Emerald

Are you talking about Yellow as the stage that is relativistic and includes infinite perspectives? If so, it is basically a realization that different perspectives have their own relative truths. For example, an ant may say, "The flower is huge!" or an elephant may say, "The flower is tiny!" Both of these statements are true from a particular perspective, but false from another. A person who is in yellow, will be able to recognize that these perspectives are valid and will be able to make room for that paradox of conflicting perspectives. But ultimately, the idea of "big and small" is a false dichotomy not based in reality. It is just a relative truth of which its understanding of that truth has a practical function for a person's (or animal's) unique perspective. This understanding is also key to Yellow-ness.

Blue and Green both are pretty dogmatic. Letting go of dogma comes with Yellow. It's just that Blue's dogma is based around traditions, folkways, and social norms. Green's dogma is based around equality, fairness, and justice.

This is probably in part because you don't know a lot of real people who are Green. Most of whom, are cool people. You just see the lowest common denominator of Green in the form of a shouting nineteen year-old blue haired women in videos titled "Feminist Rekt by Logic." So, this is a very uncharitable representation of Green. Furthermore, these caricatures of Green often get lambasted by tons of red, blue, and orange people on the internet for various reasons. This type of widespread social judgment would strike right at the self-esteem of even the most healthy individuals. But for those who struggle with self-esteem, they literally couldn't emotionally handle being seen in that light. So, there is grave danger for those with low self-esteem who already feel rejected to even consider being seen in a remotely similar light to a Green. This is worst bottleneck of transcending Orange-thinking for many young men. So, because of this harsh judgment toward Greens from others (and yourself), to see yourself in a similar light to them, would make you feel lesser and ignites fears of being rejected and lambasted the same way. Perhaps it even steps on old wounds of being rejected in the school hierarchy or being unpopular with women. And my bet is that it is probably a core personal narrative of yours to be admired and respected as an autonomous individual to give yourself a feeling of worth and compensate for feelings of lowliness that stem from isolation, which is further exacerbated by internet culture in general. Plus, all the personalities like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and all those on the "Intellectual Dark Web" all speak from Blue and Orange. These are all cool-headed, 'intellectual-seeming' men with mass appeal who value masculinity and conjure a desire for emulation of their qualities from nerdy guys with low self-esteem who value intellectualism and have a desire to be more masculine. These speakers are heavily rooted in pro-hierarchical, individualistic, Yang-oriented values and see them as absolute positives without acknowledging much about the shadow aspects of those values. Furthermore, people like JBP build upon pre-existing success narratives to make them sound even sweeter than before. And the group-think is very strong around them. These Blue/Oranges also value success as a result of hard work above all or almost all other values. They see success as an indicator of personal worth and character. So, it makes sense that Green would be a threat to someone in these stages because it calls the fairness of the status quo into question. If you are an Orange, who wants success and admiration above all other things, then Green's awareness of unfair social patterns will be quite triggering. Many Oranges have a dream of rising to the top of the hierarchy, and if the hierarchy is unfair as Green notices, it makes their sweet dream very bitter if they acknowledge in any way that the deck is stacked in their own favor (or against them, which can be even more painful). This is especially true for men who struggle with success and self esteem. If they believe with their heart of hearts that success is an indicator of personal worth and character, and they can't even be successful when the deck is stacked in their favor; if they were being consistent with their own values, they would essentially be admitting their own worthlessness and lack of character. But don't worry, you couldn't even pretend to be Green at this point in time. It isn't really a conscious decision to embody certain values that make you resonate with them and ascend on the hierarchy. It cannot be forced or made into an achievable goal when approached from the level of Spiral Dynamics as a system. It is mostly unconscious emotional and psychological attachments that keep you down in your current paradigm. So, because you likely have a lot of psychological protection mechanisms that hide a deep sense of inferiority and pain, you must address those issues first. Right now you're a helium balloon with a weight on it. All you need to do to ascend within this system is to remove the weights. Once you do it will happen naturally and effortlessly. I recommend doing some Shadow Work. I have a video on the topic. You can also try to integrate your Anima, which will help you release resistance to your feminine archetype.

Education-wise- I have a bachelors in fine art and a bachelors in art education (k-12) with a minor in art history. Relative to Spiral Dynamics - I've watched all of Leo's videos about it, and did a little bit of independent research on it. Relative to history - I've taken three college level general history courses, two on Western Civ. I was also an Art History minor, so I took six courses on that topic. I'm also interested in history in general, so I often Google the historical context of things I'm interested in, just for laughs and giggles. Relative to children - I am a mother of two children (ages 3 and almost 7), and I've worked with kids ages 3-17 ever since I graduated from college. So, my job has in many ways required me to notice developmental stages and what the needs of each stage is, to accommodate them better.

Thank you. I don't know where I would put this idea on the Spiral Dynamics map. But the main thing I wanted to get across is that morality has an important practical function for the individual and society. But it can also be problematic for the seeker (and the non-seeker too) because the morality structure can hide so much and can contribute to the shadow. So, my advice was to keep the morality structure very very simple while on the path. Think of a moral as a practical tool for functioning. So, if you have lots of tools, it's going to encumber you and you'll get tripped up with your tools. But if you have one practical tool in the form of the Golden Rule which is simple and flexible and you understand that it's just a tool, it will be easier to just pick it up when you need it and put it back in your tool-belt when you don't. Also, because it's not as complex as having a laundry list of principles, it's easier to dis-identify with it. And you'll be less likely to judge other people for arbitrary reasons. But during my experiences of ego transcendence, I didn't really need morals at all. It was just really obvious that I was deeply intertwined with all of reality. So, I didn't have to use the Golden Rule because I didn't have to put myself in anyone else's shoes. I already knew that harm coming to others meant that harm was coming to me. But for seekers who are actively letting go of ego, which is often the motivator for empathetic/compassionate behavior, it is important to keep morality around as a tool to keep from devolving into Zen Devilry. But keeping it simple is optimal.

There's no source. I just came up with it based off of what I know about spiral dynamics, history, and children.

In the video that I just posted, I talk about how reality is non-dual but there is a duality that can be noticed in the subtle energies of Yin and Yang. I also mention my experiences with the two energies and which expressions they inform.

Stage Beige in Societies - Nomadic times with little to no technological advancement. Completely dependent on Mother Nature and at the mercy of her cycles. No ability to settle into societies because there's no ability to practice agriculture. Limited ability for communication. Stage Beige in Fetuses/Newborns- Complete dependency and at the mercy of the mother for gestation and after birth breast-milk. No ability for communication or complex agendas. Basic survival needs. Stage Purple in Societies - The earliest civilizations, where we've settled into tribes. A huge emphasis on family. The concept of fatherhood is discovered. More technological advancements come into play including agriculture and written language, which allows us to settle into organized societies for the first time. Stage Purple in Older Infants/Younger Toddlers- Focus more toward others in the family beyond just the mother. Siblings become a big part of one's life at this stage. Beginning to have more personal will and some idea about how the world works. Stage Red in Societies- Independence from tribal societies. A focus on one's own individual agenda with no consideration for anyone else. Can often be brutal. Stage Red in Toddlers- Desiring independence from the family's agenda and a desire to do his/her own thing. Very self-focused without empathy for others. The word "NO" is learned. Can often be brutal. Terrible twos and three-nagers are a force to be reckoned with. Stage Blue in Societies- More complex social structures are set up with rigid ideas of right and wrong. Little ability for nuanced thinking. But a solid moral foundation allows for technological advancements and specialization. Traditions are appreciated and give a sense of comfort. Lots of fear and discomfort at things that diverge from he familiar. Stage Blue in Older Toddlers/Children (4-11)- The rules of right and wrong are learned in an absolute way. Having a solid foundation of rules for proper functioning give the child a sense of stability to be able to develop a strong sense of self-efficacy with the ability for success and praise to come from taking "right" action. Traditions are appreciated and give a sense of comfort. Lots of fear and discomfort at things that diverge from the familiar. These are all important stages that each child has to pass through to develop properly.

Based off of this comment, I recommend letting go of the relationship. It will be a weight on your life. This is a clear sign of dysfunction, and she is trying to manipulate you. She needs to work on herself before being in a relationship. It seems a bit like the Narcissist/Codependent dynamic starting to rear its head. She will be okay. Manipulators like to give the impression that the victims of their manipulation are the only thing keeping them afloat. I was in a four year relationship like this, from age 16 to 20. Leaving it was one of the best decisions that I've made.

@ChimpBrain If you feel that it's the right move, then you should go for it. That said, if you move to a more Green area, you will likely notice a false depth. It will likely become exasperating once the charm wears off. Be careful not to let that deter your progress.

@ChimpBrain I would stick around. There's a lot of uncomfortable truths to be learned from existing in a Blue area, especially in today's political climate. I'm originally from Citrus County, Florida, where almost everyone is deeply Blue. This is especially true because I lived in the poorer area, with everyone living in trailers. I have had straight-up middle-aged meth-heads with their teeth falling out of their face moralizing to me about how I should be more lady-like and stop worshiping the devil with my clothing style. It was very unnerving for me as a teenager, because I was always very iconoclastic and was always exasperated by the racism, homophobia, small mindedness, and religious fanaticism. I tended to get hit a lot with the latter two from ignorant adults, mostly. But most people in Blue are nice, and some of them are intelligent. So, you'll be able to see better how they came to think the way that they do with more nuance and without demonizing them.

@MarkusSweden @Elisabeth @WaterfallMachine Thank you!

@Leo Gura @SFRL 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.

When we repress aspects of ourselves from our awareness to where we've completely dis-identified with them and forgotten about them, they go to the Shadow. We forget about them because we have disowned them and don't want anything to do with them. Then we lose awareness that we even split this part of ourselves off in the first place through a complex series of subtle self lies. But the traits are still there, and those aspects of ourselves are always trying to merge back into consciousness. And those aspects will use any means that we can't detect with our conscious mind to find their expression. It's how a lot of neuroses come up. An aspect of ourselves can't come in the front door because we've blocked it. So, it goes to the back door. Or if the back door is locked, it comes in through the side door. But if the side door is blocked, it seeps in through the vents. So, there is no way to completely get rid of an aspect of ourselves. It will find expression in some form or another, and it will find the most direct path that a person allows it to have. But the more we have blocked it away and closed off outlets for its expression, the more convoluted and distorted the expression of that aspect of ourselves becomes. So, when a person becomes fixated upon someone and can't let go of that fixation, it is often because that object of fixation has become the outlet (and perhaps the only outlet) for expression and acceptance of certain aspects of themselves that have been sent to the Shadow. So, that person becomes the projection screen that the aspects of ourselves that are in the Shadow use to trick us back into reintegration. If we feel strong positive feelings and a desire to join with someone in a sexual/romantic way, this is the most direct form of communion that human beings can know in three dimensional reality. So, the disowned aspects of ourselves (which have personal agency, just as we do) use intense feelings of sexual/romantic desire to attract us and make us want to have communion with the person that we admire. But in reality it is not about the person who is the object of desire. It is simply that our mind is subconsciously projecting aspects of ourselves onto that person and luring us into reintegrating those parts of ourselves that we've lost sight of. And it's doing this covertly, by means of attraction to that person because we have blocked off the most direct routes. It's a big mind trick that happens when we have left ourselves few outlets for authenticity, happiness, love, etc.

I don't necessarily think a commune is necessary. But one thing that has been mostly lost in the modern era is the level of connectedness that people once had in a tribal living. Almost everyone in the tribe (except for maybe daughters who were marrying men from neighboring tribes) were going to be there for their entire lives. So, you could make really deep connections and you never had to worry about being separated from family or friends. So, there was an inter-connectedness that people had then, that we don't have now. People move around all the time and they tend to live a segregated life from all other people. I suppose a commune could be a potential solution to that. But it's fairly extreme. But there is also a lot of bad that can come from communal living if every adult raises every child. And there are tons of horror stories that come from present-day adults who were raised in communes. First off, I think that children need one or two primary care-givers. They need to feel like they have A parent or two. I don't think the "many parents" idea works for kids. Also, it's difficult to care deeply for hundreds of kids. You probably won't be able to give them all your attention. You might go days without a meaningful interaction with a number of your children. I also think that there's a much higher likelihood that a child will be exposed to predators. Because if every adult raises every child and 5% of the population are pedophiles, then there's going to be a huge problem. Also, it's hard enough for two parents to come to a consensus about what's right for a child. So, decision making would either be bureaucratic or unfair where certain adult members of the commune would get all the say in how children are raised. Plus, I find that living in a family comes fairly naturally. We didn't really have to force it to go in that direction. It just came naturally. So, I think the level of separation in society is fairly negative. We should live a more integrated life where we are in closer communication with others who live outside of our homes. But communal living feels like it would really open up many more cans of worms. Also, it could open up new prejudices if we take the identity of the communes too seriously and we can end up with more separation that is intended.

There is an animalistic drive in us that runs very deep and very strong that comes out in many subtle ways throughout the day. We are animals, after all. And these instincts are home to the power source that gives us energy. And when that energy is transmuted and channeled toward higher consciousness pursuits, it produces beautiful fruit. But if we keep that energy focused toward lower consciousness pursuits, it produces only shit. Then we are so low that we fling that shit at each other. Because when we glorify lower conscious pursuits above higher consciousness pursuits it is then that we become no different from monkeys. And the individual and society as a whole will suffer for it. I don't mean to insult you in anything I say in the rest of the post, but I would like to share with you my perceptions of you. You seem to have adopted this outlook on life because you're jaded and bored by modern society and you take for granted all the great things that we have come to discover: material and intellectual. And because of this, you seem to romanticize the past and fail to see the messes that we've taken ourselves up out of simply by focusing more toward higher consciousness pursuits. So, to my perception, you seem to think it would be better and more interesting to go back to a more animalistic way of being. Maybe you feel like the modern way of being is stale and inauthentic because it is disconnected from that power source. And this is fair enough. We are afraid of going backwards as a society, so many people want to ignore it because they don't know how to integrate it. And things do get stale sometimes because we lose that vitality. I also think that maybe you feel like you'd be recognized as having more social status because the lower nature is almost always male dominant, just like the hierarchies found in chimp societies. It's law of the jungle; the bigger, stronger, and more aggressive person is more highly ranked in society. And 95% of the time, that person will be male. From your past posts that I've read and the vibe of them, I sense that you feel powerless to women on a deep level, because many of your posts seem to be in a state of reactivity against this feeling. There's a bitterness that I sense in you. So, maybe you consciously or subconsciously feel that, if you can reduce humanity down to the level of chimps in your mind, then there would be no chance that you would ever have to feel powerless against women ever again because you would automatically rank higher on the social hierarchy. Then, this also crosses over the sexual instinct which is part of the lower nature, so it cross-multiplies the level of attachment to the lower nature as a perceived means of salvation. These are just my perceptions though. Correct me if I'm wrong. But to be interested in sex that has a tie to that animalistic drive is natural and desirable. If that energy doesn't come to the table, then sex is lack-luster. But to reduce the entirety of our humanity to sex is an extremely harmful limiting belief. Reading your posts, it feels like you've made a prison for yourself out of sex and masculine identification. Edit: Just to clarify, I didn't read the previous four posts prior to writing this. So, I wasn't reacting to the sexual addiction thing that eskwire mentioned.

I don't usually get upset when I'm hungry. I actually like the sensation of mild hunger... though I do prefer the sensations related to eating food. So, I'm not sure if I'm the best person to ask about that. But I can say that the sensation of hunger was never that intense. It was always mild. The way I did it was to eat 3 meals a day at 500 calories each. Sometimes, I'd eat smaller meals in the morning and afternoon, so I could have a bigger dinner, because I tend to like to eat more in the evening hours.

I gained and subsequently lost about 70 lbs during each of my pregnancies... with the weight of the baby, water weight, and placenta included in that number. So, 40-50 lbs of fat each time. So, I never paid attention to fat content or carbohydrates or even the type of food that I ate beyond meeting my basic macro-nutrient requirements. I just focused on the calories, and that helped me drop the weight very quickly. I was able to lose that weight in four or five months by eating a 500 calorie deficit on most days during the week with the occasionally cheat day.

I remember hearing on several occasions that they studied people who practiced Vegetarian diets versus people with Omnivorous diets, and they found that the Vegetarians lived longer by an average of of a handful of years. I never looked further into this though, so it could just be hearsay. I don't eat meat (or normally other animal products) for ethical reasons. I went Vegan last year in June. But a month or so ago, I temporarily went back to Vegetarianism because of our finances. It was just easier to eat what my family is eating, minus the meat which is easier to avoid than dairy which is mixed into a lot of foods. This I'll be doing until we get back on our feet after a few lean months. And I have to say, I feel so bad in my body since I've been eating dairy again. I can definitely tell the difference after having had refrained from dairy consumption for over a year. I don't know if the meat had such an effect on my overall health, but dairy definitely doesn't agree with my system. So, my recommendation is to experiment a bit with removing foods and adding foods to see how you feel during the day.

If you go plant-based, there is only a need to cut out meats and dairy. There is no need to cut out grains. That would probably be a bad idea if you've experienced disordered eating before. You can eat a full balanced diet as a Vegan. This is not an issue. However, if you cut out grains, there are fewer source of calories that you can eat on a Vegan diet. It can be done with effort, but you don't want to add difficulty upon difficulty to getting up to normal caloric intake. So, I recommend focusing on getting yourself out of disordered eating first and adding foods back into your diet. Then, once you get back to the norm, you can start focusing toward eating a plant-based diet with grains, if your motivation is right. You want to make sure that you're not just cutting out meat and dairy for the sake of consuming fewer calories. You want to make sure that it's actually motivated by the desire to either eat healthier or eat more humanely, and not simply for the sake of limiting food intake.

Perhaps she has become the projection screen for some of your disowned traits. So, the need to feel connected with her comes from your own desire for the parts of yourself that she represents to you. And if this is the case, the attraction will feel so right that you won't want to let it go deep down. Because you know you need these traits back... seemingly from her. So, ignoring the emotions is pointless. However, you must learn to read between the lines of your attraction for what your subconscious is really telling you to make communion with. There must be a reason why this particular girl is giving you this feeling. Try to discover what that is that you actually want from the situation. Then, instead of attaching those ends to achieving your desired relationship to her, try achieving those ends within yourself. What do you admire about her? Feel free to gush poetic about her because this will give you a ton of information about what you want to realize in yourself.

Peas have a really high amount of protein. If you make split pea soup, you can get 13 grams of protein per cup which is only like 130 calories. But I recommend looking up Vegan body builders like VeganGains on Youtube. I've never watched his channel before but the entire channel is about how to be a body-builder and a Vegan at the same time. That way, you can find plant-based alternatives for meat which will help you cut down on meat consumption and thus fluoride consumption. And I recommend buying natural spring water or artisan well-water which have very limited amounts of fluoride in them that simply come from natural sources and are not directly put in there.

I was never attracted to people who were into that lifestyle too, even when I was in my teens and early twenties. So, I've never found anyone who is into that lifestyle very attractive: male or female. This is true even if I think they are good looking on the outside. I think this is because, with a lot of people who are into this lifestyle, their range of emotions is very narrow. I feel very strong, single-pointed emotions toward any guy that I come to be infatuated with. And I have a lot of passion, romantically and in other contexts. So, if a guy is really promiscuous to the point where he can't feel deep attractions toward a particular woman and he's numb or undeveloped to the point where he can't feel strong/deep emotions in general, then I think my subconscious/intuition sort of auto-sorts that guy away from my sphere of potential mates. This is just because I know that he probably won't be able to provide me with the emotions that I want to feel in a relationship because he doesn't have the range of emotions to meet me in my experience, romantically or in other contexts. So, it isn't weird to find people unattractive whose lifestyle doesn't resonate with you or whose personality is unsatisfying to be around for you. If I was only ever around people who engaged in that sort of lifestyle then I might find myself in a situation where I didn't have any strong feelings toward anyone. So, my advice is to try to find someone whose personality resonates with your own that you have congruence with. Then, it may be possible for you to experience strong attractions every once and a while when a woman comes along who you have chemistry with. But trying hoping to feel deep emotions toward someone who is presently incapable of feeling deep emotions in themselves, is unlikely to work. And if it does work, you'll find yourself hurt because their lack of emotional awareness will make them aloof and non-empathetic toward all aspects of life, including you.

That's excellent! I am so happy to hear this.

I have rules for what I want in my life too. So, if a person engages in activities that I don't want in my life, I'm unlikely to spend time with them outside of very controlled settings. I can't have anything illegal around me or dangerous because I have kids. I don't want any negative influences for them. So, there is nothing wrong with enforcing those boundaries. And it's even okay to be strict about them. The main thing is to watch out for subtle judgments of a person's worth relative to your own. These judgments are often semi-unconscious because people tend not to like to think of themselves as judgmental. But it sounds like you might be attracted to girls who do things that don't jibe with your intended lifestyle. Sometimes, this can indicate an attraction point in yourself where you become attracted to certain dysfunctions in other people. Sometimes this can have to do with low self-esteem and feeling like you're only worth being with someone with issues. Or it can just be an attraction to a repressed part of yourself. Or another possibility is simply that you don't know anyone personally that doesn't have those traits. Which would you say, if any, describes you?