Emerald

Absolutely. It's really toxic.

I wouldn't recommend Jordan Peterson to a woman. He's tends to cater more toward men and advocating for men to climb higher in dominance hierarchies and such. I've watched about 15 or so of his videos. And I would think that he would be disheartening to many women because he harkens back to earlier more traditional patriarchal social structures as being healthier for men and women both. And he sees most initiatives toward equality as being "Neo-Marxism" and a sure sign that we're heading toward a Communist dystopian future. So, lots of demonization. But I could see being really jazzed up to listen to what he says as a man, because he inspires men who feel powerless to own their masculinity and gives them narratives around the idea of manhood for climbing the hierarchy. But he tends to be somewhat critical of women competing in "male dominance hierarchies" and focusing less on motherhood/wifehood because he thinks it makes women less happy and makes society fall apart. So, he might have the opposite effect on women, and take the wind out of the sails of their ambition and make them needlessly question their own power and place within the world. And I honestly think that's his intention.

I picked Green-Yellow. And I think that's accurate of me. I do think I'm pretty decent at systemic thinking, and most of the Yellow traits describe accurately how I think. But I am heavily invested in Green, with regard to noticing social structures that create issues and inequalities for women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, the disabled, religious minorities, and those that diverge from societal norms in general. I'm also interested in movements like Veganism (I am Vegan myself) and movements that focus toward helping the environment. And of course, income inequality. That said, I'm not sure if I'm invested in Green as an outgrowth of Yellow's systemic thinking, or as a pure orientation toward Green in and of itself. I may simply be seeing Green as the next logical step in humanity's evolution, and wanting to encourage more people to go in that direction to create a momentum in the forward direction. That said, I may actually be quite attached to Green. In recent years a lot of Blue types have started going more Orange. You can kind of see that the average Right-winger in America has shifted away from Blue and more toward Orange, and embraced a more Libertarian mindset about politics as opposed to a religious/moral one. And the average Left-winger has departed from Orange a bit and started to embrace Green. So, intellectually, I can recognize that there is progress going on, even in Conservative circles. That said, I still register that progress within the spiral as a barrier to progress in general, because of the Libertarian focus toward the Free Market without much regard to the planetary effects and worker exploitation of unfettered business interests. So, I'm either Yellow or Green-Yellow. I'm honestly not sure which.

I really don't think you quite understand what I'm saying. I'm already in my woman-cave. If I do go out of the house, it's with my family or for work. And I have no dogs in the race relative to the dating game. I've been sufficiently withdrawn from life for over seven years, just working on my family, my work, and my YouTube channel. So, understand that my issue, at its bedrock level, isn't really about sexual market value. It's about deep conditionings that I've yet to be able to drop, despite years of inner work, because I have needs that conflict with dropping it. Basically, I feel like I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, because I know I'd be repressing something to choose to go in either direction. That said, I've been slowly chipping away at it over the years, and it is a little bit better. I'm hoping that eventually, it all lets go of me and allows me to come back into alignment. But the social pattern is so big and pervasive, that it would be very hard to drop for anyone afflicted by it. But no, it's not even possible for me to derive pleasure by looking at men as sexual objects. Men are only attractive to me as fully formed human beings with autonomy and personalities. I can't just look at a man's body as an object and forget the personality attached to it. That said, there are parts of me that see myself as purely an object, and there are plenty of people and images out there echoing that sentiment. So, even when I intellectually know that thinking of myself as an object is incorrect. There is still a deep feeling there that I just can't seem to shake. So, I know that some deep parts of me truly believe that.

That's the problem with some of these teachers. They know what works... but they don't know why it works. They know how to drive a car, and then grow to think of themselves as mechanics. Then when an actual mechanic checks them on it, they argue that they know better because they know how to drive a car. They may assume it works because women like being assaulted or objectified. But it really works because some women already have low self-esteem and weak boundaries because of past traumas. So, they cave easily, even if they don't really want to. So, he's essentially teaching people to play off of those old wounds for their own personal gratification. And this isn't actually something that will actually increase confidence, at all. It'll just teach guys that it's okay to go over women's boundaries because they respond to it. Because 'if they respond to it, it must mean they like it.' And there are just better ways to increase confidence that aren't exploitative of weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

Sex is just a small part of it. It has so much more to do with the way that I see myself in relation to my sexuality. I feel like I can't both have myself and my sexual desires too. So, it's more about authenticity, wholeness, and power than it is about sex. I'm a woman, so I know that if I really wanted to and made myself available, I could have sex with ten new guys a day. And I'm sure that even when I'm 70, if I put myself out there, I could have sex with a few men a week. There will always be men out there looking for sex wherever they can get it. Now, I don't want to do that, because it would suck. But I could. So, it's not a fear that sex will go away as I age. It has to do with how I've been subtly conditioned since early childhood to see myself as a sexual object instead of a sexual subject, coming more and more to a head as I've become older and wiser. It's seeing yourself as a valuable sexual object when you're younger, and then feeling like your value as an object diminishes every year. And with that perceived value loss, feeling less and less valid as a person and less and less deserving of pleasure. So, it's being a diamond when you're young, and being a piece of garbage once you're older. But my question is, when do I finally transcend this illusion of being an object and feel fully human and valid? And if I do transcend that illusion, will I still feel like I'm allowed to have sexual desires? So, you must understand that it's an existential problem, a lot like dealing with a smaller version of death. And it's very difficult to put down because the conditioning is so subtle and pervasive that there's no way to avoid it. It's especially difficult because the sexual narratives that we learn are all based around women as objects too. So, it's easy for young women to learn that their role in sex is to simply be the pleasing object. So, if we relate this narrative to sexual pleasure, it's extra difficult to buck that narrative because of its association with pleasure. So, it's very complicated. And I don't necessarily think withdrawal will help. I have been with my husband for over eight years and we have children together. And I know he loves me as a person. So, it's not like I have dogs in the race of the dating game or anything. So, I'm already pretty far withdrawn. It's just that, despite the inner work I've done, I can't seem to transcend this issue. It's very tenacious.

I thought Cannabis was physically non-addictive. I've known people who are psychologically addicted to it. But I used to smoke like it was my job back in high school. But I never actually got addicted to it. I didn't ever really crave it. And I quit when I was 20, very unceremoniously without any desire to do it again. I just smoked it because it was a folkway and it was always around. I basically liked the ceremonial nature of it where doing it with friends and family was like an iconoclastic ritual of sorts where we could do a minor act of law breaking together and talk about weird topics. But overall, I'm not a fan of it. I never actually liked it on its own, save a few genuinely good memories. I just liked being part of that subculture. And it was part of my identity at the time too.

You're not really telling me anything new. I have worked hard to buck the social narratives for my entire life. And I completely ignored them all through my teenage years, just writing them off as BS. But they're so deeply ground into me, that it's difficult to drop even when I unknowingly pretended to all those years. And when I pretended they were dropped, I just had a lot of needs that I wasn't able to admit to myself. But that's how these narratives are designed on purpose, to cross over the sexual instinct. The function of the mechanism is designed to keep women in a non-centered state, where a woman will have difficulty being truly authentic. It's difficult to drop something that has soaked into you so deeply, that you would literally have to rewire or drop the entire ego to move past it. And I work on it every day, chipping away at the attachment to social narratives little by little. But the fact of the matter is that I have needs to meet, that I don't know how to meet without the social narrative. I've never seen any other ways that resonate with me more. So, as long as I feel like I still need that for all the reasons that I do, it will be very difficult to let go of. It's not simply a matter of letting go of just the one thing. I also don't want to repress anything by pretending to drop something that is so tenacious.

I don't recommend it. From what I've read about the guy, he advocates approaching women by immediately choking them and shoving their faces in his crotch. That would be so traumatic to experience. So, don't do that. She won't appreciate it, even if she doesn't have strong enough boundaries and goes along with it because she feels she has no other recourse. Basically, there is no way to make a woman have a good time when she's been assaulted. It might work on some women because it plays off of earlier traumas. But she will hate herself even more and hate you too after the experience. But specifically which technique from him are you considering? I hope it's not the two that I mentioned. I would imagine that refraining form using those would be common sense. But you never know. I can maybe give you a bit more accurate advice, if you tell me which ones you're thinking of using.

That's my favorite quote from Eckhart Tolle, hands down. But I still refuse to believe that Sadhguru said the word "dick." He would have been way more creative about it and called it a "magic wand" instead. That's how I knew it was a fake quote.

Did Sadhguru really say that?

Thank you! I hope you enjoy my videos.

That's my point. Women can still be attractive as they get older. But the cultural narratives don't reflect that. The cultural narratives are difficult to buck because they are drip fed to women since they were in early childhood. So, it's difficult to unpack for women and for many to feel entitled to have sexual feelings, pleasure, and libidinal power.

The thing is. I have a husband and I've been with him since I was 20. It doesn't have to do with wanting a partner or anything like that. It has to do with narratives being pushed on me my entire life, that are designed to squelch women's personal power. It sets up a narrative that women's main value in the world is through their level of physical attractiveness. And it also says that once a woman hits 30, that she no longer has value in the world. So, there comes to be rift between women's natural sexual energy and their personal development. It's society's way of cutting women off from their power source and dis-allowing the Divine Feminine to be expressed into the world. And it hurts when you're young for a woman. and it hurts as you age. But I'm sure that you do take pleasure in it. Cultural narratives are designed to keep women's natural energy cut off. And the most effective way to do that is to construct narratives, where men relate their own value to female validation. So, women, who actually lack power, seem powerful to men who buy into narratives centered around the idea that women's attraction is somehow a conveyor of worth. So, of course a man who has had no success with women, will love it when women are struggling. It makes him feel like, "Finally those bitches are being taken down a peg and getting a taste of their own medicine." But this is a distortion. Women have always has less power, so it only adds more insult to injury. If you zoom out a bit, you will be able to see it. It's not about sex. It's about taking validity, authenticity, and expression from women as they age. And only allowing them validity when they're young and fit neatly into narratives around male sexuality.

Well, your mom probably laughed because you're dad said it and she's probably already older. Older women tend to be much more acclimated to being written out of the sex narrative than younger women because they've already been around the block. They also know that the world doesn't go away because they've aged. Many have completely transcended cultural narratives around sexuality. But if you're talking to women in their 20s and 30s, they're terrified of being written out of the sex narrative for good. It's something that I've struggled with personally. I already feel at age 29 that I'm not attractive and don't deserve pleasure because I'm not under the age of 25. And it's a major blockage on my personal power which is derived from libidinal energy. Intellectually, I know that this narrative isn't 100% true. There are a ton of desirable women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. But that's the effect of that kind those kind of narratives. It makes me feel that my sexual desires are invalid, which causes a lot of repression and less personal power to come to the surface. But young men are attractive to young women. So, they have the ability to be attractive in high school, college, middle age, and old age. So, men are never completely written out the sex narrative. But once a woman gets to be about my age (or more realistically about four years younger), they are pretty much written out of that cultural narrative for the rest of their lives. So, to say that it's somehow the same level of bad, isn't true. That's especially true given the fact that the most of the attention that young women get is unwanted and sometimes scary. It's often their universal attractiveness and appeal that make them easy to fit into narratives that diminish their personhood and power. They are seen as objects and not subjects. For men, personal development and sexuality go hand in hand and tend to compound to make a man more and more attractive as he ages. For women, personal development and sexuality have an inverse relationship, where personal power grows as sexual attraction shrinks. It's a hard reality to come to terms with. So, if you look at this issue being one of the rift between personal power and sexuality, you will see that the issue that Incels are going through is not similar in any way to what women go through.

I actually made a video that gets at this question a bit, in a round about way. It's about Divine Feminine integration.

'lol. It's just a little lemon juice. Don't get all triggered now.' Says the person with no cuts on them to the person with a lot of cuts on them. You and other men can take what you said as a joke because you'll never have to experience aging in the same way that women do. For women, it's a really big existential crisis, because they are told their entire lives that their looks are what makes them important. So, when a woman's looks fade with age, statements like the one that was made above is anything but a joke. It's pouring lemon juice on deep wounds. So, forgive us for not laughing. You wouldn't either if you were a woman.

That sounds correct to me. I think it is the case that the deeper attraction has to really be engaged to really compel the majority of women to engage romantically with a man in any way. There are a ton of exceptions, like if a woman wants to have a one-night stand or something to shake things up a bit and have a novel experience. But for me personally, there's not really enough of an emotional payoff to want to have a random experience like that. The erotic emotions just won't be there for a man who isn't THE man that I'm attracted to. The meaning that I derive from the feelings of attraction is the most powerful aphrodisiac there is. Everything that I said, is especially true given the potential physical, emotional, and social consequences of such an experience. The potential bad often far outweighs the good.

I went back and read your first post, and I see what you're saying now. That's ultimately the difference between initial attraction and the deeper levels of attraction that happen thereafter. The deeper level of attraction that happen afterward are quite similar in both men and women. But in the initial stages of attraction they tend to present differently. For many men (probably most), it tends to be more objective and general. For women it tends to be more intuitive and particular. But if a two people get into a relationship together, the initial dynamic fades away and give way to a completely different dynamic. But most of the guys on this thread are only focused toward that initial dynamic, because they haven't had a lot of success with dating. So, they tend to look at relationships through the lens of the initial dynamic. And they tend to project a lot onto women because all they're familiar with is their own initial attraction dynamic, which tends to be objective and general. So, they assume that women are the same level of objective only with far more particularity and selectivity. So, because of this error in thinking, it makes them feel like they're inadequate as a person and the cards are stacked against them, when they actually aren't.

My very point is the male and female attraction work differently. So, I agree with the point that male and female attraction are apples and oranges. That said, it's very common that men use looks as their main standard for whether or not they're attracted to a woman. So, they tend to defer to objective qualifiers to determine whether or not they will go out with someone. There can be other objective qualifiers too. But it's still a list of things, that if a woman has them then they will consider dating her. It's objective and uses the rational mind. Women, on the other hand, tend to get deeper and more intuitive initial attractions. So, a woman won't necessarily know why she's attracted to a guy. All she will know is that she wants to be as close to him as possible. She will be attracted to him just because he is who is his. So, it's very selective. But it's non-objectifying. If a woman is deeply attracted to you, it usually means something to her.

It is a really a yucky feeling to look at it, for sure. They really have no clue how actual real human women are. But these guys really do actually believe what they say and what the propaganda tells them. So, men who buy into the propaganda, put themselves in all kinds of negative mindsets and really do see women as both super-human and sub-human at the same time. It's almost as though they psychologically put women up on a pedestal and see them as automated worth-conveyors for men. Then, because they don't like the fact that women are on a pedestal in their minds, they psychologically drag their idea of women down from that pedestal and stomp on it to lessen the women's perceived power in determining their worth. But that's only because they feel powerless, and they want to blame someone for that powerlessness. The best advice I can give to them is to get away from the computer and interact with real people in life. It's the isolation behind a computer screen that takes the humanity out of all interactions. If Tinder is the only dating experience that someone's had, it's really distorting natural dynamics. And it's easy to confabulate the worst narratives around women's attraction because it doesn't work similarly to men's attraction. But the isolation allows them to dehumanize and objectify women by thinking of them in a two-dimensional way. And they are psychologically enslaved to their image of womanhood, which is the main way that they experience women is through that image. So, because that image has power over them, they cope with it by projecting powerless onto it. Kind of like in the third Harry Potter when they used the 'Ridiculous' spell on the Boggart, making something scary seem trite or silly. It's the same idea. So, when they create/believe these narratives, it's basically them projecting their own tendencies toward objectification and dehumanization onto women. They think that women are attracted to men in a similar way to the way they're attracted to women. But women who are genuinely attracted to a guy, are anything but objectifying and dehumanizing. They like a guy just because of how he is, and NOT how closely he matches arbitrary objective standards.

It is a really a yucky feeling to look at it, for sure. But these guys really do actually believe what they say and what the propaganda tells them. So, men who buy into the propaganda, put themselves in all kinds of negative mindsets and really do see women as both super-human and sub-human at the same time. It's almost as though they psychologically put women up on a pedestal and see them as automated worth-conveyors for men. Then, because they don't like the fact that women are on a pedestal in their minds, they psychologically drag their idea of women down from that pedestal and stomp on it to lessen the women's perceived power in determining their worth. Basically, it's them projecting their own tendencies toward objectification and dehumanization onto women. They think that women are attracted to men in a similar way to the way they're attracted to women. But women who are genuinely attracted to a guy, are anything but objectifying and dehumanizing. They like a guy just because of how he is, and NOT how closely he matches arbitrary objective standards.

Most of this thread is exactly what happens when people of one gender assume that people of the other gender get romantic attractions in the exact same way. Men tend to look for women who are more physically attractive and as long as they are over a certain level of physical attractiveness, they will be attracted. It's a very objective qualifier. That's how men get attracted to women in the initial stages, using a small list of objective qualifiers. Women tend to have no list of objective qualifiers, if they're using their intuition. She will not necessarily even be looking for a guy. But then she talks to a guy, and she doesn't feel something right away. Then, she's by herself and she's thinking about that guy and she notices that she feels something pleasant. So, she thinks of him more, and more pleasant feelings come. And before the five minutes it through, she's very into that particular guy. It's not because he's a super-model. It's not because he's successful. It's not because of how much money he has. It's not because of any of those things. It's simply because he is who he is. It's pure chemistry. But it is highly selective. Very few men will ignite that response in a particular woman. Everyone else will be neutral. But the fact that you've yet to ignite that response in someone, isn't because you're not in the top 20% of guys or whatever. It's because you don't spend time around a lot of women to even ignite that response in the first place. Plus, women tend to be attracted to men who mirror themselves including in level of perceived value. For example, I feel 100% platonic toward super-model looking guys because they're more attractive as men than I am as a woman. So, I don't want to feel lesser. I want to feel like a catch. So, I'm much more likely to get attracted to a guy who's even with me or slightly less attractive than me than I am to get attracted to a guy who's more attractive than me. But it will never be the physical looks that attract me. I'll be attracted to him because of how he makes me feel, first and foremost. So, all you guys have to do is open yourself up and go out and talk to women. Eventually, someone you meet who fits your list of objective qualifiers will develop an intuitive attraction to you. But don't let Tinder statistics bog you down. Women can't use their intuition over the internet. So, they have to use the more masculine mode of attraction on there to determine who they'll choose for a date by using objective qualifiers. But this isn't how real life works. Tinder is just technology, which paints a totally different picture of romance/dating that's not actually accurate.

No worries. I didn't take it that way. I read your message earlier. But I've been working really hard on editing a video for my channel. So, I haven't had the opportunity to reply. I'll probably get to it tomorrow or the next day. I'm going out of town tomorrow, but I may be able to carve out some time.