Emerald

When I was younger (like under the age of 15), I was mostly focused on a guy's appearance to determine whether or not I'm attracted to him. And when I was between 11 and 14, I was really attracted to first boy-bands... and then more punk-band guys. Appearance weighed heavily. That said, I'm not sure it quite registered in the same way that female beauty does to a man. You see, I have always been able to look at a very attractive women and feel like "Wow!" And I always felt more "Wow!" about women's looks than men's looks, even though I'm only romantically attracted to men and rarely sexually attracted to women (and never romantically attracted to women). And this "Wow!"... it's not even usually coming from a place of sexual attraction. It's just a deep appreciation of Feminine beauty. So, I would imagine if you took my "Wow!" response and put it together with a straight man's libido, then it would probably be even more of a draw than it already is. But I think what often compounds it has a lot to do with cultural attitudes about male beauty. There's an expectation over the past couple centuries that men dress plainly and don't focus on appearance much. But before then, it was seen as a sign of wealth and status for a man to beautify himself is make-up, heels, powdered wigs, silk robes, etc. You find this in the 1700s quite a bit with the royalty and aristocracy of the time. So, because women are currently seen as the only people who are allowed to be beautiful, a man who sees beauty in a woman is also encountering his own disowned beauty. And this can produce all kinds of feelings of longing and feelings of jealousy... even outside of his libido.

All of my perspectives are based on what I've experienced directly in relation to my own romantic/sexual/dating life over the years. And I always try to put it in very clear and specific language, as I think that there's all kinds of unnecessary mystique that surrounds female sexuality... which leads to women not knowing themselves well enough... and men filling in the blanks of that mystique with partial truths that are strung together into a web of bullshit. And that mystique even used to confuse me about myself and make me believe that I was a minority of one growing up and navigating my own sexuality... until I learned to cut through cultural misconceptions, observe myself, and put my experiences into words. I also often get the feedback from women that "Wow! I always knew that. But I never put it into words." So, I'm always glad when I can do that. So, your intuition is correct... it's definitely not abstract or theoretical. It's me putting my experiences and observations into words. Though, for someone who is operating more theoretically (like practical theory) from a 3rd-person perspective about female sexuality... my experiences will contrast quite a bit from those practical theoretical frameworks as those playbooks wouldn't work very well with a woman who has a lot of self-knowledge regarding these facets of life. This self-knowledge often comes with a higher expectation of shared meaning and "long-term emotional fermentation under the tension of mystery of unspoken feelings" to feel the longing for a person. Also, because women are generally abundant in options, it gives space for us to get more selective about the level of emotional stimulation that's sufficient to move us to want to get closer to someone. And for some women, pick-up is emotionally stimulating enough (perhaps coming from validating feelings like, "Hey! Maybe I am attractive if I have a guy approaching me!".) But for other women, it's going to register as emotionally boring and kind of draining... without a lot of meaning. And it may be confusing to hear how the real thing is for me, when it's not as comforting or leverage-able as the practical theoretical framework is. It's like, "WTF am I supposed to do with that?" But that's the thing... it's simply for knowing NOT for leveraging or systematizing, as the core of female sexuality and a woman's love is so homed in on who a man is holistically... and not as a sum of his objective parts. But the knowing of these truths is what's valuable, as it cuts the illusions that the more leverage-able theoretical framework spins.... which create the illusion of a very objective and parts-based version of female sexuality. The issue is that my feelings towards a man are highly subjective and based on all the subtle nuances and energies of who is as a person. A man is more like a flavor to me, in this way. So, adding more objective attraction factors and strategies could be helpful in small ways... but can never over-ride my feelings about the core nature of a man, as that is the actual thing that I become attracted to.

So, there's a relatively common general pattern of some men policing other men on their level of Masculinity... and an expectation of adherence to a certain standard of Masculinity. And a man who doesn't match up to these (often arbitrary) Masculine standards will get called a pussy (or some other Feminine insult)... or there will be insinuations made about him being somehow insufficient in the eyes of women. This often turns into a kind of group hierarchy thing among male in-groups where hyper-conformity to Masculine standards will determine the level of status and respect he gets from within the male in-group. This can cause issues when the expectations from within that group run at odds to what will bing him positive outcomes outside of the container of that male in-group. And the Monster Energy guy was trying to do that to the OP in relation to his question. Then, there's another dynamic within pick-up that frames women's understanding of their own sexuality as inferior to the pick-up-educated man's perspective on female sexuality. And there are certain thought-stopping cliches like, "Don't ask a fish how to catch it." Then, when "Masculinity policing" meets "Don't ask a fish how to catch it"-logic... it becomes one guy telling another guy that he's lame and unmanly and "losing aura points" for even inquiring about what women are attracted to from actual women. It's as to say, "A real man only asks other men about female sexuality. And expecting to get good answers from a woman is something beta guys do." That's why I said, I didn't like when men Masculinity-police other men into not listening to women's perspective on their own sexuality.

Still. Your question is normal and like @Joshe said, shows humility and a willingness to learn. I'm just not cool with men trying to Masculinity-police other men out of hearing women's perspectives on their own sexual/dating experiences.

Do you mean the OP lost "aura points" in my eyes and the eyes of the few other women on this thread? First off... no it didn't. It's a normal question to ask. Secondly, if it had lost him "aura points' in my eyes... why would it even matter what some married 37 year old internet lady thought about his aura?

I was never interested in Randy that way personally. He's just not my type, as I prefer more introverted guys... as that fits my energy more. But he was always an impressive and high-vibe person in my eyes who had a massive amount of abundance dating-wise without being skeezy to get it. And it was clear to me why he was very well sought after. I bring him up because he's a great example to aspire to for guys who want to build abundance (which is why a lot of guys do pick-up). But I definitely recommend cultivating a social circle. And dating is just one of many perks of having a great social eco-system.

That's exactly how he made everyone he was around feel. He kind of brought the party to life.

That is one of the drawbacks. You have to keep your reputation up in a social group, or you can end up with demerits against you. Of course, cheating can do that. But also, behaviors that might work in pick-up can do that too. Like, I knew a guy that was close friends with my closest guy friend. I'll call him Dan, but that's not his real name. And he wasn't a bad-looking guy. And he wasn't unkind or anything. Like, he was genuinely okay to be around in a social setting most of the time. But he had a reputation of being "the guy who tries to get in everyone's pants." And this made him look kind of perverted and desperate. And while he did get plenty of girlfriends and plenty of sex from some girls who would be judged in the wider circle as equally gross, he was a guy that most of the girls would get yucked out by and tell other girls to avoid. And girls would swap stories about him and his flirting attempts. Contrast that with another guy named Randy who was very close friends with both my closest guy friend AND my then-boyfriend. And he was probably equal in physical attractiveness to "Dan"... and (as a young guy, of course) he was very interested in girls. But he wasn't in the slightest bit pervy about it. And he'd just be a riot in all the social settings he was in... and tons of girls were always all over themselves about him, just because his behaviors weren't dictated by seeking any outcome other than having a good time and making sure others had a good time. Like, he wasn't the slightest bit calculating about his actions from the outside. His behaviors were just unfiltered fun-seeking. I remember the first time I met him through my then-boyfriend (who wasn't my boyfriend yet). He had an emo hair-cut at the time (it was 2005). And he was talking about how he had to have surgery to get a tumor removed from his chest. (He had breast cancer which is rare for a 16 year old male). And then, he had the first line of a 50s song stuck in his head and he'd repeat it randomly at the funniest times. He'd just sing, "Drivin' around in my auto-mobile!" And he had such a unique personality and was always the life of the party... and just overall a really good guy. So, he was always very popular with the girls (very attractive and discerning ones too)... and well liked and respected by pretty much everyone. But he'd always just have one girlfriend at a time, despite his abundance of options. And he's been with his current partner for like 15+ years now. So, if you have a social circle that really appreciates the way that you are where you're very well-respected, it can lead to a ton of opportunities to meet women in shared social spaces.

Think of it like you're cultivating a large platonic social circle of both male and female acquaintances. Then, because you have a lot of social connections, you're going to be in social spaces where you can meet women who are connected with the people you meet. It's less direct than pick-up, of course. And it will take a bit longer But for women that are well-resourced with a community, they are probably going to choose someone from their community or who knows someone that she knows. Ultimately, this will provide you with more of your social needs as well.

Exactly. One of the things that surprised me in this internet era is how many men are not dating or having sex or getting into relationships. Back when I was a teenager, I had a big group of friends and acquaintances (with probably a couple hundred people in the wider network.. and about 25 in the closer part of that network... with 6 really close friends) where there was probably an equal amount of guys and girls in the wider group. And it was a very interconnected ecosystem of teens that had closer friendships within the group... but would often interact at parties and at smaller social get-togethers... and at this church that had a teen night called the Vineyard, where tons of teens would go on Friday nights. And my nerdiest and most reserved guy friend in the closest 25 people in my social circle lost his virginity and got into his first relationship at 19. And I was thinking, "He's a bit of late bloomer. But I'm glad it finally happened for him." But there were also a couple really creepy unattractive guys that I'm thinking of in the wider group who I was casual acquaintances with. And they were constantly in and out of relationships with other random female acquaintances of mine, and I'd begrudgingly hear the odd thing or two about their sex-lives through the grape vine. The two of them probably lost their virginity by 14 or 15. So, I was really surprised to learn that so many men weren't getting into relationships or losing their virginity until their mid-20s and beyond. Then, I realized the reason why... All the guys that I know have at least one woman in their social circle.

There's definitely a lot of guys who just do it for sex. And most women will likely tend to see it that way, as they are probably on the receiving end of pick-up solely for sex quite a lot. But even outside of that "He's just in it for sex" perception... I just don't find the initial meeting with any guy all that intriguing as there are limits to how much meaning the interaction has for me. Bear in mind, male attention is common for women... especially for young women of your age (I'm assuming you're in your 20s somewhere, but correct me if I'm wrong.) So, a random guy approaching on the street is probably going to be the least appealing option for a woman who has plenty of options. But you might find hook-ups and things like that through pick-up... especially if you go out to bars and clubs. That is a third space where people tend to go out in search of those kinds of connections. And you could find a girlfriend that way. But you may also find someone who doesn't match you very well. So, it could happen. I'm just saying that a lot of women probably have an auto-sort tendency when it comes to being approached by a guy she doesn't know. And it's definitely not something that most women are going to be open to... especially women who are in social circles with many male acquaintances that she'll see day in and day out (like college).

Yes. It's just not going to produce strong enough feelings for me to be open to pursuing something, as it cuts the tension immediately and skips over emotional development. And it's the slow-burning emotional development and the tension built over time that adds meaning, excitement, and longing to be closer. So, outside of ending up in a state of scarcity where I have no social circle (like when I was 20), being randomly approached wouldn't be emotionally intriguing enough for me to be open to it. Another factor is that it's easy to tell when a guy is doing pick-up. So, it doesn't feel like, "Ooh. He's approaching me because he's interested in something special about me." It's, "Oh. This guy is doing cold approach. I wonder how many others he's approached today?" It's kind of like receiving spam in the mailbox, instead of a personalized letter. So, that also cuts away at the meaning factor... and doesn't feel very exciting or satisfying.

It takes me a few months on average to develop feelings for a guy that are strong enough for me to want to do anything about them. And it's uncommon that these feelings arise. So, when I was single, I really didn't respond well to simply being approached out in public and jumping immediately into some romantic/sexual segue. It just pops the bubble right away and takes away any kind of tension straight away. The only exception was when I was 20 and very alone in the world and dealing with a recent eviction and traumatic break-up, as I wanted to be alone and single... and I thought I could just choose to forego my community needs. But my survival drives put me in a space where I couldn't say no to company when approached. But the most romantically and sexually satisfying dynamic is more of an acquaintances/friends to lovers dynamic, as that has a lot more meaning. And it tended to involve an element of mystery, like... "Does he feel the same for me as I feel for him?' Without that few month fermentation process, it takes all the tension and spiciness out of the dynamic... as I just can't feel that excited about a guy that I just met, regardless of who he is. So, what would probably work best for me is that, I meet a guy at an event that reflects mutual interests. And we begin talking on a purely platonic level, and he becomes someone that I chat with and correspond with platonically over a long period of time. This is especially strong if we exist in the same 2nd or 3rd spaces and see each other frequently. Then, at some point during that time, I either start having feelings for him or I don't. And if I do, the feelings are 10/10 strong... which are strong enough for me to want to do something about them. But if there's some guy that's super attractive and has the best game in the world, but I just met him... it's a max of a 5/10 attraction. And that's just not exciting enough for me to be interested in it. The intense amorous emotions have to be there... which takes time interacting platonically.

I don't think women are selective enough, because it takes a lot of self-knowledge and knowledge about how relationships work to learn how to select well. Plus, the way that most women learn how to strike a good match from the culture is like, "Be as attractive and pleasing as you possibly can." So, a lot of inexperienced women end up trying to be as attractive as possible to attract a partner... but don't realize that attraction is a less effective tool for her desired ends compared to developing high levels of discernment. And you can see that there are often attractive women with low self-esteem and terrible partners that treat them terribly... because they over-relied on the tool attraction and didn't develop their discernment. Contrast that with instances where a woman is unattractive or plain but highly discerning... these women often end up with great husbands. Of course, an attractive woman can also end up with a great husband if she's highly discerning. And an unattractive woman can end up with a terrible partner if her self-esteem and level of discernment is low. But my main point is that level of attractiveness for women has very little to do with her ability to have a great relationship with a great man. (which is what women tend to want) So, it's honestly safer and better for women to be very vigilant about red flags and ick factors, as women who are sensitive to these things will ends up with a better partner and her life will improve when she's in a relationship with that partner. Think about it like developing sensitivity... like in The Princess and the Pea. The true princess is so sensitive and discerning that she can sense the pea underneath 9 mattresses. And that's analogous to a woman being so sensitive and aware of what she likes and doesn't like, that she doesn't entertain people, places, and things that have "the pea" underneath their facades. The trick is to become the kind of guy that doesn't have too many peas (fewer red flags and fewer icks). But unfortunately, the systems that men often use to become "more attractive" will increase their number of peas in the eyes of the discerning woman... but increase their attractiveness to women who haven't built that level of discernment. So, there-in lies the problem. Edit: It reminds me a bit of this video that I watched the other day where a woman created 4 fake dating profiles and gathered data on what kinds of guys were interested. The results are in the last 40% of the video.

Thank you!

That's how I often speak about the Masculine and Feminine polarity as well. No on can fundamentally add or take away Masculinity or Femininity from themselves, as it is the "binary code" that acts as the foundation of one's being... or even the being of both organic and non-organic systems in reality. And it informs but supersedes human dynamics like gender expression and sexuality. And it doesn't change. (That's why things like conversion therapy are ineffective) And I like to think of a person's inherent Masculine/Feminine signature like an light. And then, the Persona is like a lens through which that light can shine out. So, the light of the Masculine/Feminine signature never changes. But the Persona lenses can be changed in a way that either allows more of that light to express outwardly... or that blocks that light from external expression. So, if for example, a woman has a predominantly Feminine 'Masculine/Feminine signature' but she exists in an environment where only Masculinity can exist and flourish and Femininity is seen as weak and bad and is given no space, she's only going to allow the Masculine qualities to be expressed through her Persona lens, as that's the more adaptive for the context. In fact, she may even grow her identity and worldview to exclude her Feminine side altogether... despite it being her dominant energy. And there are many contexts that exist (especially male-dominated contexts, where the men are trying really hard to minimize the Feminine portion of their signature) where it's not wise or even possible for the Feminine to be expressed there. These are spaces that repel the Feminine and require a Masculine way of expressing to exist in. And it will chase most women off who don't want to operate in a Masculine way. And then of course, men in those spaces are often complaining about women not being Feminine enough... or how they're struggling to attract women. (This may sound like a familiar place ) But think of an individual's Masculine and Feminine signature as a flower seed. And think of the context as the soil. And think of the flower as the Persona. The seed never changes. It is the core personality. And let's say, there are three types of soil... Acidic soil that Feminine-dominant flowers thrive in, Basic soil that Masculine-dominant flowers thrive in, and then there's a type of soil that's similar to, different from, and greater than both the acidic and basic soil where all flowers can thrive. (A bit like type O blood is in comparison to Type A and Type B) And most contexts in the world at this juncture in time are like giant plots of Basic Soil. And there are a handful of specialty niche 3rd spaces that are like plots of Acidic soil. And there are VERY FEW niche 3rd spaces that are like the third kind of soil. So, there isn't really a lot of space for Feminine-dominant flowers to grow to their highest level of development. But they can grow the Masculine parts of the flower quite well by planting themselves in Basic soil. However, that doesn't make the flower a Masculine-dominant flower. A Daffodil doesn't turn into a Sunflower just because the soil wasn't ideal for Daffodils. But the yellow part of the Daffodil might be the parts that grow better. And the Sunflowers might go... too much yellow! These Daffodils are more like Sunflowers. But that's not accurate.

Before menses, girls cannot reproduce yet. When women hit menopause, they can't reproduce anymore. And women have a very limited capacity to bear children... usually only preferring to have a few. So, it really wouldn't make much sense that every aspect of a woman is to somehow manipulate men into reproducing with her... because her reproductive window only lasts like 20-25 years of her life. And the other 50-60 years of the average woman's life, reproduction is not going to be relevant to her. Instead, she will be more moved towards relationships for companionship and love... as the reproduction thing is a short-lived season that loses its relevance relatively early in adult life (around 35-40 years old).. And your view frames women as fundamentally having men as the center of their own universe... and as the motivator for every action she takes and decision she makes. But I doubt Granny Smith is cranking out well-crafted scarves in the knitting circle as some elaborate ploy to get men to reproduce with her. So, there's just not a lot of logic to this post. it's all emotions. And I can sense that you feel powerless to women... and that you feel controlled and manipulated by women's existence. So, this feels like it's about framing your FEELINGS of powerlessness in relation to women's existence, as something that women are to blame for because it's "their nature to manipulate". So, you write this post as a way to "shame the villains" that made you feel powerless... AND to try to make those pesky young women in their child-bearing years feel powerless by reminding them, "You will be old and powerless one day! And then, we men will have the last laugh!" But the call is coming from inside the house. And these stories won't help you feel empowered.

My disgust factors are always based on my authenticity... and so it isn't used solely to repel men who don't fit. It's just a fringe benefit to knowing myself and not being willing to round my edges to make myself more appealing to the masses. I also have a very strong intuition about who fits with me and who doesn't. So, anyone that gets past those filters, I can still sort manually. But if a non-spam guy is disgusted and loses attraction because my authenticity, that's a good sign that he wasn't right for me... even if he is genuinely someone else's golden fly. That's more of a compatibility issue that gets averted that way. But there are also many men who have an under-developed relationship with their Feminine side, who will lose attraction to a woman if she has any particularity to her whatsoever as he interprets any authenticity/particularity at all as Masculinity. And a more integrated woman won't be as attractive, as he's looking more for a woman to play the role of his disowned Feminine side rather than her being a whole person in her own right. And their way of looking at women is usually to see them as blank slates who hint at the general idea of what an attractive woman is. And getting into a relationship with those guys is a nightmare, as there is no room for the woman's authenticity or growth. This is one of the main reasons that it's so important for women to know themselves deeply and express themselves authentically, as it's a real turn-off for these types of guys. But when I was closer to the ideals of female attractiveness in my early 20s, I could have used some stronger defenses... like the bitchiness that attractive women often have. I was constantly bombarded by tons of spam guys because I was too nice and too quiet/shy... and I had begun dressing in clothing that wasn't hyper-particularized because I had a white collar job. And they were just looking for a young, thin, attractive, but nondescript woman that hints at the general idea of Femininity. In my teen years, I was goth. So, that sorted out guys who were disgusted by the goth thing. And it ultimately had the effect of attracting in guys who appreciated my style and usually had compatibilities with music. So, I knew the value of personal disgust factors, even as a teenager. And I was great at finding the kind of guys that I wanted. (Though, the kind of guys that I wanted back then... were appealing to teen Emerald, but very unappealing to adult Emerald.) But as an early 20-something, I didn't have the goth fire-wall up anymore. And I also didn't have very loud disgust factors because I have always been reserved and kind of quiet. So, even though I had decent levels of discernment with romantic partners... I didn't scare as many spam guys off. And going to the grocery store was a pain-in-the-ass.

I'd like to share a different perspective here, as a woman who is very dedicated to my life's purpose who has been called Masculine by many on here (though I disagree)... and who has never had trouble attracting men and having longterm relationships with men who love me. Consider that being hyper-attractive is very positive for men as it widens the net of potential partners. It's like adding a bit of honey to attract more flies, as the challenging task for men is attracting more flies. So, because your dating/mating strategy is attraction if you want a partner and you find women attractive, you are thinking it works the same way for women. But the dating/mating strategies are actually quite a bit different. And the goals are often different. And women of all levels of attractiveness are already receiving quite a bit of male attention (usually too much). And about 95% of that attention is spam attention. The flies are already over-swarming the honey pot. So, women becoming more attractive to the male gaze doesn't actually increase their ability to strike a good longterm match (which is what most women are seeking out sexually and romantically... and what is actually satisfying to most women). Instead, what actually helps women strike a great match is to be more discerning and learning to sort better... which means narrowing the pool of applicants significantly by sorting the wheat from the chaff. And it's even better if you can disgust the wrong ones and scare them off with your particularity and authenticity... and they sort themselves from consideration. That way, you don't even have to reject them directly. In this way, hyper-attractiveness is bit of a liability for women... as it's harder to scare off the wrong ones if they're audacious. And it requires extra defenses, sensitivity to her own feelings of disgust, and what I call "personal disgust factors" for that hyper-attractive woman (and this goes for more average women as well) to end up with a well-suited guy... and not some spam attention guy who only cares about her good looks and wants to mold her to his whims, like in the example you gave. And disgust factors are things that are polarizing... like high standards, directness, hyper-particular interests, unique styles, career success, high intellect, hyper-particular opinions, decorative make-up that doesn't appeal to the male gaze, development of the Masculine side, etc. This is often why very attractive women tend to operate in groups and can be bitchy, if you cross them. It scares away the spam. And very attractive women who fail to consciously adopt these disgust factors or who are too nice, will tend to dim her attractiveness by dressing down, not taking great care of herself, or even gaining weight to deviate more from the beauty standard. Ordinary-looking women will tend to have her disgust factors built in to scare of the solely looks-and-status motivated guys. So, she doesn't need as many disgust factors, as the hyper-attractive woman. But she still needs some. Ultimately, these personal disgust factors polarize in the sense that they scare off spam attention... but if they are authentic to her they also attract genuine attention. So, for women, the main challenge isn't to become more attractive.... it's to become more discerning and more authentic and particularized and therefore disgusting to the wrong ones.

This is mostly what I'm pointing at. Learning things through these frameworks can create fast results in the short term. But these frameworks also create an invisible ceiling for men's growth that gets capped at the lowest common denominator of what low-discernment women are willing to sleep with. And they will eventually have to do some heavy duty paradigmatic and identity deconstruction to break through that ceiling... if they ever do. The reality is that they may never even sense that ceiling, simply because they went from "Not getting results" to "Getting results". So, they may not sense the collateral damage to their attractiveness in the eyes of women... simply because they believe that it's this paradigm is the only thing actually making them attractive. (Plus, the paradigm is comforting... and letting go will be uncomfortable.) And they won't perceive the loss of appreciation and admiration from high-discernment women... as the rejection happens silently in her mind when she feels the vibe of that paradigm on him. They also won't perceive the levels of development that they could achieve if they hadn't attached to this paradigm in the first place. Instead, their level of development gets capped because they molded themselves into what they believed that women like... instead of being themselves. So, it's sort of like, walking forward on a conveyor belt that's moving backwards. You feel like you're making progress because you are making steps. But the platform you're walking on is pulling you backwards in ways you don't notice. And it's fine to use a few social strategies here and there, if they're still authentic. The issue is the distorted worldview and identity that comes with those strategies... and how that creates so many blocks to genuine connection with women and personal growth.

So, two things can be true here. One is that your perspective may be genuinely different and un-relatable to many people. That's what I experienced growing up as a kid, and it was really hard for me to fit in before I developed some advanced level social skills that simply weren't attainable for me as a child. And chronically not fitting in can create this "I'm different in a bad way" shame dynamic early on. The other perspective is that, when people have these issues with fitting in early on.... they can begin coping with that issue by building the identity of the person who's "different in a good way" and trying to differentiate themselves more and more and more from ordinariness and averageness. And they can do that by being different in a hierarchical way (being better)... or being different simply in a different way. And I did both... and you seem to do both. And for me, this differentiation coping strategy helped in certain ways because I was able to develop an identity and MO for myself that was unique from others where I could challenge societal rules that I didn't agree with, find my particular values, and develop myself in ways that few others do. But this differentiation tendency had A LOT of collateral damage that I wasn't aware of until about 5 years ago... when I realized what my aversion to ordinariness and sameness was doing to me. The collateral damage was that it pushes away all parts of me that are common, ordinary, and average and repressed them in order to maintain the "Different from all others" identity that I used to cope with isolation and alienation. But this strategy also exacerbates the same kind of isolation and alienation from the original trauma... as the differentiation tendency causes a person to strive to become as superiorly alien as possible. And it carves us out as islands. And when I was a kid, this came through as me imagining myself as non-human mythical beings... and having all my classmates realize that I was actually an alien, vampire, or mermaid. And later on, it came as spiritual identities and intellectual identities to prove myself better and different than others. And this created a disconnect between myself and my humanity... with strong judgments towards the average human being. So, once I realized this, it's been very important for me to shed any identities or MOs that are geared towards differentiating myself from the rest of humanity. And this is why it's important for me to anchor myself in the "I am an average human being" perspective... and to cease attempting to transcend my basic bitch humanity to become some Ubermensch. This wisdom is in knowing that being a basic bitch is the best medicine for "different in a good way" people. And I suspect that your reaction to my acknowledgement of my ordinary human needs was part of that resistance to commonality and ordinariness... and maintaining the identity of "the different one." So, I would challenge you to question why you're trying to transcend your needs in the first place. Is it because you're trying to carve out an identity of being "different from the masses"? Or is it for some other reason?

That makes sense. My perspective is directly shaped by my experiences of ego transcendence and ego death. And it helped me realize that the avatar game was the preferred path of this iteration... and most iterations within humanity. Very few people genuinely prefer the game of immersing in the game to transcend it. And it took the direct experience of transcending it and dissolving completely to realize that that wasn't the presence... and that there was nothing to escape about the illusion. It's just that my understanding was, "Transcendence is always preferable over immersion within the illusion." And the dissolution challenged that hierarchy I had created in my mind. And I realized that I don't prefer the path of transcendence. I prefer the path of embodiment. And I'm always skeptical when a non-monk claims to be wanting to transcend the Earthly embodiment. I find it far more likely that there's an identity or experience within the Earthly embodiment that they're trying to attach to... sort of like a realization of the ideal self. But that's not what transcendence is about. Transcendence is throw the character and the book in the fire, and simply exist as pure infinite consciousness. And "I've" had some "experiences' like that. But even those experiences are only important and meaningful to me in relation to the Emerald story. And true transcendence is not that.