Emerald
Member-
Content count
7,466 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Emerald
-
-
1 hour ago, Enigma777 said:4. And how’s it working living outside of those “projections”? Ask modernity
Just as expected... as we are now in the rational era of human development. And there's important work to be done in this era.
We begin with pre-rational, where we're fully projecting the world of archetypes onto reality and living fully immersed in the reflection without any ability to question it.
Then, there is a dawning of rational, empirical thinking. And one of the drawbacks is that, in seeing beyond the projected archetypes, we lose our sense of certainty and there's a loss of meaning. But it also gives us the ability to interface with empirical reality, and it gives us distance to study our psychology and the archetypes.
Then, the rational sets up the necessary foundation to be able to actually integrate pre-rational archetypes into a more holistic post-rational cosmology. So, instead of projecting a king outwardly, we can find the inner sovereign. And Instead of projecting our psychological anatomy onto the universe, we can recognize it as a structure that exists within us.
And most of all, we can live as real whole humans... instead of trying to match up to cut and dried impersonal and ideal archetypes.
But I see Fascism (and SuperFascism as you describe it) as reactionary response to the loss of meaning that's inherent in this stage of the process (which centers around empiricism and rationality).
But its this very discomfort and embrace of uncertainty that precipitates the collective evolution towards the post-rational, where archetypal meaning is actually integrated instead of just projected and unconscious lived in.
-
54 minutes ago, Enigma777 said:2. This idea of a “Golden Age” does permeate Traditionalist literature, but as I’ve mentioned earlier in this discussion, it is better to conceive of this Traditional ideal as just that—an ideal, or a Platonic Form, or perhaps an abstract archetype. Premodern societies were seen as instantiating this ideal at a greater degree than modernity, modernity in fact representing the highest level of decadence, and being the era of history removed the furthest from it.
3. Again this has nothing to do with historical Fascism
But it does have a lot to do with historical Fascism... because it's answering to the same insecurities and needs as Fascism does. And it uses similar ways of thinking about the past and the present as historical Fascism does.
Really, it ends up being a distinction without a difference once people try to impose that order onto reality.
And as I said in my previous post, pre-modern people were projecting an archetype onto reality in lieu of empirical knowledge. That's why this archetype was so wide-spread.
But it's actually a really good thing that we're deviating from living that archetype.
When an archetype gets lived in, we can't reflect on it and integrate it because we're like a fish in pre-rational, psychological water.
But once we become rational, we can move into the post-rational paradigm of being able to integrate this archetype on a psychological level... as opposed to just projecting it outward unconsciously onto reality.
The archetype is indeed important. But living an archetype fully is dysfunctional.
-
53 minutes ago, Enigma777 said:1. I did not propose the authoritarian imposition of such an order. In fact, that would be antithetical to what I’ve laid out. Nowhere did I propose a martial, fascist political mobilization to impose such an order out of naive romanticism or ideological conviction. Rather, I recognize the need for such then establishment an order to arise organically, as did Evola in his later life.
But the thing is... that order won't re-emerge organically because the circumstances that that order arose out of are in the past... specifically prior to the scientific revolution.
That orientation to the socio-political system was an adaptation that was organically borne out of a very specific kind of pre-scientific cosmology, a very specific set of societal circumstances, and a very specific set of challenges that just don't apply in contemporary society.
And to project so cleanly that archetype onto reality you need a dirth of empirical knowledge and the inability to reflect on your cosmology from afar, so that the world is a blank projection screen for the archetypes of the collective unconscious and you can fully "live in" the world of projected archetypes.
Once you wake up to the rational, you cannot go back to the pre-rational. But you can go forward to the post-rational and you can rationally start to understand the importance of these patterns as archetypes and psychological contents but not as good/functional sociopolitical systems to live in.
Jung was sharing in one of his books about how people in the pre-scientific/pre-rational worldviews tend to just be living the archetypal story... totally immersed in the world of projected psychological archetypes, like a living myth. But they lack the ability to empirically reflect on the story they're living from afar.
So, the reality is that we contemporary people just have too much empirical knowledge and too great an understanding of rationality to be able to cleanly project this archetype onto reality to the point where it can be lived in on a society-wide scale.
But pre-rational people could because they needed an understanding of reality but lacked the empirical methods and tools to be able to fill in the blanks with what they observe.
It's sort of like how alchemists were engaging in a proto-science that was non-empirical... and because they weren't doing actual science (because that wasn't fully available yet) they ended up projecting the internal psychological processes onto the practice of alchemy.
And alchemy is shit as a science... but amazing as a point of reference for introspection and understanding how the psyche functions. The same is true of the way that kingdoms functioned in feudal times.
But people after the scientific revolution could not project their psychological contents onto alchemy if it were happening in this era. That is specifically a possibility for pre-rational people who are operating in pre-rational cosmologies where everything is a blank projection screen for the world of archetypes.
And so, that just wouldn't work as an organic re-emergence.
Really the only way to get this order re-established (in form but not in substance) is to have an authoritarian leader impose that system from the top-down.
And so, this idea is never going to actually get any traction without some kind of authoritarian imposition. And even then, it would not be the way it was.
It will not arise organically like it did in the past. Expecting society to organically re-constellate this worldview would be like expecting a 30 year old to organically go through puberty again.
-
I read through all of what you wrote.
One trap that Fascists (and I suppose SuperFascists too) fall into is to believe in the myth of the Golden Age.. and to try to create an authoritarian system to bring us back to the glory days of the Golden Age.
That's the fundamental underpinning of what Fascism is, "We were once a great people and living in the Golden Age! And we can be great again, if we ruthlessly remove all the obstacles and enemies to restructuring society along the lines of the structures of the Golden Age."
And I see a similar kind of false romanticism in your post, where you seem to believe that "Society has fallen into degeneracy. So, we need to restructure things along the lines of a previous system to pull us out of degeneracy."
But the reality is that people have always been people. And people do not cease to be people when the systems around them change. And the systems around them changing doesn't address the addressable ills, which can only be addressed through deep inner work.
So, even when there was an organic emergence of this archetypal order being applied to reality, there was still rape, murder, addiction, child abuse, cruelty, and all sorts of other "degenerate" elements.
And these "degenerate" elements were evident to the 'Fascist' thinkers of the time... and they pined for some even earlier Golden Age.
But the trick is that the Golden Age doesn't exist. It's an illusion that people project into the past (or the future) and it turns people into fanatical zealots who can't accept humanity and the current reality as it is.
So, even if we could rally the authoritarian forces to impose this past divine archetypal order onto the contemporary environment, I don't believe that re-ordering society along the lines of a caste system/feudal system that operates through the divine right of kings is going to solve anything that humans are currently grappling with in the current stage of evolution we're in as a species.
And really, what you're advocating for here is similar to a child who's terrified of the 3rd grade. And so they want to go back to the 2nd grade, where the problems are less complex to solve.
And that's what's appealing about having an agreed upon divine order and everyone knows their place. It provides absolute certainty... and acts as a salve to the fears of uncertainty.
But if you want to evolve as a person, you must embrace uncertainty and find sovereignty in yourself instead of looking for the divinely ordained king to lead the way.
Plus, are you really going to be okay if the "divinely ordained king" (who's really just a dude) is an unwise oppressive despot and decides that you're a lifelong serf and that there's nothing you can do about it?
So, I disagree with both Fascism and SuperFascism.
- Because the divinely ordained paradigm arose organically and cannot be imposed onto the modern context in top-down authoritarian ways without terrible outcomes
- Because there is no such thing as a Golden Age... and if there is one, it definitely isn't in the past.
- Fascists are always trying to get absolute certainty... but reality doesn't operate that way. So, it is an untrue paradigm
- These hierarchies are psychological projections of archetypes in the collective unconscious. And if we project them onto reality and live by them, we're just psychologically shadow boxing with ourselves (individually and collectively).
- Because these divinely ordained hierarchies are a human construct, the royalty and nobles are just regular people. And when you project divine perfection onto human beings and see them as a God, terrible things happen.
I could go on and on. But that's the gist of it.
-
8 hours ago, Bando said:This was a very insightful experience you shared, I distinctly remember the coaches in this space describing the "ideal" kind of woman to game was a girl with low self esteem.
A woman with low self esteem would be easier to manipulate into doing things they weren't enthusiastic about. They wouldn't outright say this but implication was very heavy.
In this case these forums/coaches would teach guys about breaking through LMR (Last-Minute-Resistance). The common underlying strategy would be to "wear down" a woman emotionally until she kind of just "gave in"
Some coaches would tell guys the only time they should stop trying to "close" is if she gets up and literally leaves your place. This is why ideas like negging was a staple in the PUA world.
The problem with operating like this is that it leaves women very dissatisfied, this is one of the reasons why guys who have a high lay count or do PUA also struggle with retention, at worst it could land them in legal trouble like many of these PUA coaches go through.
Yes, that's one of the reasons I tend to push back on false notions like, "Of course if a woman sleeps with a guy, she's attracted to him."
There are plenty of reasons why a woman might sleep with a man other than being attracted... and some of them are just purely about unmet needs and vulnerabilities or being in a really low place.
During those few months, I slept with 6 guys. And I was mildly physically attracted to 3 of them. But I didn't have any sexual desire towards any of them. And I certainly didn't have any crushy feelings.
I was just alone in the world, and I couldn't say no to the company. The majority of those guys were really lonely too. It struck me how lonely some of them were.
But, at other points in my life my discernment had been high... where I would only give the time of day to a guy I was really attracted to and wanting something deeper from. Like, if I didn't have a total crush on him, it was a no.
So, in times of greater strength and higher discernment, attraction requires some really strong feelings that spammy street-approach guys just don't evoke. It takes an actual slow-burn and gradual fermentation of attraction in a platonic context over time.
And as a teenager, I had this transcendent forcefield up. And it was really powerful for repelling the wrong kind of guy and attracting the right kind of guy.
But at 20, when everything in my life fell apart entirely, that force field got very very weak. The only thing that saved me from this cycle was that the 7th guy that I got with is my husband, which gave me the beginnings of a new social foundation which I needed. And that grew into a family... and I eventually made a bunch of friends and developed a strong network.
It really showed me the importance of human beings having a strong social support system.
So, I had to build out the bottom there rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.
In that period of time, I was also just in a really low place where the bottom rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy didn't exist for me... I lacked access to food, safety, and connection. I even lost 30 lbs at the time. I would often think during that time that I could be kidnapped/murdered and it would be weeks before anyone would notice. And my boundaries were nearly non-existent.
And it was also the time in my life where I got the most male attention... but most of it was very pushy. And it was very low-quality spammy male attention.
Like, I remember once that I was walking around in the pedestrian area where I live. And I was just wearing a non-form-fitting purple trenchcoat and my hair and make-up wasn't done. My hair was dyed black but my roots were showing significantly after months and months of it growing out. I looked very average.
But about every third man on the street (from 18 to 80) stopped in his tracks to look my way and leer at me.
And during that time, I even stopped looking men in the eyes because I started to develop this fear that all men are secretly like that. I really got this peak behind the curtain of what it is to be the kind of woman that predatory men are targeting.
But I can see that, for a man who has had success with doing pick-up, he may not want to see this and may prefer the narrative that, "Using pick-up, I learned to be more attractive to women."
It's a nicer idea like, "Yay! Personal development! I became more attractive."
But a man's level of attractiveness has a lot more to do with whether he is a great pro-social man. His lay-count is irrelevant to that.
But I can see that in inter-male groups, having sex with women is seen as an indicator of a man's attractiveness, worth, and level of Masculinity. And it feels like that would be an actual indicator of whether or not a man is attractive, as that way "the game" has consistency in the rules for winning it.
But that isn't how it works. It's really just a numbers game. And you just find that a sizable minority of women are just ow-discernment women.
I think this is why there's a lot of slut shaming. It's like, "Hey! In order for my wins in the game to be meaningful, you have to be as challenging to sleep with as your level of attractiveness would logically indicate."
So, a woman who's a 10 who's giving it away easy messes up the game standards and even shows the cracks in the logic of the game.
And there are low-discernment women with crap self-esteem at every level of attractiveness. You can find a 10 who hates herself and wear her down and be like, "Yay! That means I'm attractive because a 10 slept with me!". And you can find a 2 that has so much self-respect that she won't touch a spam guy with a 10-foot pole and go, "So what! What does she know about how attractive a man is? She's a two. She needs to humble herself".
And those are some ugly facts for a guy who has "become more attractive" as a result of doing pick-up. But it is the truth.
Baked into the premise of pick-up is the idea that more attractive women will be universally pickier and are objective judges of male attractiveness. So, it sets up this idea that pick-up is this meritocratic game where a man learns to be more attractive to attract more and more good-looking women.
This is what makes the game meaningful... because successfully sleeping with attractive women is seen as an indicator that a man has succeeded with making himself more attractive as a man.
But it doesn't account for self-esteem issues, traumas, life struggles, substance addiction, and other messy realities that human women go through that might wear down her boundaries. And that impacts attractive and unattractive women alike.
That's why I say that a man must prioritize between becoming a great/attractive man and having a higher lay-count.
Men who do pick up who have ahigher lay-count just have more audacity and persistence. It doesn't mean anything about his level of non-physical attractiveness if he's getting those lays as a result of just approaching a bunch.
A truly attractive man is just a great man... regardless of whether he uses his greatness to go sleep with a bunch of women or not.
So, a man must recognize that the "cold approach/pick-up" game is very different than the "becoming more attractive" game.
And for some men, they don't care about how attractive they are, as long as they sleep with more women. And if that's their prerogative fine.
But for some guys, becoming a more attractive guy and developing himself will take the higher priority.
Usually men in scarcity mindset will pick the former, and guys in abundance mindset will pick the latter.
-
Second-wave Feminism definitely has a lot of messaging like, "Act in a traditionally Masculine way to be considered equal to men in terms of validity and value" notions. And there are the ideas of "women need to 'lean in' in the workplace to be treated equally."
So, it sets up Masculinity as the superior thing to be measured up to.... and frames everything around equal access to the traditional Masculine role and work opportunities.
So, it subtly puts Masculinity on a pedestal almost as much as the patriarchal paradigm does.
It's like, "Both men and women should be allowed to equally pursue the superior path of Masculinity (which we've reframed as gender-neutral, so we don't consciously think it's Masculinity... even though it is)."
Third-wave Feminism (in contrast) tends to have a lot more nuances to it though, as it's more about awareness of oppressive social systems and intersectional awareness than it is about Second-Wave Feminism's focus on fighting for equality with men in the workplace by proving "women can do anything a man can do."
It's different forms of Feminism for different eras. And this woman was definitely raised in the era of second-wave Feminism.... which was the main form of Feminism in popular culture from the 1960s until the 90s-00s decades.
Of course, PLENTY of second-wave Feminists got married and had children. But that wave of Feminism can cause a woman to go into opposition to relationship, motherhood, and lifestyle dynamics that she would have otherwise preferred in her attempts to prove to herself that she's equal to men.
But with the woman in the article, she's still thinking very narrowly and only seems to see only two options... either to go back to traditional values or keep following her 2nd wave Feminist values or some incoherent Frankenstein mash-mash of the two.
She doesn't understand any other way to relate to her Feminist values that doesn't involve competing to be equal to men.
And you can tell at the end, she's struggling because she's trying to find some in-between option because she only sees two options. But the idea of playing second-fiddle to a guy is untenable to her, so she doesn't know where to take up real estate.
And she's not exploring the actual vulnerability she's trying to protect herself from.
So, I think her issue is that she fears being made inferior... and perhaps unconsciously sees Femininity as inferior, herself due to internalized misogyny (some of it enforced by patriarchal societal patterns and some of it enforced by 2nd Wave Feminism).
So, she's caught between these two untenable polarities. And she becomes a porcupine towards male partners to avoid the vulnerabilities of either one.
And this has caused her to hide her vulnerabilities because her 2nd Wave Feminism hides a deeply ingrained patriarchal outlook that to be Feminine is lesser than being Masculine. And so, this spurs her into competition and combativeness.... and pushes her to constantly prove to herself that she isn't inferior to men and she's just as much a man as they are... despite believing deep down and fearing that she is inferior.
So, her relationships with men have been like two rams fighting for dominance. And this left little space for her to soften up and connect intimately with her partners.
So, she can attract men based on her leaning into what she's passionate about and engaging in stimulating conversation... but she can't connect intimately because she has made vulnerability an enemy. So, relationships fall apart.
But there is no actual clash between these things. A woman can be sovereign and empowered towards what she's passionate about... and be able to soften up and connect at a deep level with her partner.
But it seems like she believes it's an either/or situation... and is very black and white in her thinking.
Like, "I can either be really passionate about what I'm passionate about. learn several languages, and read Nietzsche.... or I can have a close relationship with a man, but I have to choose."
-
6 hours ago, EternalForest said:So there's like 4 different conversations going on here at the same time
In regards to social circles being stronger the more diverse they are, I fundamentally disagree. All you need to do is talk to guys who have "guys nights out" or girls who have "girls nights out" and you'll find they're much happier and those nights are their reprieves, their escapes from their girlfriends or boyfriends or even the opposite sex in general. My all male friend group has been in my life for over 15 years and it's been the #1 reason why I don't suffer from depression or loneliness. I can deal with being single as long as I have the guys. Without a girlfriend OR the guys, I'd be very lonely.
If you're saying it shows maturity for a guy to be able to have female friends, but you don't feel the same about women, that's a double standard.
I also never related diversity to mediocrity, I was saying that the diversity of the friend group has little to do with its quality, and diversifying the group for the sake of it could lead to mediocrity because you're picking people more for their identity than their chemistry.
Now one thing you said did hit home for me.
It would be nice to have a female friend for the simple reason that it would allow me to not look at every woman I'm talking to as romantic prospect. That's a big issue for me right now.
There are no double standards here... everyone tends to get a bit socially boxed in and stunted by spending time only around one type of person (men and women both). And that's because uni-sex groups (especially those who are the same age) tend to be a bit one-note as it's like an echo chamber that only deals with issues that impact that specific group. And from the outside, it feels kind of cliquey.
It's just that women don't tend to have the issue of no male friends or acquaintances, as women are more likely to have a gender-diverse social circle with male and female friends and acquaintances.
Men just tend to have this uni-sex friend group issue a lot more often than women do. But it's equally negative for both.
And it's perfectly fine to have a "boys night" or "girls night" as that's a specific type of get-together... but that doesn't mean that you only have friendships and and acquaintance-ships with only those of the same gender.
Like, I like to get together with female friends. But that doesn't mean that I only have female friends. I don't delineate gender-wise when I find someone interesting.
And I'm not saying you have to subtract your guy friends to do this. Keep the friends you currently have. I'm just recommending that you add more people to your social circle... not take any away.
And this uni-sex friend group dynamic does create a situation where (usually men), are not able to socialize normally with women because they never interact with women.
They see women as only prospects. And women are very sensitive to that.
Honestly, if I met a guy and he only had male friends and acquaintances, that would communicate to me something about his level of social networking skills, social aptitudes, and values more generally.
-
7 hours ago, MsNobody said:@Emerald that's super interesting, thank you for sharing your results Emerald!! I took a Shibari class once and a woman tied me up and I tied her up, it was so profound I noticed that since leaving Brazil the only people I touched were romantic partners, I didnt even know what PDA was lol Im not bisexual but in Brazil when we are hanging out with girlfriends we are always holding each others arms and braids each other hairs.. the class made me remember the importance of touch.
So about the shibari class, there more women there than men (the few men were gays or were there with their female partners) and all the women were talking about how they have a deep desire to be tied up to fully surrender and "relax" which I believe is theresult of the unbalance and push back of extreme feminism, I have so many really strong women around me that also super submissive and you wouldnt say it cause they are extremely independent etc, I guess we try to balance things out in bed.
One of my female clients was learning Shibari... on the rigger side. And she showed me some of her work, and it was really cool. There's a real art to it.
It is interesting that I score quite high with the rope bunny metric. I like it well enough, but I don't feel like I'm all that into that in a strong way.
I have more of preference for more vanilla forms of submission that have to do with surrendering and softening, so as to experience more emotional closeness with my partner and to allow myself to be taken into the wavelength of his enjoyment. And I sometimes feel like extra accessories (like rope) can shift the dynamic more over into a different more kink-focused kind of dynamic... which is nice sometimes but not my preference.
What my experience has been is that the world is a very difficult place to be in touch with the Feminine... and that's because of a mixture between old-school patriarchal tendencies to see the Masculine as greater than the Feminine (and men as greater than women by extension)... and the response to that with Feminism that wants equality for women and for men and women to be equal... but still unconsciously placing the Masculine over the Feminine in a value hierarchy.
The messaging I got as a child was always around a kind of Stage Orange, "Women can do anything a man can do." And while that's an important message in some ways, it also sets men and Masculinity as the superior standard to match up to.
And there was even a lot of framing of things that girls/women generally enjoy as something women are socially conditioned into enjoying, with no similar messaging around the thing that boys/men tend to enjoy. And this also communicates a subtle message that, "The things that women/girls prefer are so inferior that they have to be socially conditioned into enjoying it under threat of social judgment. But the things that boys/men enjoy are just universally and innately enjoyable."
And this often led me to question my preferences for things. Like, I think I like fashion... but maybe I'm just conditioned to do so. And, I think I like colorful, sparkly things and frilly dresses... but maybe I'm just conditioned to do so.
It was a big gaslight. But the only alternative I knew was worse, which was to confine myself to some previous paradigm of traditional Femininity where I would stifle my innate talents and so much of my personality... and be seen as inherently inferior in a more direct way.
So, in either of the two bad options, there is a devaluation of things like softness, being, receptivity, non-linearity, rest, etc... and a hyper-valuation of forward-moving goal achievement.
So, in that paradigm, it's like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" because either way, you're devaluing the Feminine polarity and hyper-polarizing into the Masculine. And it causes both men and women to try to embody the most Masculine elements of themselves and discard all the Feminine elements of themselves as a means of moving through life in the most acceptable and respected way.
And it can be difficult to find a third option that actually values, understands, and integrates the Feminine.
And when I was in my early 20s, I hadn't yet developed my relationship to that third option (though I had discovered it through a previous medicine journey and studying Jungian psychology).
And so, because I was at the very beginning of my Feminine reintegration journey, I hadn't yet reconciled my desire for sovereignty and power in most areas of life with my enjoyment of surrender in my more submissive sexual preferences. And it created all this pain and shame, where I'd be like, "Oh no! Does this sexual enjoyment mean that I am inferior? And maybe it turns me on because there's something natural about women's oppression?!?!?"
And it was really difficult for me to enjoy my proclivities without shame and other really heavy feelings.
But since then, I've worked a lot on the integration of the Feminine and recognize that I genuinely prefer the Feminine polarity over the Masculine polarity for how I live my life. And my Masculine side is important but mostly acts as practical support for those more Feminine elements.
And I feel like my Feminine preferences (including my preferences towards playing the submissive role in sex and in a more subtle degree in a relationship) are just an extension of my power and sovereignty instead of as something that is at odds with it.
-
5 hours ago, Kid A said:I can confirm this 100%.
Not prioritizing having female friends has been one of the really really big mistakes that I’ve made in life.
Yes. I tend to find that men who have no female acquaintances or friends can be a bit socially disconnected, as they're used to only operating in the specific ways that groups of young men tend to operate.
The same could be said for women who only interact with other women... but this is a bit less common.
-
29 minutes ago, EternalForest said:Obviously this is something I'd like to have in theory.
But I already love my circle. Why should I bring women in just for the sake of it? Does the strength in a social circle really hinge on its diversity?
I'd rather be part of an all male or all female social circle that's loyal, fun and uncensored over one that's diverse and mediocre.
It's because it operates like the village, which is what social circles have always naturally been. So, diversity in one's social circle is part of the need.
It's mostly adolescents that operate in same-sex social circles, as subsets within the greater village before they're ready to step into adult participation within the entire village.
So, it's a more mature and adult way to operate socially. And as a plus, women tend to respond very well to men who are less adolescent-seeming and more adult-seeming... which involves having a strong community and varied social network.
Also, why relate diversity to mediocrity?
As someone who has a varied social circle of people in many parts of the world, many cultural backgrounds, ages across the spectrum, and including men, women, and even a few non-binary people... I can tell you that there are very interesting people in every single group.
The main goal that I have is to find others on the same wavelength and to cultivate the village around myself.
What I find is, in cliques of young men or cliques of young women, things can be a little one-note and insular. There's a lot more growth to be had if you create the village around yourself.
And a side benefit of that is that you'll have more opportunities to find a partner. Another couple side benefits is (if you decide to do pick-up), you will have lots of social practice with interacting with women in non-agenda driven ways AND you won't be starving for human connection as your cup will be filled.
If you do pick-up without having your cup filled of your need for the village, you will unconsciously see every female prospect as a substitute for the missing parts of the village. And it will add a lot of pressure.
-
46 minutes ago, MsNobody said:I took the test several months back. I didn't share back then though.
But I remember my top three categories were submissive, vanilla, and rope bunny.
The submissive one was like 96% or something really high like that. The vanilla one was in the lower 90% range. And rope bunny was like in the 70% range.
And the other ones were much much smaller numbers... probably because I'm kind of vanilla. I had like solid 0%s on the bottom 5 or 6 categories.
I'll take it again and see what I get...
Edit: Here's what I got. I got some different results. I was partially trying to replicate my answers from last time, so that was a warring intention with simply answering of the questions. I feel it was more accurate before. But at any rate, here it is...
-
17 hours ago, Leo Gura said:Women sleep with whoever is convenient. Just being near women is enough to get laid.
90% of game is just being near women consistently. The rest is minutia.
Notice that guys who whine about not getting laid are not around women consistently. They whine but are never around to fuck. She is not going to hunt you down to fuck.
100%
If a man is socializing with women, he will have opportunities present themselves periodically to sleep with a woman.
-
On 11/8/2025 at 3:05 AM, Natasha Tori Maru said:@Emerald I too am slightly confused with your take here. There may be a nuance or context you are operating from that hasn't been stated.
If a woman consensually sleeps with a man - she must perceive him as attractive. Unconscious or conscious.
Whether that be looks, social status, intellect, wit, charm, humor. Something in his character is attracting her.
Whether it is low consciousness (she has anxious attachment and is attracted to avoidant men, she has had trauma and mistakes love for adrenaline, she has low self esteem and negging makes her approval seeking) attraction or high consciousness does not matter.
There is still something there attracting her. That she is matching to within the man.
Unless you are referring to the sort of axis relating solely to the physical - IE a woman will sleep with a man who she finds physically unappealing due to his humor, intellect etc. But this is still attraction to the man.
My perspective comes from a woman who has never slept with a man I found unattractive. And I have experienced no sexual assault. And my frame is one of enthusiastic consent with the above.
I can only think of outlier cases being exclusions. IE a woman feeling she owes it to the man but doesn't like/feel attracted to him. Or feeling guilted into sex.
What I'm saying is that I have known plenty of unattractive men who have had plenty of sex just because they were social and persistent. I experienced this in my hometown that there were plenty of unattractive guys (physically and/or personality-wise) hooking up and getting laid, just because they're social.
So, if a guy has a low body count or high body count, it doesn't mean much about his level of attractiveness.
But that was social circle "game".
But even moreso with pick-up, to me, it means far more about his level of pushiness and audacity than it does about his level of attractiveness.
When I was 20 years old, I had a period of time where my sexual boundaries were awful because I'd experienced a lot of recent traumas and I had a poor social support system where I really didn't have anyone in my life... neither friends or family. And I had just gotten out of a terrible relationship.
It was a time where I was very alone in the world.
So, during that period of time, it happened several times that a guy would invite me to hang out.. and I found myself not being able to turn down the company because of the position that I was in, despite knowing what his intentions were. I would just rationalize that "I can hang out because I'll say no to his advances." And then, he'd make advances towards me and I'd either cave right away because I wanted to feel close to someone... or (with pushy guys) I'd say no the first few times he'd ask but cave because of the position that I had put myself in... and preferring to feel more agency in the situation if he continued not taking no for an answer.
But I was only physically attracted to about half of those guys... and only mildly. And I didn't have any kind of deep attraction to any of them. They were just there in a time where I was alone and had just gone through a lot of things.
So, when I hear of a guy who's very successful at sleeping with women, I don't see it as meaning anything about the guy's level of attractiveness.
I just think that it stands to reason that there are plenty of women out there with poor sexual boundaries for a variety of reasons or simply more desire for varied sexual encounters. And audacious guys just try their hand at lot at figuring out who's willing.
It's kind of like if you're playing Jenga. You don't have to get particularly good at dislodging the stuck bricks (in this metaphor, that requires actual attractiveness). You just have to look for the loose bricks... which is easy if you're persistent and audacious at checking for them.
And having had a period of time where I was a loose brick, there were motives outside of attraction that were making me open to sleeping with those guys.
And probably a sizable minority women are either struggling with sexual boundaries like I was or are just very sexually motivated themselves towards hook-ups.
That's why I don't see a man's number of sexual partners as meaning anything about his level of attractiveness.
I've known very attractive men with just a few sexual partners. And I've known very unattractive men who are sleeping with everyone and their mother.
-
10 hours ago, aurum said:You'll never get it out of me
Oh come on now. Everyone knows you're a brat.
j/k
-
On 11/10/2025 at 10:54 PM, EternalForest said:This doesn't work if you have male only friend groups like me.
That's where you're going wrong.
Get some female friends and acquaintances in your social circle, simply for the sake of building a robust social circle. Every person should aim to do that, imo.
Hanging out too much of one type of person can be a bit socially stunting. So, if you only hang out with other young/youngish guys, it's going to make you disconnected because that's a very specific social bubble. And operating too much in that zone will make interactions with women feel alien and awkward... or as purely agenda driven.
And as a perk of creating a more robust social circle, some percentage of those female friends and acquaintances that you interact with will be interested in you.
Honestly, too many guys on this forum are sleeping on the benefits of having a strong and varied social support system... and some of those benefits include romantic benefits.
-
1 hour ago, Jodistrict said:Not being attractive is an important part of their marketing. Because the average guy says "well if he can do it the so can I", and then buys the course. They also tend to have a gift for gab to make up for looks.
I figured that that's part of it.
But it's just funny to imagine the dynamic flipped around, where an unattractive and abrasive woman who's teaching bad advice becomes a super popular female dating coach.
-
1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:If plenty of women sleep with a man that definitionally means he is attractive.
Great? No.
Many women do not sleep with unattractive men. This is a fantasy.
Just because you don't find a man attractive based on your high consciousness values does not mean most women agree with you.
That logic doesn't actually work out in reality.
I've known plenty of unattractive guys who had plenty of sex just because they were social and persistent... and slept with less discerning women.
The issue is that most men have this inaccurate belief that women are universally picky about sex... and that that's why a high body count means something objective about a man's level of desirability to women in general.
And men tend to want to hold onto that illusion that sleeping with women means something about their level of attractiveness, values, Masculinity, worth, etc.
But there is a sizable minority of women who aren't picky at all. So, getting low-discernment women to sleep with you means literally nothing about your level of general attractiveness. (And to clarify, there are low and high discernment women of all levels of physical attractiveness)
So, the idea that a man having a lay-count means something about his level of attractiveness isn't true.
So no. There are TONS of very unattractive men getting laid... and it doesn't qualify them as attractive.
Case in point... the guy that this thread is about.
And it's a nice compliment that you think I'm very conscious, but I am still a woman and my perspective on men would be shared by many women.
And there are plenty of scrubs getting laid and plenty of low-discernment women willing to accept them. But that doesn't make the scrubs attractive.
-
48 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:I hope you are just saying this in isolation and not applying it as some life philosophy.
Because this is really a crossroads of ego and meaning talking. If you are chasing greatness for something in return - it's all ego. The moment you don't get what you want you are left with a hollow feeling. When you choose greatness it is because excellence feels like alignment: it is who you are.
The truth is you don't always get anything lasting 'in return' for being great. You become something from it. That is the real transformative transaction. The process is where all the good stuff is.
Very well said!
-
35 minutes ago, How to be wise said:As long as we are in these human suits, everything is transactional.
What's the point of being great if we won't get anything in return.
The point of being attractive is to sleep (or marry) with women.
If a politician wants to be great, it's only because he wants your vote. Otherwise what's the point of being great.
My whole point is that it's a better life strategy that will lead to better outcomes.
You will get a lot of things by prioritizing becoming a great man over optimizing yourself to sleep with lots of women... including better relationship options.
It's really the key to living a good life and being respected within the wider community.
The side effect of prioritizing being a great man is that women will be more attracted to you in a deeper way and respect you more. And you can parlay that into a great relationship and great marriage.
-
12 minutes ago, AION said:I think you are proposing a false dichotomy. Both is possible. Why should I care about what other people perceive me as. I live by my own values. Getting a baby doll girl doesn’t always mean she is an air head. And getting a mature woman doesn’t always mean she is a great partner. I think you should be careful with making these assumptions.
I’m focusing on my life purpose and I’m doing this for myself. Not to get praise from a group of people or from bimbos who can’t even offer their ******** to me so why should I be offering my best to them.
The woman who don’t like men like Andrew Tate don’t like those girls who disapprove of him anyway. So you disapproving of him doesn’t mean much. He doesn’t want you to begin with.
Men who are not typical attractive but reached a certain amount of success don’t have to be good looking to begin with. They play on a different paradigm. Girls can look beyond their looks.
I'm sure that Andrew Tate and I would have a mutual disgust for one another. That is true.
Also, you need both partners to be mature to have a good relationship. If one or both partners are immature, the relationship will be a total mess.
But those things aside... my point is that there is a real dichotomy that exists with these priorities... and one thing must be prioritized over the other.
A man can either prioritize maximizing the number of women he sleeps with by trying to mold himself to be a sexual option to the lowest common denominator of women... Or a man can prioritize becoming a great man.
He will have to choose one or the other... as becoming a great man is very self-directed while being a sexual option to the maximum number of women is very centered on the question of "How can I become the type of guy that women are more likely to say yes to?"
And this is one of the main bottlenecks that men have with regard to developing maturity, character, and more refined Masculine strengths.
A man who takes the former option develops a more detached relationship with women and sexuality... and he focuses on making himself great and working towards his purpose. And this has a side-effect of making him a lot more attractive to women, even if he doesn't go out looking to get laid as a major life priority.
So, his lower number of sexual partners compared to the man who prioritizes sleeping with lots of women could be interpreted by the uninitiated man as "The man who has a lower number of lays is a less attractive man than the man with a higher number of lays."
Men often think 'The man with more lays is more desirable to women.' So, they devalue becoming a great man... and get focused instead on optimizing themselves for maximum sex and believing that that's what makes them Masculine, desirable, and attractive.
And it leaves them much less attractive for it... as it's a very needy stance to take to prioritize maximizing sexual options over becoming a great man.
But a man who knows that there are plenty of women out there who would be interested in him, where he knows that he needn't mold himself to be a sexual option for women because there is no scarcity, is able to prioritize authenticity, purpose, contribution, fun, and all sorts of other things.
I notice that guys who get heavily involved in pick-up tend to get so bogged down in it that they end up losing focus on developing themselves as people. It all becomes about women. And it ironically ends up making them less attractive to women.
-
Just now, How to be wise said:I would much rather a woman sleeps with me rather than simply 'admires' me while fucking another guy.
That's a reflection of your own priorities. And that's fine if those are your priorities.
All you really need is audacity to achieve that.
Just don't mistake having women sleep with you as an indication that you're an attractive man or a great man.
-
3 hours ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:So he is blackpilled about dating and still does the stuff he's doing with his body? Still being obsessed with becomming some sort of midget Hulk? Pretty strange if you ask me LOL
He might just prefer that aesthetic.
But it very likely stems from trying to compensate from past situations, like he describes.
And he does that by trying to look his very best... even if it's not geared towards dating.
Even his idea of "fixing the unattractiveness problem" for women and for people in general seems to come from an unhealed place.
Like, I watched the first 20 minutes of this video several weeks back. Maybe a month or so ago.
And he was talking about a hypothetical example of a young unattractive woman who likes a guy. But the guy doesn't like her back. And he was empathizing with her but projecting his male orientation towards dating onto this hypothetical unattractive woman as well.
And (as a side note) he seemed to be under the impression that the "guy doesn't like you back" scenario only happens to very unattractive women. But when a woman likes a man, there's probably only a 50% chance or less that he'll like her back. Of course, women who are in the top 5% of attractiveness will have most guys saying yes. But that doesn't mean those guys really like her either.
But listening to his reasoning for why he wanted to create this attractiveness solution, I was like, "This guy needs to learn the wise woman way of dealing with this issue."
If you're a woman and the guy you like doesn't find you attractive, if you're wise, you learn the lesson of "This isn't the guy for me." And you sort that guy from consideration.
You don't try to attract more or fix your appearance to be appealing to the guy who's not interested in you... you become more ruthless in your sorting until you're with a guy who's really into you and your typical physical appearance.
And that might be somewhat difficult for a woman who's a 1 or a 2 because the pool of candidates will be smaller.... but it's still totally doable. And for a woman who's a 3 and above, there will be plenty of opportunities to strike a good match.
It usually takes girls/women some years to learn this. But learning it leads to a greater sense of self-respect and a raising of standards regarding the depth of interest the guy has in her.
I feel like Mike Israetel is still operating in the, "I need to maximize my attractiveness to be accepted by people" dynamic.
But he's a decent-looking guy in the first place. And even if he weren't, that mindset shift around his appearance would do him well.
One doesn't need to be maximally attractive (or attractive at all) to have a partner and friends.
The only thing that's necessary is a high degree of self-respect and the willingness to sort those from consideration who don't value you.
-
9 hours ago, Alexop said:@Emerald pretty cool answer. Mine is prompted for very direct, non-sugar coating answers. The whole tier 1 has pretty shit relationships to be honest, but the answer I got is pretty fascinating and not very wrong. But of course it depends on what Blue and Orange people we talk about. The relationships can be way worse than Green if the man is a dominant macho or some shit like that.
I don't have a ChatGPT account, so mine isn't trained on me and my preferences.
I just typed in the exact prompt you had... plus the phrase "In regards to Spiral Dynamics..." at the beginning.
-
22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:As great as humans get.
What is great about hermits, in your opinion?
It's a valid path, but it's definitionally not "great".
Conceptualizing of it as "great" defeats the purpose.
Becoming a hermit is about sinking to the lowest and embracing the path as the ultimate societal "loser" and to deny all greatness.
And from a human perspective, it is that. Hermits essentially neutralize their lives and don't contribute to the societal matrix. And it's important that there is nothing that distinguishes a spiritual hermit from a vagrant down on his luck.
That's the point of the path.
So, it is not a path of greatness. It's very self-contained.
And from a higher perspective, it's just a game that God likes to play with itself to recognize itself from the state of separation. It's one of many games that God chooses to play with itself.
So, it's a valid path from that perspective. But hermits don't have a greater purpose than the kindergarten teacher that shows up every day... or the person working at the grocery store stocking the shelves.
They are just people practicing self-nullification in order to play a very specific game in this reality. It's fine to play that game. But let's not put a value judgment on it.
It's really not valuable. And that's the point of the hermit game.
in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
Posted
Yes, it's true that this form of societal delineation can be found across many esoteric and mystical traditions.
And that is specifically because this model of society it's an archetype and part of the anatomy of the human psyche.
It's also why the kingdom and queens and kings and the divine order of things are really popular story motifs.
But that doesn't mean that it's the best way for humans to organize themselves socially and politically or that it would be an adaptive framework to live by... especially in the rational and post-rational era.
And Plato's World of the Forms is basically a pre-Jungian way of thinking about archetypes. But there's still the pre-rational tendency to want to realize the archetypes as ideals as opposed to living in the real, and integrating the archetypes on a more psychological level.
But apropos of your comment about "presenting great thinkers and entire civilizational models as support" and implying that it constitutes support for your perspective...
That argument is moot because those are just appeals to authority... which is a logical fallacy.
So, it doesn't matter if you presented great thinkers and entire civilizational models to support your point. It doesn't mean that those thinkers or civilizational models are correct, functional, or optimal... as there are also great thinkers who would totally disagree and civilizational models that have are not based on this particular archetype.
But your hypothesis is that living in accordance with this archetype will provide more meaning and be more functional, as we'll be returning to a "less degenerate" natural order of things.
I am pushing back on that because the transcendence of that pre-rational model itself is part of the natural order of human evolution. And the loss of meaning and uncertainty is par for the course when it comes to being able to integrate an archetype as opposed to being collectively ruled by it.
And Fascism (and SuperFacsism in the way you describe it) are trying to solve a problem that isn't an actual problem... which is uncertainty that arise from the loss of previous archetypally-projected pre-rational cosmologies. It's actually a solution to the problems of pre-rationality with uncomfortable side-effects.
And people who don't like those side-effects tend to want to go backwards towards their notion of an idealized past Golden Age. But it's just them projecting that archetype onto the past... when the past was never Golden.
The only thing that's Golden is the archetype itself as na internal reality... not the projection of it.