Emerald

The Red Pill/manosphere did have its seeds in the original insecurity that men naturally have around dating. And it grew into something that amplifies that insecurity tenfold by creating common narratives that FEEL validating but are actually deeply disempowering to men. But yes, online dating certainly amplifies the issue.

The biggest difference between men in my generation (30s) and men in this new generation (20s) is that there are way more propaganda pipelines that are designed to suck them in and prey off their shame and insecurities about women. According to the post, things were about even 10 years ago when men my age were in their early 20s… but now there’s a huge disparity. And if I assume these statistics to be true, then the main thing that I can pinpoint is that there’s a lot more internet traps for men to fall into. One would be not socializing and just being on the internet all the time. The other is falling into unhealthy counterproductive echo chambers that froth up men’s anger and insecurities and blame it all on women… which puts them in victim’s mentality about women. And this victim’s mentality shows and is unattractive and even repellent to women.

I didn’t say it was men’s fault. It’s the opposite actually. I’m saying that men have fallen victim to predatory grifters and entrepreneurs who siphon money from vulnerable men who are often inexperienced and insecure. The manosphere is basically a huge community of people who are dealing with shame… where men who feel insecure and lonely come to communally complain about their issues and to engage their shame, fear, and anger by directing it toward women as a scapegoat. And grifters see dollar signs and a desperate target market that can be exploited. And they create narratives that are simultaneously threatening and comforting/validating to that target audience. So their echo chambers are where these men go for advice. Then, when that advice doesn’t work (and it’s designed purposely to NOT work) and the men get rejected, they return to that echo chamber to grouse about women to self soothe. So it creates an addictive cycle where the place that causes the pain is also the place that soothes the pain. Hate groups and cults tend to employ similar tactics. And when they’re there, advice is sold to them in the form of courses and seminars as a helper to attract women… whilst simultaneously giving them false narratives about women (who are framed as heartless monsters) that froth them into an insecure ragefilled person. And this attitude is something that women have experienced many times before. So, most women will avoid these men once they catch a whiff of it as it isn’t a healthy secure form of masculinity. But this is actually the intention of these predatory entrepreneurs. If men are less lonely, then they don’t have a target audience to exploit and sell products and services to.

Not according to the statistics stated in the post. The post states that 10 years ago there was relative parity in singleness between men and women.

It’s a bit difficult to believe these stats. But perhaps more women are dating other women or non-binary people… or older men… or are involved in polyamorous relationships. Or perhaps women are more likely to label their relationships as relationships, where men might want to avoid seeing their relationship as a relationship to avoid feelings of obligation. But I suspect that a lot of the Andrew Tate, Red Pill, manosphere stuff has created a lot of this singleness problem for young men where they end up developing mindsets and narratives that are untenable for developing healthy relationships… and chasing away potential mates using the methods that “experts” tell them to use to attract potential mates.

This isn’t something that can be emulated or pretended to. It’s a practice that requires LOTS of practice. And being able to practice it wisely, comes from the awareness that arises from the direct experience of Oneness and unconditional love as the core nature of all things… and seeing firsthand how that seemingly contradictory reality coexists with the (often brutal) practical realities of living a separate human life. Had I not had these experiences and had I not had a decades long practice of unconditional love and had I not grappled with the paradoxical realities of separation and oneness… then I probably would still struggle to implement this well. And without that lived wisdom, I might push myself into self-sacrifice and codependency. But I’m now as anchored in my sovereignty as ever before and as unconditionally loving as I have ever before been. Sovereignty-wise, I’m pretty rock solid about what I feel and what I want without having to outsource my decision making to others. I hold much less of an illusion that absolute authority can be found outside of myself in other people. That’s taken a while to ferment. But I only really got clear about holding space for this paradox of boundaries and oneness 7 or 8 years ago. I had my first awakening 13 years ago where I recognized the oneness of all things. And afterwards, I foolishly sought to rid myself of all boundaries and tried to live my life impractically… to try to re-access that state. And I would think that, in order to achieve such a state of oneness… what would stop me from walking into traffic? And I was baffled by how to maintain oneness whilst not throwing myself into the meat grinder. I had no idea how to hold space for both truths and how to navigate paradigms. I first decided to be unconditionally accepting 21 years ago when I was 12. And I ran into so many codependency/self-sacrifice traps because I didn’t know the first thing about what that even meant. I was just trying to emulate the IDEA of what Christ and the Buddha were doing so that I could build an identity of it. I had no idea about God, love, and oneness. All I could do was emulate the behavior… but I had no access to the levels of consciousness needed to actually practice unconditional love. Then at age 20, I awoke to the oneness and the unconditional love for the first time. And I saw that there was no distinction between my inner world and the outer world. And I saw that any sense of separation I seemed to have with the rest of reality was an illusion. But I was not yet wise enough to understand how to integrate that insight. So, it took me until I was 26 to build out my mental framework to become mutiperspectival. And I spent about 3 years of that time under the impression that I needed to supplant the practical truths of day to day living for the spiritual truths. And then, in that 7-8 years there’s been a deepening of authority that I’ve been tapping into… because I am more anchored in Self and Oneness… which are one and the same. And from that, there is a recognition that failing to revere others is also a failure to revere myself... and vice versa. So, to practice conditional respect would diminish me in so many ways. And I see this self-diminishing in people who have a policy of conditional respect… especially those who take that as a matter of pride.

My suspicion is that cuckold fantasies come from shame and feelings of unworthiness and undesirability. So, if a guy feels such extreme shame that he can’t imagine the woman being attracted to him… or if he gets disgusted by his own presence in his own sexual fantasies…. Then cuckold fantasies are a way for him to participate in the sexual fantasies and to see the woman having a good time with another man… because he can’t imagine the woman having a good time with him. And also because he has trouble getting aroused by the thought of himself engaging in sex. So, inserting another man who he sees as more desirable to the woman, helps him experience the pleasure of the situation vicariously. And it also activates his shame, so it is a way for him to simultaneously wallow in the shame… which is a kind of self-harm type of release where he gets to surrender to and be overwhelmed by his shame. That’s what I suspect.

Giving an Orwellian-caliber critique on the forum guidelines is a bit much.

It’s not really what the disrespectful guys said. It’s their overall attitude and way of thinking about sex/women that comes through in all their actions. Like if they see sex/women through an objectifying lens of status seeking and conquest, that’s going to come across in subtle ways. And with the guys who were respectful, they just viewed me as a normal human being who’s seeking an enjoyable experience… just like them. And because of this, there was a casual friendliness about those experiences. But eye to eye communication and mutual respect is key. Just understand that women are people too who have similar motives to you. And don’t get too worried about it. Just be social, fun, and friendly and learn about social cues.

Sometimes some women just want sex. So, communicate about that. And you’d have to show mutual respect. I’ve had hook ups in the past, and there were a couple that I felt disrespected in because of the attitude the guys had towards women in general. But most of them, I felt we were on the same wave length and that they didn’t respect me less for sleeping with them.

I know that Testosterone has a blunting effect on the sensitivity of the emotional palette. So, that would make sense to me that emotional facets of sex would be more difficult to key into for high testosterone men and women. It’s also probably why I very rarely find myself drawn to hyper-masculine guys. It’s hard to attune and be on the same wavelength. And that does clear up the distinction between high sex drive vs low emotionality.

You know that meme where the blonde woman is looking very confused and there are numbers and equations all around her? That’s me right now imagining how this would work out logistically and anatomically.

To use your capital thing… oneness and separation are both part of Oneness. Just as the finite and the infinite are both part of the Infinite. And what I try to practice is to see myself as the god-self and others as the god-self… And to keep this in my awareness as I interact with others. And through this separation the god-self can experience itself as a twoness and be in relationship to itself. And god both gives love/worship to itself and receives love/worship from itself. It can really be summed up in the word Namaste as a reverence that comes up between individuals as they remind each other of the oneness that isn’t so obvious when immersed in the dualistic realities of human life. This is what I mean by unconditional respect. And it is why I do my best to practice it as such. It’s that, no matter what form it comes to me in, it is always god and it is always me. And the root of that thing is Love… even as it comes up in forms that seem unloving. And if I am to show disrespect to another, it is really me that I’m showing disrespect to.

Separation and oneness are two sides to the same coin. One is relative and the other is absolute. We live in a world where (in order to function) we must respect the separateness and boundaries of objects and beings. So, the relative truth is that we are separate because we function as separate. And within that separation comes duality and relationship to the other. And this is where respect comes in and can be given and received between self and other. But in the absolute sense, everything is one. And we are all parts within a greater whole. Respect in my definition, means to recognize the oneness/sacredness of the other through the lens of separation and relationship.

Me too! Hiya!

Does the lion disrespect the gazelle when he eats him to survive? My philosophy on survival and boundaries is that every animal gets to protect themselves and survive. And every species gets to prioritize members of their own species. For example, I don’t eat meat because I am in a fortunate enough position to not need to eat animals to survive. So, to justify eating an animal to myself, I would have to engage in hierarchical thinking and a disrespect to the animal where I place my desire for 10 minutes of sensory enjoyment over the value of the animal’s entire life. But if I were in a situation where I had to eat an animal to survive, I wouldn’t have any qualms about it. That’s just the nature of survival. And each human and non-human animal is entitled to a fair crack at survival. This is the way that Animistic cultures have viewed things like hunting. It’s always with a deep respect to the wisdom of nature and the circle of life. And it’s to understand that sometimes you eat the lion and sometimes the lion eats you. So, I will swat the mosquito for my own survival. But the mosquito will suck my blood for it’s survival. And that’s just how things are. But I don’t disrespect the mosquito to swatting it away… any more than the gazelle disrespects the lion by running away. I can still recognize the validity of their existence, but still maintain my own survival.

No to the first question… and not always to the second question. As long as she’s on board with it, it can still be mutually respectful to engage in casual sex.

Interesting. I wonder why these things diverge. If more testosterone leads all people to have a higher sex drive… then why aren’t more masculine women the most easily aroused and promiscuous?

The dichotomy isn’t so much about polygamy vs monogamy… both of these can create a stable environment for child rearing as long as there is consistency to the familial structure. The dichotomy is that of wide/shallow and narrow/deep. And wide/shallow orientation creates problems for familial stability. This makes wide/shallow orientation inferior to deep/narrow if the goals are pair bonding, family building child rearing, and community building. And biologically speaking, those are the fundamental goals underneath our sex drives as human beings. And while men and women’s strategies for getting there look different, both of these strategies are fundamentally about coming together to build stable families. And since our sexual instincts are fundamentally about procreation and child rearing, (generally speaking) men have two natural modes… wide/shallow and deep/narrow where women have one mode which is deep/narrow. Men tend to begin wide/shallow in the early courtship process… and then move to narrow/deep as the relationship progresses. And women tend to be narrow/deep in both early courtship and in the progression of the relationship. But the biological goal is to both get to deep/narrow. So, men who haven’t experienced deep/narrow yet and have not experienced marriage and fatherhood, they might think wide/shallow is the only natural thing. But it is important for men who value pair bonding, fatherhood, and community stability to put these two instincts (wide/shallow and narrow/deep) in the proper relationship with one another to serve the stability of their family and community. This takes some maturing to do this well and to realize where the deeper pull of their masculine instincts are actually leading them. To elucidate this, think of the quote “still waters run deep”. And if men’s sexual instincts are like currents in the water in this analogy… The deepest currents of instinct are the most powerful… but they are also much more subtle and take maturity to recognize and connect to. But the shallower currents of instinct are there too. And they’re much easier to understand, appreciate, and connect to. But biologically, these shallower instincts around casting the net wide are there to serve the deeper instincts of building healthy families and communities.

I did specify that it’s my way of viewing respect. And that I see it as separate from things like admiration. There are other words to describe those conditional forms of respect. I view respect in the same way that people have a respect for nature. There is a natural reverence toward all elements of existence… including humans. And to answer your question, I get along very well with people in my life (in part) because I do my best to practice unconditional respect. And I do this practically by recognizing the validity of a person’s subjective truth and seeking to understand them, rather than judging them. It’s less of a question for me as to whether or not another person is “worthy” of my respect. I’m showing up respectfully regardless of how anyone else wants to show up because it is one of my values. And respect in the way that I’m defining it is not contingent upon behaviors or qualities. But being respectful is contingent upon certain behaviors. And I think you can tell a lot about how respectful a person is going to be by how unconditionally they give their respect.

Not so sure that that’s true. Testosterone tends to correlate with more masculine features in women… like facial hair and deeper voices. But I’ve known plenty of very feminine women who are more promiscuous… and plenty of more masculine women who are more commitment oriented. And vice versa. And the same goes for men. Plenty of very burly men who are commitment oriented, and plenty of promiscuous variety-seeking feminine men. Most of the gay men that I know seek a lot of variety while possessing more feminine qualities. So I see no correlation anecdotally… nor have I seen any studies that suggest this. Are you sure this is true? Or is it pop science that you heard in the pick up community?

I wasn’t saying that someone who is trustworthy is the same as someone who is admirable… or that someone who has integrity is trustworthy. Etc. These can come together or separate. I was saying that it’s common that the word respect gets translated as some combo of trustworthiness and admiration. But that isn’t the way that I define respect for the reasons that I stated above.

That’s not quite what I meant by what I said. What I mean is that (biologically speaking) that women and men’s EARLY dating strategies diverge to ultimately get to the same goal. And that goal is to create suitable family structures to raise children in. And this can be monogamous or polyamorous depending on what’s more adaptive. The main requirement here is stability. If a man just runs with the pluralistic early dating strategy and forms lots of shallow bonds and impregnates tons of women…. this impedes his ability to co-create a suitable family structure and be a good father to any of these children. And in nomadic times, this would probably mean death for the woman and child. So, the shallow wide pluralism of the EARLY courtship process becomes maladaptive to the ultimate biological goal of raising new human beings and building strong families and communities… if it’s not transcended once a deeper commitment is formed.

These are more in the realm of credibility, trust, and admiration… which are conditional. These are important to be selective about as it helps you discern how to practically orient to each person in your life. I define respect as the recognition of the inherent sacredness and unshakable validity of all beings… which cannot be lost. And so, if I cherry-pick who (and what) I show respect to… it automatically brings ME out of integrity. And that is because integrity is about being in alignment with Truth. And the recognition of Truth and the recognition of unconditional love are one and the same thing. And with this, we can understand the forces that shape people’s shortcomings and the fundamental fragility of the human experience. So, I don’t worry too much about what other people do in practice in terms of what they consider deserving or not deserving of respect. When I hear people talking about how their respect isn’t given freely, I know that that person’s paradigm will cause issues for them, because they will judge others… and that external judgment will make thrm judge themselves more harshly and thenfeel shame and fear losing respect in their own eyes. And if they have this type of judgment and see certain people as unworthy of respect, then this is coming from their own disconnection from the Truth.

So, the way you’re defining respect is someone giving up power to someone else? The issue here is that it would be a bad idea to respect anyone in that case… because it disconnects you from your own personal sovereignty and capacity for self-governance. This is why the world is filled with sycophantic people who are always looking outside themselves for perfect leaders to tell them what to do. But no human being is a perfect leader. That’s why it’s unwise to give up power to that person. But you can surrender to causes and forces that are greater than yourself. And you can play a role within the greater system.