experience of life. That seems quite silly to me, considering the fact that I have an eternity to be the infinite thing that I am, have always been, and will always be. What I want is the integration between a life of complete embodiment as a finite person and that which simply is, just like I had before. To realize that while I'm on my journey that I've never actually left home.

If it's the one I'm thinking about, it's because he's probably gay. That's always the vibe I got from him.

He made the triggered joke because wrote to him (not Leo) on another thread and I suspect he mischaracterized me a bit because I was talking about women's issues... as I typically do. I think it's the most important things to focus on relative to the evolution of humanity, as the Divine Feminine has been repressed in the collective consciousness for many thousands of years. But there is more a slant toward Divine Masculine on here sometimes at the expense of the Divine Feminine, and not so much of an integration between the two. But it's really good to observe through the triggering, and being on here can help show you some of the barriers toward the integration of the Divine Feminine. It's hard to integrate the Feminine in our era because there's so much misinformation and reductionism going on relative to it. I talked about this dichotomy a bit in one of my recent videos. Where there is a the duality of Form (Feminine) and Formlessness (Masculine), which are really both the same thing. Then there is the dichotomy of Love (Feminine) and Emptiness (Masculine), which are also just two aspects of God. And it makes sense that Leo would focus more on the emptiness aspect of it, because it seems like Leo's experiences beyond ego were experiences of the Divine Masculine, which my experiences were less geared toward. But I have experienced the Divine Feminine during my experiences of ego transcendence, and they were more about unconditional love and fuller embodiment of myself as a human being. I had access to divine wisdom that seemed to come from outside of me and inside me at the same time. And I already knew that I had always known. And because I had no fear or suffering, I was very open instead of shut up like I normally am. Because of this my intuition become very sensitive and I was receptive to larger social patterns just by looking at people around me. There was also a deep connection between myself and everything else. I recognized this first in the trees and the grass that were around me. And my emotions were able to play out at full stretch within me, and conveyed wisdom to me. And I experienced all the repressed feminine traits that I had locked away just to be able to exist in society. And despite thinking of feminine and masculine as mere social constructs, I detected an energy buzzing inside me and outside that I immediately identified as feminine which was erotic but not explicitly sexual. It was life-giving and gave me access to my animal instincts. And I felt completely at home in the mundane world, which I recognized as a literal heaven. And I didn't have to prove myself worthy of anything or fear death. My existence was already unshakably valid. So, relationships are an aspect of Divine Feminine and they're also an aspect of the Illusion. So, they are empty in that sense. But there is no distinction between Divine Masculine and Divine Feminine at the end of the day. Duality is not separate from Non-Duality. Form is not separate from Formlessness. It's all one thing, and that one thing is infinite. So, it has all things... including the finite. So, embodiment in this life is just as much part of the path as transcendence.