[Harmful Liberal Policies Mega-Thread]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's a good example of what I mean.

You really wanna abolish ICE? And who will deal with all the illegal drugs coming over the border?

ICE was just established in 2003. So, we'd just go back to doing whatever we were doing before then.

The Abolish ICE movement is about getting rid of that specific organization and have its duties re-absorbed back into the other immigration agencies as it was prior to 2003.

The reason why leftists want to abolish ICE is because of the harshness of the crack downs from ICE in particular, as they were enacting all the family separations/kids in cages dynamics. 

It's also because ICE is meant to be a criminally-focused organization (like prosecuting people bringing drugs across the border) but back in the Obama era, they began simply focusing on the crime of having come into the country illegally.

And it's treating the act of illegal immigration itself as though it is like drug trafficking. And it creates a dynamic of harsher treatment of undocumented immigrants. 

[Harmful Liberal Policies Mega-Thread]

14 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Emerald Thanks for checking them out. 

1. Immigration: I mean, yeah... It's not pointing to specific policy but the impact of those policies, and how the impacts are perceived which is what matters. You have to be able to see that when you have policies that allow for example large amounts of immigrants to enter the country there are risks. That is what that video is showing. I am not attempting to show you specific policy by hoping you would be able to use your intelligence to scan through policy, impact, etc at least inference. I am not attempting to share specific policy. The short clip is an example of what is happening here in Canada not meant to be something extensive. If you wanted to look up Canadian immigration policy specifics be my guest. I watch Canadian news because I live here and have learned the statistics and the problems Canadians are facing due to the immigration policies. I am not fragmenting this conversation to simply the Policy but also it's actual impacts and pros and cons. 

2. Legalized Drugs: There are many interviews with people in other videos showing polices, businesses, residents saying that the situation in Oregan has gotten worse and not better. However, Portugal is an example of a place that decriminalized drugs, but if people are caught on the streets and obviously addicted that would be given the choice to go to a treatment facility, get mental health care, etc or spend time in jail. Oregan did not set up adequate social programs in advance and it seems there problem is only getting worse. Legalizing and decriminalizing are different things, and here are many nuances that can be applied to policy that make using drugs, especially in public is thwarted, and mental health and healthy usage of drugs is promoted. But, we still don't really know the best policies. The point is, legalizing drugs isn't an abolutue good and therefore policy design needs to take that into account. I am not here providing stats. So don't expect that.

3. San Francisco Crime: Many of those theives are not being persecuted at all which is why the crimes keep happening. They have no fear of the authority and therefore the policy isn't working. However, I am not ignorant enough about systems thinking theory to assume that the only way to lower crime is stricter law punishment... Except when it is because somehow down the line, and in other areas there are other systemic issues that are leading to these crime waves. The question is now that a city is dealing with these crimes what are the best policies? It's not a liberal one, at least not traditionally as I understand the word. 

1. I would have to look at the sample size and sampling method that they used for that survey to see if it's something that most Canadians actually believe... or if they happened to sample in a way that might slant things in an anti-immigration direction. It's possible they could have simply found people who are more biased against immigrants due to bigotry. Or they could have sampled towards people whose job prospects are specifically troubled by immigration because the people who could hire them instead want to hire immigrants for much cheaper. And either way, this would be a bias that most may feel neutral about or not hold. So, I'd have to look at the sampling process to really understand in lieu of seeing the actual policies. 

My view is that there should be a merit-based path to citizenship that requires a couple years of commitment. But beyond that, there are many things in U.S. foreign policy (perhaps other countries' foreign policy too), that deliberately puts Mexico and other nations South of the border in precarious financial positions. And this causes many people from those countries to want to immigrate here for a better life or to send the more valuable U.S. dollar back to their families. And this is all very deliberate because under-paid foreign labor is essential to the U.S. economy. And it makes working class Americans have to undervalue their work to compete with exploited undocumented immigrants.

So, it's important to recognize that illegal immigration is a feature and not a bug of the U.S. system. And if we really want to solve the issue of illegal immigration, then we have to change the foreign policies that put Mexico and other nations in a compromised financial position. Powerful nations have always done this to less powerful nations to exploit them for cheap labor.

2. You'd definitely need more structures and systems in place to handle the issue. But I don't suppose that drug use would increase in these circumstances around legalization or decriminalization. People who are addicted to drugs will find ways to do them regardless of whether they're legal or not. This just brings the situation out more into the light of the public consciousness... which is uncomfortable but helpful. I'd have to see some reliable and clear statistics around drug use rates increasing upon legalization or decriminalization to get me to consider changing my viewpoint. I get that those statistics would be difficult to obtain, but I'm just not convinced that decriminalization/legalization would worsen drug problems.

3. The issue with crime is that the justice system only addresses it one the level of the symptom and not at the root. Certainly, we need a justice system that functions to deter crime by creating negative incentives around it. But crime comes from a myriad of root causes... and most of those root causes are nurture-based.

The reality is that reforms to the criminal justice system can only ever tweak the problem of crime around the edges because it is only handing the symptoms... which is the crime itself. The roots have to be addressed through building strong communities, getting rid of poverty, healing collective traumas, having an effective mental healthcare system, teaching better parenting skills, teaching skills for maintaining relationships, having equal access to education, making sure children are properly resourced with minimal amounts of trauma, etc.

It's only then that we can really address problems with crime. There would still be some crime here and there, of course. But if we could address these problems from the bottom up, it would really turn the dial on the crime problem. But it's very bottom up work... and not top down.

[Harmful Liberal Policies Mega-Thread]

8 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Emerald Thanks for checking them out. 

 

You're welcome

 

[Harmful Liberal Policies Mega-Thread]

29 minutes ago, actuallyenlightened said:

You can't make that argument when the dems in Washington decide to cut barbed wire that Texans put up. It might as well be an open border if it's that easy for a migrant to cross. 

This rationale is not very well thought through. 

That's like saying 'Because the U.S. Constitution bans cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment in the Bill of Rights, it is pro-crime."

Cutting barbed wire on the border just means you're trying to keep people from hurting themselves at the border and not that you're opening up the border. And undocumented immigrants should not be subjected to physical harm for crossing the border illegally.

And I feel like this should be pretty obvious. It's not like barbed wire is an effective defense at stopping illegal immigration anyway. So, removing the barbed wire isn't going to do much other than keeping from people getting injured.

Most undocumented immigrants actually fly into the country legally and overstay their visa. So, the border policies that are pulling the most weight at preventing illegal immigration don't have to do with the actual crossing of the Southern border.

And since you don't even have a physical border in most areas across the border, there are already plenty of places without barbed wire anyway. 

The way you seem to be thinking about it is like "Oh no! Now that the Democrats removed the barbed wire, the border is now totally open to anyone who wants to immigrate to the US on a whim."

[Harmful Liberal Policies Mega-Thread]

3 hours ago, Thought Art said:

@Emerald

 

1. policies around immigration: In Canada we have let in many immigrants which has lead to a housing crisis and cost of living crisis, at least in part. 

This didn't talk about a specific immigration policy but referred to an opinion poll about the percentage of the Canadians in a particular survey who said they wanted fewer immigrants to move there.

 

2. Legalizing Drugs Complete Failure: Oregan has Legalized drugs and it has been a complete failure. 

This showed a balance of two different perspectives on the decriminalization law in Oregon. Some in the video were against it and some were for it.

It wasn't clear to me from the video that the issues with drug use got worse with the decriminalization bill. That said, it seems that it got a bit more visible with fewer people hiding it. 

There are several issues when it comes to drugs being illegal. One is that it pushes the business underground to drug trafficking rings which don't have any regulation in the way they run and violent crime proliferates.

Another is that it stigmatizes and criminalizes people who are really struggling with addiction. And it creates a dynamic where those people go to jail/criminals with harder violent criminals which creates more criminal activity and not less.

The main counter-point I could see in this that was actually a decent point is that it made the drugs cheaper... so money doesn't act as a deterrent. 

3. Easy on Crime Complete Failure: There is a policy in San Fancisco that has made petty crimes a misdemeanour instead of a criminal act and it has severely back fired and theft runs rampit 

This video was longer, so I didn't watch it. But misdemeanors still are considered (and have always been considered) a criminal act and still go on people's record.

And misdemeanors are supposed to be for petty crimes. People can still go to jail for them and can still go on probation for them. But misdemeanor is meant to be for petty crimes.

Also, here in Florida, if you get three misdemeanors of the same type (even not serious ones) you become a felon. I knew someone who became a felon because of having multiple misdemeanor issues with his driver's license.

But you'd be surprised how screwy the distinction between misdemeanors and felonies can be.

The person I mentioned before once showed me this paperwork he had to fill out and it had a list of felonies and misdemeanors on it to check off boxes for... and it has child abuse under the misdemeanor section and writing a bad check (or some smallish financial crime that I can't quite recall since this was over 15 years ago) under the felony section.

And we were both pretty incredulous at how they were classing misdemeanors and felonies. It's so completely ass backwards sometimes.

But I agree that if you make the consequences for certain crimes too lenient, their instances will go up. Like... child abuse being a misdemeanor should never happen. 

 

Other things you’ve mentioned would likely fall I to people policy ideals, and I think you may find examples of people actually trying to pass those policies. 

 

[Harmful Liberal Policies Mega-Thread]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course no country actually has open borders. However if extreme leftists had their way the borders would be a lot more open, and that could create serious problems which they are in denial about.

I addressed that in an earlier post. You can find very politically naive people here and there who believe in open borders.

But in my experience, it's not a widely held leftist policy proposal. You never see lefties rallying together and pushing proposals to abolish/open the border. Most active progressives are aware that that's not possible.

Instead, the immigration-related policy proposals progressives rally around would be more around pathways to citizenship, abolishing ICE, not putting kids in cages, and better treatment of undocumented immigrants at the border. 

And there is nothing policy-wise that's gotten anywhere close to suggesting open borders.

Open borders is just a phrase that Republican politician use to straw man the Democrats and scare their constituents into voting for them.

The name of the thread is "harmful leftist policies", so I would be coming to this thread for critiques on things like laws (and bills that have nearly passed) and a critique of the outcomes (or potential outcomes) of those policies.

I would expect the same from a thread called "harmful right-wing policies".

So, an equivalent situation would be if someone went on the "harmful right-wing policies" thread and suggested they were against the policy of deporting all immigrants. 

Sure, you can find some fringe group of right-wingers that are pushing that as a policy proposal and you might have a sizable minority of right-wingers that even dream of that as an ideal... in the same way that a sizable minority of left-wingers might dream of a world without borders as an ideal.

But there's no such policy or policy proposal... at least not in the US or anywhere that I know of. 

My main point is... if we're talking about policy... let's talk about policy and policy-proposals and not just whims, philosophies, and ideas.

[Harmful Liberal Policies Mega-Thread]

3 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Emerald

 

1. policies around immigration: In Canada we have let in many immigrants which has lead to a housing crisis and cost of living crisis, at least in part. 

 

2. Legalizing Drugs Complete Failure: Oreganos had Legalized drugs and it has been a complete failure. 

3. Easy on Crime Complete Failure: There is a policy in San Fancisco that has made petty crimes a misdemeanour instead of a criminal act and it has severely back fired and theft runs rampit 

 

 

I'll come back later and check these out and see what the policies are like.

[Harmful Liberal Policies Mega-Thread]

Just now, Thought Art said:

@Emerald These policies are promoted by people. I read a book advocating for open boarders many years ago. 
 

The things I listed and policies people have pushed for.

Like I said, this post is about actual policies (codified laws) and not philosophical positions. You could even list policy proposals that got even remotely close to becoming law and I would consider it within the realm of policy.

The issue with philosophical positions is that there are uninformed and politically naive people everywhere that don't have any real political power.

You could find a person who believes in open borders because they know nothing about how the systems work.

I believed in open borders when I was a kid because I had a naive sense that divisions of any kind should go away. I just listened to John Lennon's "Imagine" and like the idea. 

But I didn't have the capability or desire to get that codified into law. And I certainly wasn't a leftist back then. I was just politically naive.

So, you might have read a book from a politically naive person who believed in open borders and you could find small enclaves of people that might agree.

But it's not a commonly held leftist position and there aren't any "open borders" policy positions going through congress or coming across the president's desk.

[Harmful Liberal Policies Mega-Thread]

8 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Emerald I think it was intended as a start because doing it in one sweep is impossible. 
 

I have to contemplate more of them that are leftist problematic policy… like open boardings, defunding police, allowing in too many immigrants, legalizing all drugs, being too easy going on criminals who steal as it promotes mass thievery, allowing for parol of violent offenders, allowing children to have sex change surgery, and more, not funding the military enough, etc

I also thing UBI could easily backfire. Perhaps even Canadas carbon tax could backfire. 
 

The it’s so hard to tell on the offset which policy will be problematic as we are dealing with highly complex system. 

There is a difference between policies and philosophical positions. A policy is an actually codified law, while a philosophical position is just what someone believes.

And there are no such policies around open borders. And you'd be hard-pressed to find a leftist that actually believes that open borders is feasible and holds it as a policy position. It's more of a right wing straw man of what lefties believe. And it's certainly not reflected in any policies anywhere.

With defunding police.... that is a common philosophical position among lefties. But you won't find many codified policies around defunding the police. Butthere are positive ways to do this by re-allocating funds to other types of interventions in non-criminal cases (like someone with a mental illness that the police might be ill-equipped to understand and intervene with).

With allowing in too many immigrants, that's a subjective judgment and you'd have to give me specific policies to evaluate. But bear in mind that the U.S government allows the level of immigration that they currently do simply because our economic system requires a cheap immigrant labor force. And when DeSantis put into policy something that really impacted immigration to Florida, it led to a huge labor shortage. So, the U.S. system (whether Republicans or Democrats are in power) allow only the level of immigration that they need. And Obama was accused of being soft on the border whilst also having the nickname "deporter in chief" because he had very strict policies. Biden has similarly strict immigration policies. So, I haven't seen any of these 'too lenient' border policies in the U.S. at least.

With legalizing all drugs... this is one that I agree with as a philosophical position but there aren't many of these policies in effect yet. I think it's important to decriminalize, tax, and regulate all drugs. The reason why is that, when you criminalize drug use, it just pushes everything under ground and you get all these illegal cartels with all sorts of awful business practices. And you get just as many people doing the drugs who are then (on top of dealing with addiction) put in jail/prison which can further push them into a downward spiral.

Name me the actual policies around going easy on criminals, and I will judge them individually. The issue here is that these are more vague philosophical ideas and not ACTUAL codified policies. So, I can't critique them on the policy level.

With allowing parole of violent offenders, let me see the policy and show me that leftists are promoting it. Then, I can judge it. I haven't heard many lefties specifically holding parole of violent offenders as a common philosophical position... though rehabilitation-focused justice is a lefty thing. But I would have to see the actual policy to judge it.

Also, the last time I checked policy-wise, children under 16 aren't allowed to have a gender affirming surgical interventions. Under specific circumstances, you have to be 16+ to get top surgery and 18+ to get bottom surgery. And there are many protocols that gender affirming care specialists have to go through to give the okay to someone (adults and children) who wants to surgically transition.

With not funding the military enough... this one just isn't true... in the US at least. In America, we have the biggest military budget in the world by far. And we increase the military budget every single year. There are no such policies around reducing funding for the military.

with UBI, there are no such policies that I'm aware of.

And I am not familiar with Canada's carbon tax policy.

[Harmful Liberal Policies Mega-Thread]

Just now, Thought Art said:

@Emerald Okay, but the plastic banning straws thing is a good idea. The whole diables thing is a moot point because exceptions can easily be made. They are a small % of population and there are easy alternatives to plastic straws that need not be single use plastics.

I was just trying to find some problematic leftist policies. It's problematic and overall ineffectual. But it doesn't bother me too much as a policy for the reasons you mentioned. I'm pretty indifferent about banning/not banning plastic straws because the real problem is single-use plastic in general. And if you ban plastic straws without banning other forms of single-use plastic, it's not going to do anything substantial.

The thing is, policy-wise, it's hard to track down harmful leftist policies because it's hard to track down leftist policies in Capitalist nations period.

And when there are leftist policies in Capitalist nations, they tend to just be piddly and ineffectual... and never too strong to the point of corruption. So, you would mostly find ineffectual leftist policies with mildly problematic side-effects.

So, it's much easier to make lists of harmful right-wing policies because the majority of American policies are center-right. 

You really have to go to authoritarian left countries to find truly harmful leftist policies.

[Harmful Liberal Policies Mega-Thread]

It seems like people on this thread who are talking about harmful leftist policies aren't actually referring to specific policies... but more general philosophies or even straw men of general philosophies.

For example, the people who are saying "open borders" as a harmful leftist policy...

I challenge you to find literally ANY policies in any nation on Earth that actually reflect open borders. You won't find any.

And in America, the term "open borders" is just a Republican straw man to characterize their Democrat opposition as weak on the border in the eyes of their constituents so that they can position themselves as "the party that cares about the border" and fear-monger about criminals flooding in if the Democrats get in office. 

Republicans have really been leaning into the notion of Biden being weak on the border... which isn't true at all. In fact, he's kept many of the Trump-era border policies in place. And he even had an immigration reform proposal some months ago that gave Republicans most of the things they wanted (if memory serves, there was something non-immigration related that Biden was hoping to get in return by compromising so much with Republicans regarding immigration).

But the Republican politicians outright rejected his proposal... because they wanted to be able to maintain the optics of being displeased with Biden being weak on the border and to continue to claim that he's pro "open borders".

Now, back to the prompt...

Truthfully, the challenge here is that you won't find many truly leftist policies because most of the current power structures in the US function mostly off of a center-right framework. And whenever there is an actual left-wing policy, it's usually ineffectual or doesn't go far enough. So, you don't get to see the excesses of the left in US politics.

But here are a few harmful/problematic leftist POLICIES worldwide (I'm sure there are more. This is just as far as I felt like researching)...

• No private land ownership in China. All land is public and the Chinese government owns it. (This is true for some other Communist countries too)
• Censorship laws against criticism of Socialist/Communist leaders (like in North Korea) 
• Plastic Straw bans in some U.S. states - This doesn't address the real issue and makes it harder for some disabled people who need plastic straws to drink to go out to restaurants

Basically, harmful leftist policies are ones that either come out of authoritarian Communist countries where the government is given all the power without checks and balances... OR there are ineffectual leftist policies in Capitalist countries that don't address the problems they're trying to address and instead just create annoying negative side consequences for people in those countries.

[A.I. and a Post-Labor Economy]

In the past, I had been contemplating about if there are any other forms of economic system that falls outside of the Capitalism vs Socialism umbrellas. And it was previously difficult for me to fathom of something totally new economically.

But given the recent rise in A.I. technology, I can see some writing on the wall that will likely be rife with problems but also has the potential to bringing humanity more into alignment with the underlying principle of unconditional validity.

Take this as food for thought, because I (of course) don't know if this will happen.

But I suspect that A.I. will likely replace 60%+ of human jobs... and in fairly short order. 

And if this happens, this will create a dynamic where large swaths of the population are unemployed. This will come rife with problems like a widening gap between rich and poor. And there would likely be a rise of eugenics campaigns, genocides, and other deliberate forms of population control.

But if we are able to rise to the challenge, I believe we will begin asking ourselves the question, "What is the true function of an economic system?"

Currently, (whether we're talking about Capitalism or Socialism), the way we think about economics is that it's a way of disseminating value based off of the labor a worker puts in.

So, Capitalism is where the owners of a business owns the means of production and gives the worker of portion of the value that they bring in.

And the ideal within Socialism is where the workers own the means of production and keeps the entirety of the value of their labors.

Both of these philosophies inextricably tie together the concept of labor in exchange for value. 

But, the reality is that an economic system is a tool. It's a complex tool... but a tool nonetheless. And the function of that tool isn't to disseminate value based on labor across the human populace.

It's a tool to disseminate value across the human populace, period.

And with the rise in AI and the loss of human labor, the best possible outcome that I can see happening (though it would also be a huge collective existential crisis at best because we equate the value of our being with our doing) is that we start fathoming of how a post-labor economy functions.

And instead of thinking about people getting what they want and need based off of how much their labor value earns them... we instead start thinking about people getting what they want and need simply because they exist.

If these things come to fruition, I see this collective paradigm shift away from the notion of earning/deserving based off of labor value... and towards unconditional bestowment based off of the inherent validity of one's being as 100% necessary to avoid the looming problems of A.I.

Just some food for thought. What do you think?

[Finding a Stoner chick who plays games]

On 12/29/2023 at 7:50 AM, Emotionalmosquito said:

What does that mean 

I thought the vagina was a self cleaning organ, no? 

I was about to make this same comment. 

The vagina (which specifically refers to the internal canal) is a self-cleaning organ.

And if you try to put anything inside to clean it then you'll mess up all the vaginal flora and end up with all sorts of yeast infections and other problems.

And the vulva (the external lady parts) is best to clean with either just water or some kind of gentle soap and water.

[Females are very cringe about age]

8 hours ago, StarStruck said:

She enjoys the sex more than me. I think women enjoy sex more than men. And dominance and submissiveness fit like a hand in a silk glove. 

This is a silly thought about what a younger woman gets out of dating/partnering with an older man.

Truthfully, sex with an older man and with a younger man isn't that much different at all... except (if anything) older men can have more issues in that department and less stamina. 

When I was in my early 20s, I was mostly interested in men in their early 30s or sometimes a bit older. And it was always about feeling like I can learn from someone with more experience and feeling taken care of by someone who is already established. It was really a craving for maturity and seeking out stability.

In retrospect (as I'm now in my mid-30s), I look back now and see that my attractions (and even fetishization) of older men came from not having a strong support system and being sexually attracted to what I saw as a symbol of stability and support.

The issue is that, older men who specifically seek out sexual relationships with younger women tend to be immature compared to the average man of their age. And they usually can't offer the younger woman what she's REALLY looking for with that dynamic as he doesn't really understand what she sees in him.

And if a longterm relationship blossoms between them, she will keep getting more mature and he will keep staying at the same maturity level.

So, a 20 year old who dates a 30 year old and sees that he has is own apartment is exciting because he feels like a full-fledged adult.

So, the younger woman wants a fully mature man which is why she's dating older. But the older man who is attracted to the younger woman is trying to avoid growing up and using her as a means to hold onto his youth. 

She's looking for the settledness of maturity. And he's looking for the excitement of youth. And so it creates a mismatch that leaves her lacking what she really wants but likely doesn't know how to articulate.

That's why it's generally not a good idea to seek out a relationship with a big age gap for young women (and young men too for similar reasons).

[Females are very cringe about age]

23 hours ago, TheGod said:

You're making assumptions. I understand myself and I know that I want sex with women. Which is why I'm fucking prostitutes. There is no value that a women can bring into my life other than just sex. The only women that brings a lot of value into my life is my mother, she's my besty. 

Do you have trouble connecting with women/people in general… like with an avoidant attachment style?

People need interdependence with other people as we are wired for connection within a community.

So, what you said about not needing anything from women beyond sex could potentially be reflective of difficulties with interdependent human connection more generally.

An alternate reason someone may feel this way is if there are fears around intimacy and connection with the opposite sex in particular.

Do either of these explanations fit for you?

[Game equivalent for women. How to make a guy stay?]

2 hours ago, Raze said:

Yes that makes sense, but I’m not sure what the solution is then, because purposefully killing excitement can put a relationship at risk itself, or stop you from even starting one.

You don’t have to purposefully kill the excitement. Things will just naturally get more settled if the relationship is progressing.

And this more exciting feelings are replaced by more oxytocin/bonding/attachment feelings of wellbeing 

[Game equivalent for women. How to make a guy stay?]

1 hour ago, Raze said:

I don’t buy the narrative that it’s the “masculine” role to attract and women naturally want to be “feminine” and select.

For one in my experience and the experience of just about every guy I know, the more you chase and try to win over a woman the less she likes you. On the other hand every girl I know seems to demonstrate the guy they went the most crazy for, was one that they chased, not the other way around.

Scientific studies have also found women tend to be more interested in guys whose feelings for them are unclear / they see other women are interested in / who aren’t nice at first meet. Indicating women actually desire the chase and competition.

If you look at the animal kingdom, our two closest living relatives and chimps and bonobos, but as far as I know they don’t necessarily have a mating process of males pursue and females select or reject. 

Women may prefer the role of being the selector, but then again so do men, I doubt the average guy would say he’d rather go through the stress of trying to pursue someone (risking awkwardness, embarrassment, rejection, or even reputation damage) over an alternative of women hitting on him and deciding that way, maybe if he felt too bad rejecting someone else. 

It's not about wanting to select vs attract between women and men respectively.

If anything, women generally have more of a tendency to want to pursue a particular man if she's interested in him because women are more prone to specific attractions... and men generally have more of a tendency to be detached and want an easy and convenient female companion if it's available to him and to be more interested in "getting good" with women in general. And men generally want to keep their options open.

So... naturally women tend to skew more towards the Masculine/lover role in relation to a man she likes. And men tend to be a bit more detached, which puts him in more of the Feminine beloved mode when a woman really likes him and the depth of those feelings aren't mutual.

But this female pursuer/ male selector dynamic doesn't lead to a solid stable relationship.... and isn't a good strategy to go with for women who want a longterm partner.

But TONS of women end up in this dynamic because she tries to pursue a guy who isn't interested. And it's very dysregulating and exciting... and every scrap of attention feels like heaven. And it keeps her in this intermittent reinforcement dynamic where she tries to win his affection by cooking, cleaning, giving him sex, looking good, being the chill girl, etc. But it doesn't work. 

And it isn't good for feeling settled and building a home and building a stable environment for children.

Show me an exciting relationship where the woman is really into the guy and isn't sure how the guy feels about her, and you're showing me a bad relationship for child rearing.

Show me a boring relationship with stability and certainty where the guy is super invested in the woman and she isn't feeling uncertain about his feelings, and you're showing me a good relationship for child rearing. It's not exciting... but it is functional.

So the pursuer vs selector dynamic between men and women respectively is one that is a best practice for creating stable relationships that make a good environment for child rearing.

[Game equivalent for women. How to make a guy stay?]

3 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

He explained spiral dynamics to you 10 years ago? Like I did. Impossible. 

Ewww enough of equating me to this dude. And his sexual philosophy 🤮

There is literally no dude who could possibly have the depth like I do. He probably said some crap that has nothing to do with what I have said. 

He didn’t know about Spiral Dynamics.

But I am familiar with Spiral Dynamics and I know him very well...  and I can tell you that he is/was a mixture of Orange/Green/Yellow.

His sexual philosophy was identical to yours in the way you expressed it in your previous post. He’d argue me tooth and nail using the same words you used in your previous post.

I’m merely pointing out the similarity and how his ideas panned out so that you might avoid making the same mistake in the future.

Now… one big difference is that he didn’t believe himself to be uniquely deep among other men/people in general. So, at least he had that going for him.

[Game equivalent for women. How to make a guy stay?]

Just now, Consept said:

I get you, I think in general if either sex wants a solid, fulfilling, loving relationship, strategies will not work long term. 

As men we seem to have this idea that we need strategies for a relationship. Strategies can work for men and women but only temporarily ie for men if they just want short term sexual encounters. 

Out of personal curiosity, do you have any insights on non-monogamy? I just got out of a relationship but I'm kind of enjoying the freedom although I'm wondering how sustainable it is and if I'm just wasting others time, even though I am being honest. I think I have an avoidant attachment style which I'm working getting to secure. Sorry don't mean to selfishly derail the topic lol

I don’t have any personal experience with non-monogamy, so my advice might be a little thin.

But if I were considering trying polyamory, I’d probably seek out tons of non-monogamous perspectives and reading material like “The Ethical Slut”.

But most importantly I’d try to get clear on why I’m interested in polyamory.

And given the avoidant attachment style, I’d want to notice if my desire for a non-monogamous relationship is about going TOWARDS what is wanted about that dynamic… or if it’s about going AWAY FROM feelings like being trapped and others things avoidant people are trying to avoid.

[Females are very cringe about age]

I used to worry about aging a lot when I was in my 20s. I felt like turning 30 would be a death sentence and like it would be the death of sex, romance, and desirability.

But I’m almost 35, and my identity has shifted in such a way that aging isn’t as scary. And things have improved in my romantic life.

And I feel much more powerful and respected than I did in my 20s.

[Game equivalent for women. How to make a guy stay?]

6 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Thanks for equating everything I said to some random guy you met have said. 

And also for assuming that I am wrong since he did wrong things and that all circles back the philosophy which I hardly even explained which I so happen to share with him. 

Are you even aware of making these wild accusations? I just want to know how disconnected women are from basic logic. Thanks in advance. 

He’s not a random guy. I’ve known him for 14 years. And I was in a relationship with him for many years. And I still know him. He’s a friend of mine now. He is like family.

And back then (10 years ago), his philosophy was identical to yours. He explained it the exact same way as you did in an earlier post.

And like you, he fancied himself as philosophical and deep in the way he viewed his sexual philosophy.

But it was one of the main factors that made the relationship untenable and why I decided to end the relationship.

There’s no accusation there… only a factual statement of noticing a similar pattern of thinking between you and him.

[Game equivalent for women. How to make a guy stay?]

5 hours ago, Consept said:

Yeah i agree, its interesting because this dynamic exists on the male side as well. So a guy will either not recognise or ignore his instinct that a girl he likes is not really into him, then he'll do things that he believes will get her to like him. What he does depends on what hes learnt through media or wherever, if its rom-coms he'll be the typical 'good guy' and maybe be really nice to her, buy her presents, give her all his time etc. Obviously this is known as the friendzone, the female equivalent is the fuckzone. So it is the same in that a guy needs to be true to himself and only really pursue girls that he feels are genuinely into him.

All in all 'strategies' are essentially ways to convince someone who doesnt like you as much you want them to, to like you. They rarely work because at some point the mask will drop and if you feel that youre not good enough for the person, you will become insecure. 

 

That’s true in the initial attraction phase for sure. A woman who isn’t interested in more than friendship can’t be convinced to be interested in more than friendship.

But what the OP was talking about once that initial attraction phase hurdle is cleared and what strategies a woman can use to keep a man once a sexual relationship has been established.

That’s where it’s important for a woman to avoid these man-keeping strategies because at best he still leaves and at worst he sticks around out of comfort and convenience taking up valuable time that she could be using to find a man who really sees her as his beloved.

This is especially true if she wants marriage and kids.

[Game equivalent for women. How to make a guy stay?]

2 hours ago, Dauntment said:

"And then to eliminate men from her consideration that don't recognize her as the prize." I have an idea of why this position is held....but for clarity and out of curiosity, can you elaborate your belief system/explanation/narrative of: "she is already the prize" ?

It’s a mindset that a woman can adopt to keep her in the Feminine/beloved frame so that she doesn’t slip into the Masculine mode of chasing/pursuing a man who isn’t very interested in her.

That way, instead of trying to woo and impress a man who isn’t (and will never be) interested in her… she recognizes that she is the prize as she is and doesn’t need to woo or prove her worth to a man.

Instead, it puts her squarely in the power of the selector/rejector role. And she can choose someone she likes who already sees her as the prize and wants her in his life because he recognizes her value and beauty.

[Game equivalent for women. How to make a guy stay?]

6 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You are not capable of ascertaining my philosophy on relationships. So do not bother.

Oh brother  You seem to see yourself as too deep and complicated for my little pea brain to understand.

But let me tell you this. Your philosophy isn’t that deep. And when the rubber meets the actual road, it isn’t going to be sexually fulfilling for her over the long haul.

He really did think exactly like you way back when.

[Something Leo said in forum really has been bothering me lately lol.]

10 hours ago, digitalkaine said:

I can't remember where I read it, but a user was talking about him making changes in his life it was very surface level stuff but I just remember Leo responding by saying "The core of who you are never changes."

Reading that really bothered me for sometime now and I'll just be as open as possible I cant determine whether or not it is true and if it benefits me to believe it at all.

I was down really bad about a year ago and was constantly posting on the forum asking for life advice because I couldn't break out of the cycles I was in. 

I got heavily into LOA stuff Joe Dispenza manifesting shit etc. 

I inquired about manifesting on this forum to which Leo said "once you realize Albert Einstein is imaginary then lets talk about spirituality." which was great to hear once I started to wrap my mind around it. But this one user had told me that the way I'm talking to myself and the language I'm using is the reason why nothing was changing.

My beliefs were that nothing was happening and so there for nothing was happening pretty basic stuff. The she put me onto a youtube channel called "Be Something Wonderful." ever since then my life has got drastically better.

I went from having no job being poor on the verge of su*cide to finding a career making so much money, meeting so many people, moving out of my house getting my whole life in order basically and I feel like I have to attribute what continuously happens to that channel and this forum. 

I still struggle however with things and while I still "manifest" I cant come to grips with what Leo meant when he said the core of you never changes. 

Just because I felt like i've changed. But also I do feel as if there is some truth to that statement, that I dont want to believe in because I desperately want to change for the better. 

 I cant tell if thats really true or if maybe Leo may have been projecting his own limiting beliefs which is fine but its just nice to hear other peoples opinions.

 

I love this place and I'm in a way better place mentally but there are more strides I would like to take in my life. I believe its all already mine right now but then just reality just kind of sets in here and there every once in a while. 

I would like to believe I can make whatever changes I want and be whoever I want to be. This doesn't mean that I'm not content with who I am. Its cool if I am just this forever and I know that is the case but I also believe that anything is possible and change is inevitable. 

 

The core of the human personality never changes.

But you can express that core in positive, negative, and neutral ways.

So, any positive change is always about taking your nature and exalting it to its highest form... not by changing its fundamental nature but by finding its highest expression.

Your discomfort with his statement indicates a sense of shame and a desire to get away from your nature because (perhaps) you believe your nature is negative or bad in some way. 

There is nothing wrong with you now... and nothing wrong how how you've always been.... even if your actions in the past weren't ideal. 

You will never not be you. That will never change. But you can exalt yourself into the highest and best version of yourself.

A sunflower will always be a sunflower... and it will never be a rose. So, choose to cultivate your sunflower into the biggest and most beautiful sunflower there is. Become the most sunfloweryest sunflower you can be!