What is femininity ?

[Davino]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It is about survival. Immature people are incapable of love and don't know what love is.

Well, survival is part of life. Life is the feminine see?

It's DMT with all it's colourfullness, playfullness and infinity.

This is the dance of life. The essence of the feminine is Love, that's it's core actually.

Only running in masculine it's like a perfect engine with no lube, it's rough. Love is the lubricant that makes all the perfection move, dance, cheer up and celebrate.

[Leo Gura]

Frankly, I'm getting sick of this whole masculine/feminine distinction. It's so full of group-think and mindless conformity.

People never even question it, they just parrot whatever they heard somewhere.

Try noticing how you made this distinction up.

Edited yesterday at 02:37 AM by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Frankly, I'm getting sick of this whole masculine/feminine distinction. It's so full of group-think and mindless conformity.

People never even question it, they just parrot whatever they heard somewhere.

Try noticing how you made this distinction up.

Man: big muscul, big beard, big yell, scary scary.

Woman: small, hair big, not very big yell, hug small children.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I mean I am happy to consider myself an amorphous, genderless blob.

But there are still going to be people projecting their distinction onto me.

People love their little rigid boxes of understanding to shove you in, so they don't have to think about it ever again. 

Most people couldn't even tell you what a fucken cup is

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Most people couldn't even tell you what a fucken cup is

Steven Crowder: a cup is XY coordinates.

[Talinn]

33 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Frankly, I'm getting sick of this whole masculine/feminine distinction. It's so full of group-think and mindless conformity.

People never even question it, they just parrot whatever they heard somewhere.

Try noticing how you made this distinction up.

I made my comparisons based on me having Kallmann Syndrome, so originally I took testosterone medicine enough for a male for some months. Then I switched to estrogen and progesterone as my primary hormones. 

 

I saw at least a glimpse of the way women viewed the world and framed it in a deadpan way where I knew they were doing things but not really why. Now when I feel the feminine perspective more acutely and personally I can view it as part of a greater whole in some way, because I can still remember looking through a kind of gray window at it when I was much younger.

 

I guess the projections of how I viewed the past were influenced by society, but I also feel like there are genuine differences that society didn't make up out of nowhere.

 

Maybe you can call hormones shallow but to me they weren't.

[Carl-Richard]

32 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I mean I am happy to consider myself an amorphous, genderless blob.

But there are still going to be people projecting their distinction onto me.

Projecting with the force of Olympian spear throwers with this one.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Projecting with the force of Olympian spear throwers with this one.

It's called javelin, you uncultured swine!

 

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It's called javelin, you uncultured swine!

Sorry, I've been taking too many French lessons from @Schizophonia 😬

[Davino]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Frankly, I'm getting sick of this whole masculine/feminine distinction. It's so full of group-think and mindless conformity.

Yep, just a lens

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

People never even question it, they just parrot whatever they heard somewhere.

That's usually the case.

On the other hand, one can get profound insights and conscious experiences into what is the Masculine and the Feminine.

Quote

Try noticing how you made this distinction up.

Yeah, I made the whole world up

Guilty

Edited yesterday at 04:13 AM by Davino

[Emerald]

19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Women have always relied on men for survival. So this is how the feminine tends to survive.

All people have always relied on other members the group for survival. 

For 97.5% of human history, we were nomads, traveling about with 20-30 other people. And everyone relied on everyone else for safety in numbers and the pooling and preparation of resources. And specialization was fairly minimal at that time because everyone had the job of the procuring resources and keeping other members of the group safe.

And everyone in the community contributed in similar ways to the survival of the group because of the minimal specialization. (Specialization arose 12,000 years ago)

And that's because it was prior to the agrarian era (which also began roughly 12,000 years ago) where we were able to grow and store a surplus of food. And it was also prior to the dawn of civilization (which began roughly 7,000 years ago) where we have military forces and enforcers of the justice system to keep everyone safe.

And there has never been a time where a lone man and woman couple were traversing the wilderness together... and where the woman solely relied on her male partner for safety. Those tasks have always been a group endeavor.

You seem to be projecting the fairly contemporary single family household dynamic onto all of human history, when that didn't even remotely exist until relatively recently in the human timeline. And that's far too individualistic to be accurate to how humans have operated, prior to the modern era as we have always been a collectivist species.

Now, I'm certain that the men in the group played somewhat more of a protective role to guard the group from attack by wild animals and other groups of men, because men are stronger... and those protective tasks were not yet borne out by societal institutions and societal infrastructure more generally.

But archeological studies have shown that these tasks weren't quite as gender-stratified as they came to be in the agrarian era (which began just 2.5% of human history ago).

So, men and women both got their safety needs met within the context of the group. And even now, humans cannot survive without other humans regardless of gender. We can just have the illusion of not needing the group because we don't need to socially interact with other members of the group to get the resources they provide.

But if the farmers stopped farming... and the grocery stores owners closed up the stores.. and grocery store workers stopped doing their job... and the hospital workers stopped working... we'd all be royally fucked.

Of course, that idea isn't quite as romantic as the idea of a lone man keeping his damsel in distress safe. But it is the reality of the situation. We all rely on other people for survival and safety. 

And especially in the modern era, men don't contribute more towards the survival of the group compared to women. Nor does a woman need to be in a relationship with a man to get her safety needs met as she already benefits safety-wise from the military, the police force, the medical institution, the FDA, etc. AND (on a more personal level) her wider social circle.

[Jayson G]

8 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Jayson G

Leo did begin with 'in general'. 

I noticed this because if he said all, I probably would have been tempted to get the red stilettos out 😈 ready for some verbal jousting 

 

 

@Natasha Tori Maru I don't think he said "in general" lol .. at least I read it a few times and didn't see that explicitly or implicitly said. 

But regardless, I don't think all feminine women are like that. In general sounds about right. We can look at trends in reality, but reality is full of all kinds of uniqueness, and I don't think models of reality or trends can fully accurately look at the full truth of reality. 

I think everyone on this forum has had their moments of wanting to get the red stilettos out on Leo lol .. hardcore truth posts can be tough to read for all of us, and it can trigger fears in us of all kinds. 

Edited yesterday at 05:19 AM by Jayson G

[Talinn]

13 minutes ago, Emerald said:

All people have always relied on other members the group for survival. 

For 97.5% of human history, we were nomads, traveling about with 20-30 other people. And everyone relied on everyone else for safety in numbers and the pooling and preparation of resources. And specialization was fairly minimal at that time because everyone had the job of the procuring resources and keeping other members of the group safe.

And everyone in the community contributed in similar ways to the survival of the group because of the minimal specialization. (Specialization arose 12,000 years ago)

And that's because it was prior to the agrarian era (which also began roughly 12,000 years ago) where we were able to grow and store a surplus of food. And it was also prior to the dawn of civilization (which began roughly 7,000 years ago) where we have military forces and enforcers of the justice system to keep everyone safe.

And there has never been a time where a lone man and woman couple were traversing the wilderness together... and where the woman solely relied on her male partner for safety. Those tasks have always been a group endeavor.

You seem to be projecting the fairly contemporary single family household dynamic onto all of human history, when that didn't even remotely exist until relatively recently in the human timeline. And that's far too individualistic to be accurate to how humans have operated, prior to the modern era as we have always been a collectivist species.

Now, I'm certain that the men in the group played somewhat more of a protective role to guard the group from attack by wild animals and other groups of men, because men are stronger... and those protective tasks were not yet borne out by societal institutions and societal infrastructure more generally.

But archeological studies have shown that these tasks weren't quite as gender-stratified as they came to be in the agrarian era (which began just 2.5% of human history ago).

So, men and women both got their safety needs met within the context of the group. And even now, humans cannot survive without other humans regardless of gender. We can just have the illusion of not needing the group because we don't need to socially interact with other members of the group to get the resources they provide.

But if the farmers stopped farming... and the grocery stores owners closed up the stores.. and grocery store workers stopped doing their job... and the hospital workers stopped working... we'd all be royally fucked.

Of course, that idea isn't quite as romantic as the idea of a lone man keeping his damsel in distress safe. But it is the reality of the situation. We all rely on other people for survival and safety. 

And especially in the modern era, men don't contribute more towards the survival of the group compared to women. Nor does a woman need to be in a relationship with a man to get her safety needs met as she already benefits safety-wise from the military, the police force, the medical institution, the FDA, etc. AND (on a more personal level) her wider social circle.

Thank you for writing this. 

It was on the back of my mind too, and it made me think of the Wheel of Time books.. I think there's a funny scene somewhere In The Shadow Rising where the men and women in a group both think they have exclusive access to a secret -- they even call each other silly and stupid for not knowing the secret -- not knowing that the people of the other gender knows the exact same thing.

Yet the entire series also affirms the very differences between the masculine and the feminine.

Edited yesterday at 05:20 AM by Talinn

[Natasha Tori Maru]

11 minutes ago, Jayson G said:

@Natasha Tori Maru I don't think he said "in general" lol .. at least I read it a few times and didn't see that explicitly or implicitly said. 

But regardless, I don't think all feminine women are like that. In general sounds about right. We can look at trends in reality, but reality is full of all kinds of uniqueness, and I don't think models of reality or trends can fully accurately look at the full truth of reality. 

I think everyone on this forum has had their moments of wanting to get the red stilettos out on Leo lol .. hardcore truth posts can be tough to read for all of us, and it can trigger fears in us of all kinds. 

The stilettos only come out when I think there is some black and white thinking regarding nuanced subjects, or misappropriating some behavior to gender.  

But I am a bit unusual there, as when I have a big reaction to anything I read I immediately know it is my ego. So, I tend to not respond for a while. Walk away. Think it over. Sometimes I like to sleep on it and address it the next day. I resist the rush and impulse to act on the emotion. And if I do address the issue I reread my answers 'What am I trying to achieve with this communication?' over and over as a self check. But I rarely have any emotional response to things I read here.

 

Edited yesterday at 05:29 AM by Natasha Tori Maru

[Emerald]

20 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't have any kind of fetish for crazy women. Still, plenty of the women I dated had clinical mental conditions. They seem normal from the start, then the crazy slowly comes through.

In general I find that many attractive young women are emotional messes.

It's likely just because you tend to meet women through pick-up that you meet so many women with mental conditions.

You also have some avoidant tendencies where you devalue social connection with other people, which will make you very attractive to anxiously attached women who have familial patterns around abandonment and feeling a need to earn love. 

And an avoidant partner will kick their anxiety into hyper-drive and bring the otherwise dormant crazy right out of them.

But consider that women who are receptive to pick-up are more likely to be less stable than the average woman.

Honestly, it's a huge risk to get involved with some random guy who approaches you in a club or on the street. And women who are more stable are less likely to take that risk.

Like if I think of myself and my female friends (who all have varying levels of stability with some being very stable and others being very unstable, and with myself being mildy unstable)... the more stable ones are less likely to be open to sparking something up with a random guy.

And it also implies that her social circle is lacking in some way or that something is amiss in those areas of life, which implies drama or issues with social attachment. Otherwise, why wouldn't she just get involved with a man she already knows and can go slow with and build feelings for organically?

[Jayson G]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

It's likely just because you tend to meet women through pick-up that you meet so many women with mental conditions.

You also have some avoidant tendencies where you devalue social connection with other people, which will make you very attractive to anxiously attached women who have familial patterns around abandonment and feeling a need to earn love. 

And an avoidant partner will kick their anxiety into hyper-drive and bring the otherwise dormant crazy right out of them.

But consider that women who are receptive to pick-up are more likely to be less stable than the average woman.

Honestly, it's a huge risk to get involved with some random guy who approaches you in a club or on the street. And women who are more stable are less likely to take that risk.

Like if I think of myself and my female friends (who all have varying levels of stability with some being very stable and others being very unstable, and with myself being mildy unstable)... the more stable ones are less likely to be open to sparking something up with a random guy.

And it also implies that her social circle is lacking in some way or that something is amiss in those areas of life, which implies drama or issues with social attachment. Otherwise, why wouldn't she just get involved with a man she already knows and can go slow with and build feelings for organically?

@Emerald I sense also the possibility that Leo lives in Vegas that this could be the case. I've never been to Vegas, but it's possible that Vegas draws in a certain type of crowd, both men and women to a large degree. I don't know. 

But I'm sure for example there are normal girls in Charleston, South Carolina for example lol

[Talinn]

5 minutes ago, Emerald said:

It's likely just because you tend to meet women through pick-up that you meet so many women with mental conditions.

You also have some avoidant tendencies where you devalue social connection with other people, which will make you very attractive to anxiously attached women who have familial patterns around abandonment and feeling a need to earn love. 

And an avoidant partner will kick their anxiety into hyper-drive and bring the otherwise dormant crazy right out of them.

But consider that women who are receptive to pick-up are more likely to be less stable than the average woman.

Honestly, it's a huge risk to get involved with some random guy who approaches you in a club or on the street. And women who are more stable are less likely to take that risk.

Like if I think of myself and my female friends (who all have varying levels of stability with some being very stable and others being very unstable, and with myself being mildy unstable)... the more stable ones are less likely to be open to sparking something up with a random guy.

And it also implies that her social circle is lacking in some way or that something is amiss in those areas of life, which implies drama or issues with social attachment. Otherwise, why wouldn't she just get involved with a man she already knows and can go slow with and build feelings for organically?

 

Devil's argument : "The culture is so shallow, neurotic and dopamine driven that it's rare for a woman, especially an attractive one, to learn how to take it slow - and they can feel magnetically drawn to quick fixes. So they go to a club "

But I generally agree ( I think the above argument would be an oversimplification. )

[Emerald]

Just now, Jayson G said:

@Emerald I sense also the possibility that Leo lives in Vegas that this could be the case. I've never been to Vegas, but it's possible that Vegas draws in a certain type of crowd, both men and women to a large degree. I don't know. 

But I'm sure for example there are normal girls in Charleston, South Carolina for example lol

Location could also be a factor, as Vegas has a reputation.

But I sense that it's really any woman from any area who is open to passes from random men who run game.

It's a bit of a tell about her level of scarcity of connection and her risk-taking tendencies.

[Jayson G]

14 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

The stilettos only come out when I think there is some black and white thinking regarding nuanced subjects, or misappropriating some behavior to gender.  

But I am a bit unusual there, as when I have a big reaction to anything I read I immediately know it is my ego. So, I tend to not respond for a while. Walk away. Think it over. Sometimes I like to sleep on it and address it the next day. I resist the rush and impulse to act on the emotion. And if I do address the issue I reread my answers 'What am I trying to achieve with this communication?' over and over as a self check. But I rarely have any emotional response to things I read here.

 

@Natasha Tori Maru Yeah, it's not just you. I also get reactive initially as well like that. 

Literally I do the exact same lol .. I was contemplating this one post for a day. 

I think also over the years, we get more comfortable with truth though. 

Regarding the black and white thinking though, I think thats a bit trickier. A lot of times for example, I perceive Leo's posts as black and white. But I think about it some more, and realize, how else can we talk about certain truths within reality? Often generalizations need to be made, but I guess we need to always keep in the back of our mind that it's not absolute, there are always naunces, etc. 

Edited yesterday at 05:42 AM by Jayson G

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, Jayson G said:

Yeah, it's not just you. I also get reactive initially as well like that. 

Literally I do the exact same lol .. I was contemplating this one post for a day. 

I think also over the years, we get more comfortable with truth though. 

Regarding the black and white thinking though, I think thats a bit trickier. A lot of times for example, I perceive Leo's posts as black and white. But I think about it some more, and realize, how else can we talk about certain truths within reality? Often generalizations need to be made, but I guess we need to always keep in the back of our mind that it's not absolute, there are always naunces, etc. 

Yes, we agree

Black and white is tricky. Normally the issue arises when the statement is reductive, so original context is lost.

Usually if you probe the context comes out and the statement makes sense