Emerald

When you are a household name, you don't need play.

You'd take Nazi Germany pamphlets that spread propaganda that brainwashed people in such a way that it led to the deaths of millions of people over a 27-year-old irreverent cartoon comedy show that makes fun of everyone and everything taking a jab at Trump? Methinks you don't understand what true vulgarity is. This is a foolish perspective.

I did mean very attractive 25-year-old women who could be super-models. Jeff Bezos could absolutely have a relationship with a super-model-looking woman of 25 who will love him back. And if that was his priority, he could definitely make that happen because of his extensive network. But it seems that he's chosen this partner to marry because she is his preference... not someone he is settling for because he can't get a hotter woman to love him back.

And my point is that Jeff Bezos isn't dealing with scarcity of attractive women that will love him back. As long as he has been a household name, he has had an abundance of attractive options... both fake and genuine. While there are a bunch of gold-diggers, anyone who is well-known will always have an extreme abundance of attractive options that will love them back mixed in with a bunch of gold-diggers. Jeff Bezos has like 1000 times more access to attractive partners that will love him back compared to the average non-famous guy because he is a household name and millions and millions of people know that he exists. I guarantee that it isn't scarcity that's made him want to propose to his current wife. It's because he preferred this particular partner.... not because he lacked options with other women of equal or greater attractiveness who would also love him back. If he wanted to, he could marry a 25-year old hottie that loves him back. He could find that, if that was his priority to look for it. The sky is the limit with his level of social reach. This notion that men marry because of scarcity of options is just what you believe because you can't relate the idea that many men actually want to marry their specific partner... and aren't just settling out of a sense of scarcity of other attractive women who will love them back. And that is probably reflective of you trying to understand why other men have the desire to marry when you don't have that desire yourself. So, you're trying to understand these men who marry by projecting your own perspective and desires onto them.

Of course, infidelity isn't a good thing. But people rarely have affairs on their partner of 20 years just because they found someone hotter who was willing to sleep with them and be in a relationship with them (if that were the case Bezos would have been having romantic affairs with very attractive women from the beginning, as he has no scarcity of attractive genuine romantic options because of his fame). There's usually deeper seated emotional reasons why someone seeks out an extra-marital relationship to go beyond just the desire for a more attractive partner. So, unless he is some serial cheater, I suspect that he didn't leave his previous wife just because his new wife is male-gaze optimized He and his previous wife probably grew apart... and then he fell in love with his current wife because he felt intimacy with her.

What I find is that most men go through a phase where they're interested in having lots of sex with lots of different women. This is usually up until age 25 or 30. But eventually, most of them want the experience of a wife and children and all the benefits that monogamy has for men specifically. In fact, (as a side note about the benefits of marriage for men) married men are statistically happier and healthier than single men... and even live longer and make more money in their career because of the social status that comes with having a wife. (not that that's why these men choose to marry, these are just side benefits) But most men are interested in having children and a deep loving relationship. They just might not want that until they get the hook-ups and partying out of their system when they're young. The same can be said of women who might want to have a partying and hook-up phase before settling down... but usually to a lesser degree. Like, because of my channel, I meet a fairly broad cross-section of people from all walks of life. And the men who value their romantic relationships a lot, do so because they love their specific partner. And it's not like, "I settled for her because I couldn't get hotter/younger/etc." Most men who propose marriage (specifically the ones who aren't pressured to because of being from a traditional family), are proposing marriage because they really want to be with that specific person.

@RendHeaven His new wife is several months older than his previous wife.

It's the new wife that I was referring to as well. But the point is that both his new wife and his previous wife are close to his age range. I forget who it was now, but someone earlier in the thread was saying that Bezos wouldn't be able to land a 25 year old because of lack of genuine non-gold-digger options. But I said that there's a small but sizable percentage of 25 year old women who would be genuinely interested in having a relationship with Bezos (or a man of his age) if that was really what Bezos was looking for. Instead, he likely chose his wife because it's who he genuinely wants to be with... not because of a lack of younger options or a lack of options in general. Any well-known person has no lack of options based purely on the fact that more people know that they exist.

I didn't mean Bezos specifically with that percentage. I meant that 3-5% of women would be willing to date a man 35 years older than her for non-gold-digger reasons... and just because she is attracted to him and wants a relationship with him. Of course, it would be a smaller number than that that would go for Jeff Bezos specifically. Probably 1/5 of that 3-5% who are willing to date a guy who's 35 years older than her would be interested in Bezos specifically. And I'm not even talking about his wealth X factor specifically. It's the fact that he's well-known where a lot of people know he exists that gives him so many options. If suddenly, tens or hundreds of millions of women on the planet suddenly knew that you existed, your number of options would go up exponentially even if you were broke. It just about having eye-balls on yourself. And wealth both helps and hurts if you're looking for someone to be genuinely interested in you. The fact still stands that Bezos probably didn't choose his wife because of lack of options... as simply being well-known will mean that he has a thousand times more options than the average man.

It's not actually her position. It's a parody of Leo's position... just gender flipped and cherry picking perspectives on men and women that one might use if they were trying to claim the opposite of Leo's claim.

Of course, (as the OP's post lays out plainly) women could also easily weave such a narrative about men by cherry-picking truth-oriented elements of women and delusion-oriented elements of men. Really, its just more reflective of the type of opposite-gender company you keep... and an idealization of the gender associated with one's self when one is identifying strongly with their same-gender group. But if Leo were really geared towards truth (applied in the form of self-honesty), he would be able to see the deeper-seated motivations that cause him to invest so heavily in these "male>female" narratives in the first place (which is his real reason for writing this. Though he will frame it differently to himself and others as "Here's the brutal truth," It's really just him saying, "Yay! Men win again! And I win by proxy because I'm on that gender team!"). He does similar things where he frames community as a woman's need... but not a man's need, despite all humans throughout all of our evolutionary history relying on community for survival. It's his way of saying, women are beholden to basic human needs for social connection and support... but men are not. And deceiving himself in that way seems to soothe him and make him feel empowered... and less constrained and beholden to others. And anytime he has the opportunity, he will engage in this gender competition to emphasize that (in all the ways that matter) his gender team always wins and is the best. He clearly fears the Feminine (mostly the Feminine in himself), such that he is trying to separate himself from it as much as possible. And he uses these narratives towards that end of keeping himself unconscious to and in resistance to his Feminine polarity and the Feminine elements of the reality of being a human being. That said, it is true that the Maya is the part of Feminine polarity as is everything in the world of matter part of the Feminine polarity. So, all creatures that crawl upon this Earth (including male and female humans) are Feminine in the broad strokes, as we are all just characters in the story of the matrix of the 3-D illusion. We are all Mother Nature. And the Feminine spiritual path is one of embodiment and of humbling one's self enough to choose imperfection and limitation... despite having direct experience of awakening to the perfection and infinity of the God nature. And this requires a lot of self-honestly and admitting to deep vulnerabilities and weaknesses... and embracing temporality and the limitations of mortality. And a big part of the Feminine spiritual path is to embrace the illusion of separation such that relationship is possible. And the experience of Truth is not an end in itself... but a necessary means to an end to consciously decide to embody the illusion, just as the creator did in its creation of the illusion and your avatar in it. And that which exists with nothing outside of itself, will need to create an illusion of separation such that you can know yourself from an outside perspective. And God gets to forget and awaken to itself because of the Feminine illusion of Maya... or simply to forget and to experience limitation and relationship. So, Leo forgets that he is also Feminine, as he is made of matter and part of the illusion. There is no actual Leo separate from the Feminine matrix. And even the pursuit of Truth within the illusion is just more illusion... especially if one identifies themselves as the rare seeker of Truth. He seems to just be in resistance to the Feminine matrix of Maya... and seeks to escape it through very self-deceptive forms of Truth-seeking that mire him deeper into the Maya... because of his denial of the Feminine in himself. Hence his combative relationship with the Feminine where he must define it as inferior. He believes himself to be speaking out the brutal truth... but is mostly motivated by whatever makes him feel special/different, empowered, and invulnerable within the context of the Maya. And the Truth-seeking just seems to be an identity and worldview that serves that end goal.

That's what I supposed was the case.

What I recommend is to attract like-minded people to yourself through authentic expression.... and being willing to be polarizing. What seems to be happening from how you describe it, is that you're meeting random people and scanning for tells. But that's not going to be effective because you're seeking out needles in a haystack by taking out one piece of hay at a time to check to see if it's the needle you're looking for. Instead, you want to get a strong magnet... and the polarization will draw out all the needles from the haystack without you having to do an excessive amount of digging. That means, being willing to be polarizing... as polarization attracts. So, let your freak flag fly... and 95% of people will get repelled and 5% of people will get drawn in. And that polarization that comes with being authentic is a SUPER EFFECTIVE way to automatically sort the wheat from the chaff in terms of compatibility. You could also potentially join or start a meet-up group in your area... and likewise being bold in your expression of authenticity within that context. (This means being 100% yourself and openly talking about the topics that interest you.) And likewise, many people will be repelled... but a small number of people will be attracted (friends and potential lovers). The more potentially polarizing you allow yourself to... the more attractive you will be to your people. And this will be the pool of friends and acquaintances that you can find a highly compatible romantic relationship in. Also, always stay in the frame of "Do I like them?" as opposed to "Do they like me?" It's really difficult to be authentic if you're concerned about other people liking you. In fact, if you are authentic, most people probably won't be a fan... and some will totally loathe it.

Most young women aren't interested in much older men, that's true.... as 85% of women want a partner who's close to their own age and would never consider dating a much older man. (and that's wise of them) But there are probably many young women who would have genuine attraction and feelings for him. Like, when I was in my mid-twenties, had I been single, I'd have probably been open to dating a guy as old as 50 if I REALLY REALLY liked him.... though my age preference would have been 30 to 40 at age 25. (between 5 and 15 years older) Jeff Bezos is a bit older than that as he'd be 35 years older than a 25 year old woman. But it's not inconceivable to me that 3-5%ish of young women would be genuinely interested in him, since I've always been attracted to older men... and not for opportunistic or calculated reasons. I was just always attracted to more mature features and attitudes towards the world. Of course, it wouldn't be a good idea to have such an extreme age gap because it puts you in a totally different phase of life from your partner, and the young person ends up having to skip out on their youth (and unfortunate reality of having a preference for older partners as a young person). But I have no doubt that a large number of non-gold-digger young women would potentially be interested in him, given my own attractions. And he's a high profile guy. So, while a non-famous older man might only come across a young woman who's genuinely interested in him as a person once every blue moon... there are no limits to the options that a famous guy would have, as he's just on a lot of people's radar. Let's low-ball it and say that 1% of young women would be open to dating a guy who is 35 years older than her. The number is probably closer to 5%, I'd wager. But a low estimate is 1%. And several 10s of millions of people know who Jeff Bezos is (probably more)... with half of them being women. And then, 1/7 of those are young women. And then 1% of those young women would be genuinely interested in a guy of his age. So, if 10 million women know that Jeff Bezos exists... then 14,285 women in their 20s would be genuinely interested in him... assuming that 1% of women would be open to dating a guy who's 35 years older. And I'm sure that Bezos doesn't have any sense of scarcity when it comes to his choice in partners... as he's probably quite well aware that he has lots of genuine options mixed in with the gold-diggers (which would also be true of more age-appropriate partners, so it's the same sorting game regardless of the age of the prospective female partners.) So, I have only to come to the conclusion that Bezos has married his wife because she is the specific one that he wants to be with. I guarantee that it isn't a choice borne out of a lack of options... as he certainly has options out the wazoo. His high profile alone would guarantee that he would never have to make a marriage decision based off of settling for what he can get, because any well-known man is on TONS of women's radars. (And I don't necessarily mean this as a status-attraction thing... I mean it in a neutral sense where many people are aware of his existence on the planet. That alone will guarantee TONS of options.)

Says the Freudian enthusiast... I only gravitated towards the Jungain perspective because it was the only available perspective that matched up with my lived experience of the inner world and helped me understand my experiences of ego de-centering. Finding Jung's work and the work of other Jungian authors in my early 20s was a godsend because it helped me orient myself to my inner world, which was previously all in shambles from the recent crumblings of previous paradigms and identities. Jung had a deep mystical awareness (and the ability to communicate that mystical awareness in such a way that the science-minded folks of the Victorian era could respect and grok what he was communicating). And his work was based in the spiritual instinct such that it transcended the Victorian era trappings and became timeless. Freud, on the other hand, boiled everything down to the sexual instinct. And all of his stuff was so mired in the repressive Victorian sexual norms that it isn't even a relevant perspective in our modern era. And that's because he only went as deep as the material paradigm (of which human sexuality is the deepest root). But he failed to recognize the spiritual ground from which all of those instincts arise. There are very good reasons why Jung diverged from the mentorship of Freud and the student became the master. Jung > Freud

Jeff Bezos???? He's one of the richest men on the planet. I'm sure there are 10s of thousands of women (including very attractive ones) that would literally throw themselves at him because of his wealth and fame alone. Plus, he's not a bad looking guy. And I don't mean escorts would be interested in him. A man of his standing and wealth will be attractive to many women. If he wanted to get a genuine lover who was some very attractive 25-year old supermodel, he could easily do that. But he probably just prefers his wife for more emotional reasons. Once you're that wealthy, access to sex with hot women is a given. But men don't get married for that reason. External pressures not-with-standing, most men ask a woman to marry them because they love the woman they're with and they want to deepen the commitment.

My list comes from my experiences with Ayahuasca in combination with learning systems of archetypal symbolism to understand dreams and synchronicities. Understanding the archetypal Feminine and Masculine is very helpful in decoding anything based in mythos. It can also help you recognize if you are in resistance to one or both polarities... and to help you drop that resistance. For example, prior to my first Ayahuasca journey at age 20, I was fully of the mindset that Masculinity and Femininity were pure social construct. But once I had the experience of ego de-centering that came with that experience and I no longer had any identity to lose or maintain, the aperature of my consciousness expanded. And I was out in my friend's backyard and night. And I was sitting there. And this one was my most visual journey, where I was feeling so connected with nature and watching the plants grow around me. And I got hit by a sudden insight that the most accurate word in the English language for describing the subtle energy of the night and the plants was "Femininity". And it was so completely different from human gender norms. And the same energy was within myself... but deeply repressed. And it became clear that everything I valued was in opposition to this energy. And furthermore, everything in society was working in opposition to this energy. So, in the years after that I sought a lot of ways of being to reconnect with the Feminine. And I sought it out in both Feminism and traditional Femininity... but could not find it there. And that's what led me to Jungian Psychology. And this is where I learned conceptually about the archetypal Feminine and Masculine... and because I knew what Femininity actually was from my experience, I could sense the "vibe" of the Feminine. And in any dichotomy, I can intuitively pick out which is Feminine and which is Masculine. Once you have experienced these polarities directly (outside of rote gender roles), you can easily intuit it. It has a very distinct vibe. And in my later medicine journeys of recent years, I typically experience myself as my small human self (which is Feminine) and my eternal self (which is Masculine). The experience of awakening in these journeys is quite a bit like being Shakti and waking up to the fact that I'm also Shiva for a brief time. Like, I am a temporary flower growing from an eternal tree... and I am the eternal tree itself. I am both in one. But for this lifetime, I prefer to be embodied as the temporary flower. And that is my way of embracing the Feminine in this life... which is difficult because my temporal Feminine self is very curious about my eternal Masculine Self. So, I am not parroting anything. The list of dichotomies that I made is accurate to my experiences of the vibes of these polarities. And once you experience them directly, you can easily pick it out. But most people don't understand what Masculinity and Femininity actually is on this level. So, they default to a shallow understanding of gender norms and how women and men are... or (worse) how they ought to be.

I'm saying that unstable women are significantly more likely than stable women to be receptive to pick-up. You gotta be at least a little crazy or in an unstable situation in life to be receptive to it.

That happens in Tampa too. When I was 16, I went to Tampa with my then-boyfriend who used to live in Tampa. And it was revealed that his female cousin, who was 13 or 14, was sneaking into strip clubs, doing drugs, and drinking. She was really rough. Really, every single town or city has these patterns. But any place that's a bigger city with a night life is going to have them extra.

There are plenty of attractive and unattractive unstable women. And there are plenty of attractive and unattractive stable women. I don't think there's much of a correlation there between instability and someone's natural appearance. (Though perhaps women who hyper-focus on their looks and focus heavily on beautification might be more likely to have insecurities) But I do think that the men who believe that there is a correlation between hotness and craziness have psychological patterns that make them more attracted to "crazy" women. And this makes them draw the false conclusion that all attractive women are unstable and crazy... because the ones they find attractive are unstable and crazy. For example, a guy who's more avoidant will find a woman who has an anxious attachment style more attractive than a woman with a secure attachment style. The psychological attraction will be off the charts because he is afflicted by the same problem, but copes in the opposite way. So, the statement that "Hot women are always crazy" is really just another way of saying, "I have a pattern of being attracted to crazy women. And when women aren't crazy, I don't find them as attractive."

Location could also be a factor, as Vegas has a reputation. But I sense that it's really any woman from any area who is open to passes from random men who run game. It's a bit of a tell about her level of scarcity of connection and her risk-taking tendencies.

It's likely just because you tend to meet women through pick-up that you meet so many women with mental conditions. You also have some avoidant tendencies where you devalue social connection with other people, which will make you very attractive to anxiously attached women who have familial patterns around abandonment and feeling a need to earn love. And an avoidant partner will kick their anxiety into hyper-drive and bring the otherwise dormant crazy right out of them. But consider that women who are receptive to pick-up are more likely to be less stable than the average woman. Honestly, it's a huge risk to get involved with some random guy who approaches you in a club or on the street. And women who are more stable are less likely to take that risk. Like if I think of myself and my female friends (who all have varying levels of stability with some being very stable and others being very unstable, and with myself being mildy unstable)... the more stable ones are less likely to be open to sparking something up with a random guy. And it also implies that her social circle is lacking in some way or that something is amiss in those areas of life, which implies drama or issues with social attachment. Otherwise, why wouldn't she just get involved with a man she already knows and can go slow with and build feelings for organically?

All people have always relied on other members the group for survival. For 97.5% of human history, we were nomads, traveling about with 20-30 other people. And everyone relied on everyone else for safety in numbers and the pooling and preparation of resources. And specialization was fairly minimal at that time because everyone had the job of the procuring resources and keeping other members of the group safe. And everyone in the community contributed in similar ways to the survival of the group because of the minimal specialization. (Specialization arose 12,000 years ago) And that's because it was prior to the agrarian era (which also began roughly 12,000 years ago) where we were able to grow and store a surplus of food. And it was also prior to the dawn of civilization (which began roughly 7,000 years ago) where we have military forces and enforcers of the justice system to keep everyone safe. And there has never been a time where a lone man and woman couple were traversing the wilderness together... and where the woman solely relied on her male partner for safety. Those tasks have always been a group endeavor. You seem to be projecting the fairly contemporary single family household dynamic onto all of human history, when that didn't even remotely exist until relatively recently in the human timeline. And that's far too individualistic to be accurate to how humans have operated, prior to the modern era as we have always been a collectivist species. Now, I'm certain that the men in the group played somewhat more of a protective role to guard the group from attack by wild animals and other groups of men, because men are stronger... and those protective tasks were not yet borne out by societal institutions and societal infrastructure more generally. But archeological studies have shown that these tasks weren't quite as gender-stratified as they came to be in the agrarian era (which began just 2.5% of human history ago). So, men and women both got their safety needs met within the context of the group. And even now, humans cannot survive without other humans regardless of gender. We can just have the illusion of not needing the group because we don't need to socially interact with other members of the group to get the resources they provide. But if the farmers stopped farming... and the grocery stores owners closed up the stores.. and grocery store workers stopped doing their job... and the hospital workers stopped working... we'd all be royally fucked. Of course, that idea isn't quite as romantic as the idea of a lone man keeping his damsel in distress safe. But it is the reality of the situation. We all rely on other people for survival and safety. And especially in the modern era, men don't contribute more towards the survival of the group compared to women. Nor does a woman need to be in a relationship with a man to get her safety needs met as she already benefits safety-wise from the military, the police force, the medical institution, the FDA, etc. AND (on a more personal level) her wider social circle.

What I'm saying is that polarizing away from feelings and seeing them as an invalid or inferior source of wisdom will create major blindspots to Truth. For example, it is feeling that allows us to realize truths that cannot be experienced purely intellectually. Like in the case of the realities of suffering. Without feeling, we can approach the topic of suffering only intellectually. But we cannot glean the real wisdom to truly understand the situation. I see it all the time on this forum, where so much foolishness is normalized through complex intellectual frameworks that inadvertently normalize what ought not to be normalized.

It's really just a tell about the person who's saying it. Like attracts like. Typically, one of the biggest tells about how a person operates in the world is in how they describe other people... especially romantic partners. If a person is fairly positive about other people, that person is probably seeing themselves reflected back to them in their choice of company. The same is true of a person who has nothing good to say about other people. It's like if you hear a woman talking about how all men cheat and are horrible people that can't be trusted. And I have no doubt that the woman is actually experiencing that, because those guys really do exist. But it is more of a tell about her... at the very least about her self-esteem and sense of self-worth creating a lack of discernment... and at most, she's a crazy one too. So, when I hear men complaining about women being crazy and unhinged... at best, I think he's got low self-esteem and isn't discerning enough about his choice in partners... and at worst, he's also unhinged as well.