Emerald

It's this repeat of the false idea that "All women only want to go for the top 10% of guys". Look around the world and you will recognize that this isn't true. And the hyper-utilitarian lens of this forum doesn't help matters. The reality is that things are harder now-a-days because people aren't socializing enough... and everything happens through a screen. And people don't have a community social circle that they're interacting with daily. It's not a result of "sexual libertinism" or "hypergamy run amok"... nor is it a call for some top-down authoritarian structure to do sexual communism to control women's choices in partners and dole a court-ordered wife out to every man. It's just because people are not socializing as much as they used to. And dating is mostly happening through dating apps, where people don't get a chance to experience real human-to-human chemistry. So... men who are only socializing with women through datings apps... or who are living a solitary life... are OF COURSE not getting into relationships. Instead, go out into the world and meet people (men and women). Build yourself a social circle and cultivate experiences. Then, you will meet plenty of women that way. You just have to do it yourself now since society isn't engineered for face-to-face socialization anymore.

I'm not sure that I'd frame it as a "trick" per say. I think about it more as an instinctual incentive mechanism to produce outcomes that lead to reproduction and survival for the species. But unless you really didn't know that sex leads to reproduction and that eating leads to surviving, I'm not sure that the word "trick" really fits the best here. I feel like if you're aware of the outcomes or potential outcomes, you weren't really tricked.

@Xonas Pitfall It seems to me that the perspectives that Leo shares about men and women are just a way for him to feel like he's a member of the superior team... and also because he seems to fear the Feminine and has little respect for and understanding of the Feminine principle. I'd take his perspectives on men and women about as seriously as a white supremacist who waxes poetic about how white people are more aligned to truth than black people. It's clearly not true. You can look around the world and see that people of all genders and racial backgrounds have a variety of different relationships to truth. But the concept of white supremacy it's a feel-good narrative for those who are hyper-identified with the white identity... and belonging with the white supremacist in-group. The same exact thing is true with gender supremacists. It doesn't matter what's true. What matters is that they get to be the superior ones in their own mind. And the vast majority of men are just as muddied as the next person when it comes to perceiving what's true, because men (like everyone else) also have worldviews and identities to cling onto. And it's primarily the preservation of the identity/worldview that muddies the waters to truth in the first place. And when there's an ego to preserve, every human person will unconsciously lie to themselves to blot out the truth that might undermine their ego. And the more attached one is to an identity, the more distortion filters there will be that prevent that person from seeing the truth. It's only when a person is able to look beyond and detach from the identity and worldview that the perception of truth becomes non-threatening... and one can perceive it more easily. And I see zero evidence that men are less attached to their identity and worldview compared to women. So, while many men might speak with less tact than women do when interacting with other people, that's not an indicator of a person being capable of perceiving truth. The real indicator of how well someone can perceive truth is the degree to how much one can surrender to uncomfortable truths about themselves and reality. And let's be real. Hypothetically, if Leo did come across some solid evidence that women were superior truth-seekers compared to men... do you think he would have acknowledged it and make an article about it? Or do you think he would find some way that that evidence doesn't count and rationalize it away? My money is on the latter.

@Psychonaut This relationship seems to have escalated into a dynamic that's very controlling to you where she's controlling every little thing about you. She's even preventing you from food and music that she doesn't approve of... and prevented you from bodily sovereignty (with her prohibition on masturbation). This might not be nice to hear, but I don't think this situation can be salvaged. She is very unlikely to change or even see the fault in her own actions. If you value your freedom and sovereignty as an individual, you will likely need to end this relationship. So, the question is "If nothing ever changed about this relationship, would you be able to feel content about the trajectory of your life?"

I think that Trump knows that the Epstein situation is about the only that could actually lose him some supporters... as he always gets off scot-free in general and in the eyes of his supporters. So, it's only because of the potential consequences that he cares to cover this one up. Otherwise, I'm quite sure that he doesn't care what the plebs think about his character. He probably thinks of himself as uniquely entitled to do whatever he pleases because of his sense of superiority... including but not limited to committing sex crimes on whoever he wants to. He only cares about the opinions of his fans in-so-far as their opinion is practically necessary to preserve his power. And he knows that most of his hardcore fans will be loyal to him with literally everything but pedophilia. And some, of course, would still be loyal to him after that... and engage in all manner of rationalization to preserve their identity of allegiance to him. But he'd likely lose at least a quarter of his hardcore supporters if it were definitively revealed that he committed sex crimes against children... which would be an impediment to his power.

I'm sure that Leo believes what he's saying. I believed what I was saying too when I was valuing and identifying with solitude. But is it truly him loving solitude? Or is a way of rationalizing his own avoidant tendencies to himself by framing them more in the positive? I know from personal experience that it's possible to believe the former... but to have the reality be the latter. And if you didn't notice... he spends a lot of his time socializing on this forum. So, he says "I value solitude" to a group of people who values him and who see value in his pursuits... of whom he interacts with almost every single day. So, he clearly values social interaction. He just doesn't identify himself as someone who values it as valuing social connection is common. A pattern that I've experienced has been a strong identification and enjoyment of solitude... along with an attempt to make myself a rare person who is rare in quality and kind. But there is a pattern of using this to differentiate myself from other people as a way to feel "a cut above" others by "being the rare person" who enjoys solitude and who is aware enough to value things of a higher nature. It's like being a special and extraordinary alien living among the dull and dreary ordinary humans. And there's an ego boost that comes along with that tendency that helps one distinguish themselves from the "contemptibly common" qualities of the masses. But in my medicine journeys, I have recognized that there are deep patterns of disconnection that have come from years and years of differentiating myself from others... and conceptualizing of myself as alien-like in my divergences from the norm (including but not limited to a proclivity for solitude and the valuation of higher achievement and higher states of awareness... as well as an attempt to be a rare person). And this coping strategy has many boons to it. You really can reach to heights that most people aren't so interested in reaching. And so much potential can be realized in this hyper-individuation path. But it is usually borne out of first feeling different and alien in a bad way... such that one eventually embraces this difference and builds an identity of being alien in a good way. And while this coping strategy has many positives to it, it creates a sense of disconnection from other people, from nature, and from the universe at large. And one feels that one cannot belong without proving one's self special and divergent through rarity of identity. I see these same kinds of patterns playing out in Leo's M.O. from the way he speaks about valuing solitude. It reminds me of me. So, I can't simply take his statements around valuing at face value (especially since he spends a lot of his time socializing).

Thank you

Leo isn't any different. He's human just like everyone else.

We've been staying off the radar, for the most part. But of course, because my husband is an immigrant, we have some fears about him being a target. We're also a bit concerned about hurricanes this year because of all the resources that have been gutted. We don't trust DeSantis to handle these situations well, given the fact that he's going to want to serve Trump's agenda as much as possible.

You're mincing paradigms to avoid admitting to yourself the reality of how bad Trump really is. Sure, from the perspective of ourselves as the "video game designer" of this reality (which we can experience in more expanded state of consciousness)... we have all programmed Trump into the game. And the video game designer is operating on such a complex "infinite-D chess" level of understanding of things, that it knows exactly what positive and negative components need to be programmed into reality to serve the highest expressions of mercy and goodness. And if we were operating from that depth of understanding (which we presently aren't), we would understand precisely why Trump has been programmed into this game. It's just like the game designer of the Mario games programmed Bowser into the game, as Bowser is part of the wholeness of the game... as are all positive and negative elements of the game. But as I said, that's not the perspective you're actually operating on right now... as you are the avatar of the game in this realm of awareness. You are not currently operating from the perspective of the game designer... but merely pretending to in order to protect your ideas of Trump from being overturned. And as the avatar of the game, one must honestly engage in the dualistic perspective and be able to discern what is beneficial from that which is detrimental. The video game designer must program in both the negative and positive in the game. But Mario's responsibility is to defeat Bowser. And right now, you (as Mario) are tricking yourself into believing that you are operating from the perspective of the game designer, such that you don't have to admit to yourself how bad Bowser truly is.... and that you can continue admiring Bowser.

It's because, at a fundamental level, he believes that he's special and that it's justified if he has skeletons in the closet because he's superior to everyone else and he has to right to do whatever he pleases, regardless of who it harms. So, he doesn't care if people see the skeletons, as long as he can continue skirting legal responsibility for them... as he sees himself as far superior to anyone who would judge him for those skeletons. And he can always choose to tune out from the judgements and invalidate them... and only tune into people who kiss his ass and validate only those ass-kissing perspectives. You can even hear him do that in his speeches. Consider how most people don't care about what ants think about them. And if they had committed a bunch of crimes against ants and had a bunch of "ant skeletons in their closet", they probably wouldn't care what the ants think of them... as long as there are no tangible consequences. So, while you would feel ashamed to have your skeletons aired to the public... and most people would also... Trump has all sorts of mechanisms for minimizing the validity of the voices of those who criticize him. It like he has an auto-marginalizing mechanism in his mind, where he only lets in perspectives that validate him and convey to him that he's the best and most special person on the planet.

Do you actually crave total isolation? You socialize on this forum every day or nearly every day, quite a bit. And that's not total isolation. It may be that the forum acts as a means of keeping your socialization tank full enough, such that you don't crave it from other sources. Funny enough, I used to identify with being a loner and enjoyer of solitude as a teenager... when I had the most social interaction built right into my environment. (And I still enjoy my alone time as I see moments of solitude as a space for what I refer to as "self-romance"... like I am taking myself on a date) But when I was 20, I truly was alone to the point where if I was killed, no one would notice I was gone for a long time. And I realized then that it was only because I was getting my social support needs met that I could identify myself with solitude and find enjoyment in the solitude. It was because I never truly had lack that I had the luxury to identify as a person who enjoys solitude. It was a very humbling experience that broke down that identity that I had been holding onto as a point of pride.... and as a means of differentiating myself as head and shoulders above there other people who are too shallow to see the value of solitude... and who "operate like sheep." It was quite humbling to realize that I too am a sheep in need of a flock. And it's only in getting totally lost from the flock that the sheep realizes its nature.

That fits with my experiences of who I see as more attractive if I'm only looking at appearance. But even personality-wise, I prefer a man who's not too Feminine and not too Masculine. And I am pretty certain that most women feel the same way.

I thought that maybe she added that context later or something. I missed the joke.

@Talinn I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought that it was people passing out Nazi propaganda pamphlets.

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.