Reflecting on my relationship to this forum...

[Miguel1]

Let’s try to respect Emerald and keep this thread more in topic.

[integral]

21 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Being dishonest in a relationship seems like a good idea to you?

This entire dynamic you have going on could probably be cleared up with one conversation, after which you can be honest because you'll actually understand what she's trying to communicate which is probably that she just doesn't feel heard(because you literally don't try to understand her).

Giving her what she wants, which is love, is precisely understanding her.

The content of what she's saying has to be agreed with or if you disagree, you have to do it in a super playful way with the right affection techniques.

It's not some easy thing to do, especially when they're not in the right mood all day, then it becomes a marathon a partner cant tolerate, people have limits.

Most issues people have in relationships is that,. You're partner is in proximity and someone doesn't feel good.

The fact that you being in proximity makes more opportunities to associate negative feelings towards you.

To solve this, you just have to use playful techniques. 

Edited 3 hours ago by integral

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, integral said:

Giving her what she wants, which is love, is precisely understanding her.

The content of what she's saying has to be agreed with or if you disagree, you have to do it in a super playful way with the right affection techniques.

It's not some easy thing to do, especially when they're not in the right mood all day, then it becomes a marathon a partner cant tolerate, people have limits.

Most issues people have in relationships is that,. You're partner is in proximity and someone doesn't feel good.

The fact that you being in proximity makes them associated negative feelings towards you.

To solve this, you just have to use playful techniques. 

This sounds like a unique dynamic. Atypical to my experience 

[integral]

3 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This sounds like a unique dynamic. Atypical to my experience 

What is your experience?

[Elliott]

11 minutes ago, integral said:

Giving her what she wants, which is love, is precisely understanding her.

The content of what she's saying has to be agreed with or if you disagree, you have to do it in a super playful way with the right affection techniques.

It's not some easy thing to do, especially when they're not in the right mood all day, then it becomes a marathon a partner cant tolerate, people have limits.

Most issues people have in relationships is that,. You're partner is in proximity and someone doesn't feel good.

The fact that you being in proximity makes more opportunities to associate negative feelings towards you.

To solve this, you just have to use playful techniques. 

Oftentimes a person, I'm suggesting maybe your partner, just wants to vent, and all they need is "ahh" , literally, that will satisfy them, you don't need to lie("you're right"). If you try to give them a solution they'll get argumentative, they just want to vent.

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, integral said:

What is your experience?

Pretty radical honesty - but it means both partners need to be really mature (emotionally + intellectually). It requires each partner being able to moderate their own emotional reaction in an effort to find a solution. Radical emotional acceptance.

I have been with people that had some mental health issues (diagnosed) and it usually meant I had to compromise on some boundaries to ensure it worked. In particular borderline personality disorder - the suffering of the individual is so extreme I often had to appeal to emotion to maintain peace - and then move toward rationality once calm was established. It isn't personal with BPD sufferers. 

I am not a typical woman though - I don't mean to say, I am a special snowflake - more that I do not respond emotionally in ways society is more familiar with. I think I could just be a bit more mature as well.

[integral]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Pretty radical honesty - but it means both partners need to be really mature (emotionally + intellectually). It requires each partner being able to moderate their own emotional reaction in an effort to find a solution. Radical emotional acceptance.

I have been with people that had some mental health issues (diagnosed) and it usually meant I had to compromise on some boundaries to ensure it worked. In particular borderline personality disorder - the suffering of the individual is so extreme I often had to appeal to emotion to maintain peace - and then move toward rationality once calm was established. It isn't personal with BPD sufferers. 

I am not a typical woman though - I don't mean to say, I am a special snowflake - more that I do not respond emotionally in ways society is more familiar with. I think I could just be a bit more mature as well.

So we had similar experiences, I dated two BPD women, the main focus was the mature person as to compensate for the lack of maturity in the other.

It looks like we had a role reversal.

Did you feel a loss of sexual desire towards them the more emotional they became?

I'm asking this because the typical pattern is women will lose sexual attraction the more childish they think he is. They don't want to babysit a toddler.

I'm asking because you're atypical, and I want to know how many "norms" don't apply to you.

[Emerald]

9 hours ago, integral said:

Emerald is showing what masculine adaptation looks like in woman

That's actually very true in this pattern that I am describing. 

Because society is patriarchal, it values the Masculine over the Feminine... and men are given more respect than women are. And no one wants to be disrespected or devalued. So, from a young age, girls naturally start to internalize misogyny to extricate themselves from association with "those other girls" and adopt more Masculine coping strategies and preferences to get by in the world.

And so, I have always been a Feminine plant growing in patriarchal soil. And in a difficult environment to thrive in that doesn't want you to thrive, one can develop a kind of resilience and anti-fragility.

And around the time I was 8 years old, I really pushed away my Feminine side. And I didn't rediscover it until I was 20 in a medicine journey, where I became aware of my repressed Femininity and that the Feminine was in the grass and trees and night. And I recognized it as my preferred energy.

And I spent the greater part of my 20s diving into my Feminine wounding and unpicking my patriarchal wiring (as I only valued Masculine-principled qualities in my teens and totally devalued Feminine principled qualities... but didn't know that I was doing that because I thought that Masculinity and Femininity were mere social constructs).

And doing that work has enabled me to center myself more in my authentic Feminine power of inherent worthiness, empathy, and connection to the depths and hook it up to my Masculine intellect, discipline, and the many-fold skills that I acquired in my youth.

I still have more to integrate of the Feminine. And there are some areas where I don't know how my Feminine and Masculine aspects integrate together. It's still a work in progress.

But I see part of my work in this life as unearthing the long collectively repressed Feminine power... which society really beats out of both boys and girls, men and women, to the detriment of all.

But I know better than to show my Feminine side in spaces that aren't conducive to it... like this space. I also don't show my Feminine side to men (or women) who haven't' integrated their Feminine side or have disparaging viewpoints about the Feminine. 

A good litmus test for whether a guy (or woman) isn't safe to show your Feminine side to is if they complain of women being too Masculine. If that is his experience of women, it means that women don't feel safe enough to be open and vulnerable in his presence... and that he very likely afflicted by some degree of misogyny.

So, for my Feminine side, I find safer containers for it. But this is certainly not the container for it... as the culture of this place if very incompatible with Femininity itself. And it's the reason why so many men on this forum struggle to find female partners.

So, I don't come here to share my Feminine side... I come here to show my Masculine side and to out-dick everyone because there's some intrigue about it. It's like an old mode from childhood. 

So, I've learned to adapt quite well within that patriarchal context. And I think that's why I like coming here. It's SUPER male dominated and most of the men are hyper-polarized into their Masculine side. So, it's a lot of guys who are struggling under weight of the patriarchal culture. And I know that I can usually best them in intellectual sparring matches if I'm working with both polarities and they're only working with one polarity. It's like boxing with someone who has one arm tied behind their back.

So, while living in hyper-Masculine society is more challenging for women to thrive in in certain ways, there's a perk that women tend to be more integrated between their Masculine and Feminine side than men are.... and less likely to make themselves fragile by polarizing into extremes.

That said, PLENTY of women do repress their Feminine side because of the patriarchal conditioning. So, until a woman becomes conscious of that, she will be significantly weakened... as she will see her greatest strengths as her weaknesses.

But this kind of environment, causes a sizable percentage of men hyper-polarize into Masculinity and repress their Femininity at all costs... and it stunts them horribly with relationships and emotional literacy.

So, even though women are struggling to ideally thrive in the hyper-Masculine soil of the culture... men often tend to be in a worse place because men still believe that the poison is the antidote and keep re-upping on the poison and continuing to polarize themselves and repress a very large part of themselves. And it has all these shame-based side-effects.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Miguel1 said:

Let’s try to respect Emerald and keep this thread more in topic.

Thank you  

[Emerald]

22 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It is very very head heavy here IMO.

I view many users bypassing core emotional issues and attempting to heal on their own (or through spirituality). In reality plain cognitive behavioural therapy is what 70% of the forum needs. But there are many here who simply have no idea how skewed their thinking is. ChatGPT is actually terrible for this in general - it actually does the OPPOSITE of what therapy does - really challenge thinking and belief by pointing out biases. There is a belief that CBT won't be able to assist. In addition most users just need to experience a genuine connection with a human being. 

You could simply be feeling the lack of emotional intelligence here. Which is very very true. And to be clear I do not think users come here for emotional growth and learning. But that is what they genuinely NEED to progress.

It can be frustrating having conversations where you know you can help with thinking loops, but the block by the user is so immense. Arrogance with regard to intellect is the biggest 'vibration' and block here. Aging will humble 99%.

Very much so. There's a lot of emotional bypassing here. And I can certainly see that using AI could exacerbate that, as the person using it may not even be engaging very much intellectually or emotionally in what they're speaking about.

And I do think it's draining for that reason. Lots of arrogant posters who are trying their best to hide their vulnerabilities from themselves through superior grand-standing. And it just gives low vibes.

[Emerald]

7 hours ago, Elliott said:

It's not just sexist either, in this context it's gaslighting too.

 

Sadly, I think this is the kind of thing Emerald identified as the root to her suppressing anger.

Yes... I do think part of it is that I get some sadistic joy out of intellectually dismantling guys who have misogyny (which is rooted in a superiority/inferiority complex relative to women and the Feminine).

On one hand, part of them genuinely believes they're superior to women and that Femininity is weak. And they get really arrogant about what they think they know better. (This is also kind of comical to watch people be so confidently wrong.... though frustrating as well.)

But on the other hand, part of them genuinely believes that they are unworthy of women even given them the time of day... and see women as Goddesses on the pedestal. And they end up feeling resentful towards women for this reason.

And this pattern lets me know that I have a considerable amount of power to agitate this type of person.

So, if a guy steps to me with arrogance and resentment based in sexist paradigms... I am aware of the vulnerable roots of his misogyny... and I could absolutely choose to take a more compassionate stance. Like, I could be and have been the coach of this kind of guy, and really relate to him benevolently and in a perspective that transcends my own triggers.

But in this context, it's for me as angry ordinary-person Emerald. And I can simply polarize in myself and crush him and his illusions of superiority... intellectually and within the bounds of my dueling rules.

In real life, it's like I really don't want to upset people. It's a huge fear of mine to hurt someone's feelings. I walk on eggshells around everyone.

But I don't care as much about upsetting a bunch of guys who are going to try to antagonize me for being a woman as it activates many of my vulnerabilities. So, I can go stomping around on the 'eggshells'... no problem.

[Emerald]

7 hours ago, Elliott said:

 

@integral

I think you're dealing with some displaced resentment. I don't read what she's saying as "I come here to win".

It's possible that it's resentment... at least partially I'm quite sure that it is.

But there's also this rage element, where I get to spin my wheels and go into an anger frenzy and channel it into typing about intellect-heavy topics.

I think it's about my anger having a place to go in general after being the identity of the unconditionally accepting person who never gets angry about things and never actively pushes back on anything. 

But I can definitely see major elements of my early childhood where I felt very resentful and disappointed. So, I'm sure that those feelings are somewhat in the mix.

Edit: I see, you were replying to someone else. But it could be correct for me too.

Edited 1 hour ago by Emerald

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, integral said:

I don't agree. I only went "on" and "on" because I was attacked.

@Natasha Tori Maru and I saying that your post was sexist isn't the "attack" you imagine it to be. It just was factually sexist and we stated that it matter-of-factly.

And it was sexist because you were attributing the tendency to 'argue only to be correct' to women and the wiser desire to come to consensus in conflicts to men... when there's tons of that kind of behavior in men and women both.

So, your post was for the purpose of framing men as superior to women in this way... and to feel like you're in the superior group complaining about the inferior group's tendencies. 

It would be like if an individual black person posted a personal shortcoming and being very open and honest about that shortcoming and you were like, "You see!... black people do (fill in the blank unwise thing) and white people do (fill in the blank wise thing).

And it would be correct to call that out as racist because you're attributing a single person's shortcoming that they're sharing voluntarily to the entire group they come from in order to position you and your group as superior and to feel vindicated in that superiority. 

And it was important to call it out as sexist because you were so clearly transferring your feelings about either female family members or past female partners onto my post.

But bear in mind, I only do this kind of behavior on this forum where I get to be a ram locking horns with other rams. I avoid conflict like the plague in real life with most people. And in romantic partnerships, I only argue for the sake of reconciliation.

So, I only lock horns with people who are rams. And most people are not rams. So, I am generally very tolerant and laid back... and I try my best not to upset them.

Hence why I look to this place as a sparring outlet where I really don't care much if I offend someone.

It's why I needed to point out the sexism because you're missing the context that I'm communicating because you're projecting other women onto me.

But Natasha and I pointing out the sexism wasn't an attack. It was just labeling something as what it is.

Edited 58 minutes ago by Emerald

[Emerald]

7 hours ago, integral said:

@Elliott

If I have any emotions towards this, is this dominatrix kind of mindset is the exact opposite of how I think about everything.

Just to be perfectly clear (in case there was any confusion), I get zero sexual gratification out of the dynamic that I described.

It's the opposite actually... dominating someone is a turn-off for me.

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It would be a good idea for ya'll to consider what I said here earlier: Do not take the forum too seriously. Seriously!

It just works better that way.

It's not really taking this forum too seriously. It's just an average niche online forum.

It's just that social spaces and even online cultures bring things out in people. That's just how people operate when interacting with real people.

It's like if we were all in a room interacting and you had rented out that room for us to interact in. Then, I started sharing my feelings about socially interacting with others in the room and what it bings up in me.

Then, you were like, "Guys! It's just a room I rented. Don't take the room too seriously. It's better that way."

Can you see that it has nothing to do with the forum idea itself... and everything to do with the culture the people who interact on it create?

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, Hojo said:

@integralI am a meninist. We need more meninists. 

At first, I genuinely thought you were trying to say you're a Mennonite (Amish).  

[Elliott]

Just now, Emerald said:

At first, I genuinely thought you were trying to say you're a Mennonite (Amish).  

Effectively the same thing in this context.

[aurum]

@Emerald

I wonder what the version of you without this adaption would look like.

[integral]

16 minutes ago, Emerald said:

@Natasha Tori Maru and I saying that your post was sexist isn't the "attack" you imagine it to be. It just was factually sexist and we stated that it mater-of-factly.

And it was sexist because you were attributing the tendency to 'argue only to be correct' to women and the wiser desire to come to consensus in conflicts to men... when there's tons of that kind of behavior in men and women both.

So, your post was for the purpose of framing men as superior to women in this way... and to feel like you're in the superior group complaining about the inferior group's tendencies. 

 I made the post as a reflex to the core message your communicating of how female culture in the society pressured you in a unhealthy masculine direction. A female culture that suppresses women's voice and ability to express themselves and their needs in favour of maintaining social harmony or as you call it the patriarchy. This leads to a vast majority of women feeling taking advantage of, and not being heard and other forms associated with it.

There is an entire culture, pushing women in this direction, and your testimony shows one way the mind is warped by it.

Male culture has its own problems.

The post I made was the most stereotypical, male and female dynamic. We're in the dynamic a woman has to always be right, the stereotypical. "happy wife is a happy life."

This came from somewhere true not that it's this perfect representation of all women.

It would be like if an individual black person posted a personal shortcoming and being very open and honest about that shortcoming and you were like, "You see!... black people do (fill in the blank unwise thing) and white people do (fill in the blank wise thing).

 If there were any patterns, I could find between races and I would immediately point them out. As of now, the main pattern, I see is black culture, and the minds shaped by it, but the nuances in biology would take more work and I haven't really seen the patterns yet. But they're there I just can't separate them from black culture and environment and poverty and things like that. I need to dedicate more time to it and I haven't done so.

And it would be correct to call that out as racist because you're attributing a single person's shortcoming that they're sharing voluntarily to the entire group they come from in order to position you and your group as superior and to feel vindicated in that superiority. 

 If the vulnerability had patterns in a larger trend, then I would point it out.

And it was important to call it out as sexist because you were so clearly transferring your feelings about either female family members or past female partners onto my post.

Clearly?

But bear in mind, I only do this kind of behavior on this forum where I get to be a ram locking horns with other rams. I avoid conflict like the plague in real life with most people. And in romantic partnerships, I only argue for the sake of reconciliation.

So, I only lock horns with people who are rams. And most people are not rams. So, I am generally very tolerant and laid back... and I try my best not to upset them.

Hence why I look to this place as a sparring outlet where I really don't care much if I offend someone.

It's why I needed to point out the sexism because you're missing the context that I'm communicating because you're projecting other women onto me.

Your problem is not isolated, it's systemic.

But Natasha and I pointing out the sexism wasn't an attack. It was just labeling something as what it is.

Everything I wrote was for the only purpose of clarifying my position, which is something you should already have done on your own.

This is stonewalling (the childhood defence mechanism) and not caring at all to steal man someone's position.

You win by distorting other people's perspectives, then wall off all clarity attempts.

This is aligned with debate focussed people.

When you distort their perspective, they seek clarity and then they engaged back with you and then you will deny them clarity.

A person who is focussing since childhood to win, has distorted models of reality.

The stoicism creates the feeling of rightness because after all if someone is stoic, the person who is not stoic is likely wrong. That's the vibe, and it's self reinforcing. 

 

Quote

So, your post was for the purpose of framing men as superior to women in this way... and to feel like you're in the superior group complaining about the inferior group's tendencies.

I don't feel anything. But a misogynist would.

If I belong to a pattern, I don't feel superior that I'm in a pattern.

But you stated you enjoy crushing people, which is this superiority game that I'm not playing at all. Thinking that I say things for the purpose of stating superiority is because you are projecting how you operate onto me.

 

[integral]

41 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Just to be perfectly clear (in case there was any confusion), I get zero sexual gratification out of the dynamic that I described.

It's the opposite actually... dominating someone is a turn-off for me.

It was a metaphor, for the gratification of winning, taking pleasure in winning. It wasn't about sex. But that was a mistake on my part, should've used proper vocabulary.