RendHeaven

All perspectives have truths and blindspots. You are over inflating his blindspots and dismissing his truths, and then acting snarky about it. I am calling out your attitude, not any specific thing you said. Notice your defensiveness. You have a fair point. Good thing he's already owned up to it at the top of this page.

This is a totally insincere strawman. When you reduce his argument to this, it allows you to overlook everything he's saying without any real mental engagement. Your tone overall is sarcastic and hostile. If I recall, you identify vegan, yes? Try to see if you're able to psychologically, intellectually, and emotionally hold space for the fact that many people genuinely improve their health after emphasizing meat consumption. I know it feels better to ignore or deny this reality and to assume that meat eaters are stupid devils. But if you tread that path uncritically, you will have handicapped sensemaking and you will be at war with yourself & others which is not a fun place to be.

You do lean animal based. But your plant and carb recommendations make it more nuanced and well rounded. Such appeals don't mean much to Leo (or advanced minds in general) I agree with a lot of your recommendations. But how can we be sure we are not self-deceived on a subtle level? We read some books, saw some good results... and that's it? We've found the ultimate answer? Seems a little too convenient. Vegan shills make similar claims despite having mutually exclusive opposite advice from you. So figuring out optimal nutrition is not as simple as gathering a bunch of testimonials. Just cause you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it can't happen. He just said he has tried your recommendations already. It's not that he's demonizing, it's that he's rightfully calling you out for assuming your rhetoric is universal. I shouldn't speak too much on his behalf, but I'm pretty sure he's still mostly carnivore. Having blind confidence in your words and building an aura of authority is good for getting clients on instagram, but that whole game is anti-accuracy. A more accurate framing would be to acknowledge what has worked for you and other people you know, don't assume you know anything objective, recognize idiosyncratic variance, be capable of steelmanning the opposition, and overall have a more curious/exploratory stance with soft recommendations rather than "I know how to fix you, do as I say"

Man I literally used to live in Tucson until I moved to Japan 5 months ago. Are you kidding me?? Missed my chance to stalk Leo IRL

White rice has less arsenic and phytic acid relative to brown rice. This is true, but eating as he recommends will have benefits for a lot of people.

Thanks! I'm more like a freedom + anti-cultural indoctrination shill. That's my bias. The non-monogamy rhetoric is a downstream consequence of my deeper need for individuation and sovereign will

This one right here has been the story of my life. The instinct is to put myself down before others can - it's pure protection because for the longest time I couldn't handle the sting of oncoming judgement. But after much reflection it became clear that this self-cruelty was synonymous with self-love. I hold myself back out of love. Just like my parents did. I am my parents, they live through me. Thankfully I'm in a much better place now. The key for me was to face the sting head-on. I realized I'm getting judged and wounded no matter what, so the only thing I could do is surrender.

Good points!

I don't disagree. But whether repression is genuine or non-genuine is up for the individual to decide. I push back against this idea that all men should/would adopt monogamy if only they were more mature. That's clearly an arbitrary mental construct that the self-righteous ego is propagating, and if you think otherwise, I'd like to hear why. same🤝 This is a strawman. Non-monogamy is not like making food your top priority. Non-monogamy is like allowing yourself to eat more than one dish. It's really not a big deal. Monogamy is the one insisting that you can only have chicken for the rest of your life, and you are bad for having a milkshake even once. No milkshakes for the rest of your life. It's not even that I need the milkshake per se. It's moreso a true aversion to being told I can't follow my authenticity. Maybe once a year I will want a milkshake. Am I really such a bad boy for that? It's simply not authentic for me to say "I'm only gonna have chicken forever." The only reason I would ever agree to this is because culture told me that that is how I should behave. If you're gonna frame this as "chasing sex," then you're not being sincere with me.

You won my vote. Give this man some power.

@Clarence @Schizophonia I heard mipt can have aphrodisiac effects... thoughts?

I think you're onto something. Funny how that works.

@Cireeric Really impactful quote. Causing me to stop and think. Never heard of bukowski till now!

The boys are starvin' out here man

I mean, his audience is red pill lonely guys. I don't fault him serving his niche

The men who are most successful at attracting women are highly manipulative. This shouldn't come as a surprise. You wouldn't want to become these people though. It's best to cherry-pick useful lessons from them and discard the rest.

50k is barely a city, more like a town lol. Definitely aim bigger. Cannot stress the importance of location when it comes to dating as a man.

YBC is my buddy from an old online community imagine my shock when he blew up one day, pretty damn inspiring

@Leo Gura Sweet, is there an empty seat at the roundtable of mods now? When's the next audition 😈

Your voice is capped in some sense, a tenor will never be a bass (choir analogy). Instead of focusing on lowering the pitch of your voice (which causes unnecessary strain and limits your projection), focus on relaxing and opening up your belly. Obviously in a man, a lower voice is preferable to a higher voice, all else being equal, but the effect on results is marginal. The relaxed and open resonance is significantly more results-generating in commanding respect and attraction. Think of someone like Owen Cook who has the vocal pitch of an imp, but the resonance of an emperor.

That defeats the whole point lol. the catharsis and upshot of 5meodmt is to plunge through your fear onto the other side. If you neutralize fear with a crutch and dodge it completely, you expose yourself as a state chasing bliss seeker rather than an earnest lover of truth.

If I seem strangely passionate about all of this, it's not because I am an anti-monogomous polyamory shill. Although I have admitted my own bias, that I am "pretty sold on (certain models of) non-monogamy," I hold that rather loosely because as @aurum has pointed out, more testing is necessary. And if this thread had a more non-monogamous overton window, I would be steelmanning monogamy as a counterweight. That being said, there's something deeper happening here for me. After extensive contemplation and a heck of a lot of deconstruction and shedding fantasies, in true Actualized.org fashion, I am beginning to see an asymmetry in mental constructions between monogamy and non-monogamy. More specifically, monogamy involves more mental constructs, labels, rules, expectations, fantasies, self-justifications, and limitations than non-monogamy. I don't think this is merely my bias. Certain worldviews simply hold more rigid fantasies despite the relativity of it all. This does not mean that monogamy is bad or wrong. It means something very technical. For example, monogamy is more fragile. Fragile in the sense that it has something to defend. The worldview of monogamy is prone to falling apart if it encounters cold hard reality too much. Non-monogamy threatens it in the way that a needle threatens the integrity of a balloon. Whereas non-monogamy has no "fail condition," and doesn't mind contact with cold hard reality. Non-monogamy has no constructed membrane that is afraid of being popped. Non-monogamy simply asks: "I am a sexual being. Why limit this?" and then monogamy has to spin a web of stories to justify sexual limitation. One way that monogamy seemingly takes the upper hand is that it can genuinely argue that limiting sexual partners leads to a more stable society and healthier interpersonal relationships. This should not be overlooked. Monogamy may even try to threaten non-monogamy by saying something like, "why are you afraid of limiting yourself? why are you clinging to your freedom?" But then, non-monogamy has no problem responding by saying: "what builds social stability is not necessarily what is true. In fact in many ways, lies and deceptions are the foundation of social stability. I'm not afraid of limiting myself - I just find it distasteful to promote a self-serving construct as truth or duty" The critical fault in monogamy is that it conflates positive survival outcomes with truth. "Being loyal to my wife helped me raise my kids in a healthy environment, and helped us have impossibly deep personal intimacy, therefore monogamy is the best system, a TRUE system." But no, you can't say that. There's so much interpretive baggage here, because you're not merely reporting the facts of your marriage, you have a deeper implicit fantasy about how your wife actually belongs with you and only you, and that if she found another man, that would be a betrayal of the highest degree. You credit monogamy for your deep intimacy without opening your mind to the possibility that monogamy is actually completely non-causal and uncorrelated to depth of connection. Why would it be? You just assumed that without testing! This doesn't mean that we should all become non-monogamists. There really is no prescriptive action here. Do whatever fits your own biases and values. I'm more interested here in the constructive structures behind these competing relationship models. What would it look like to relate to women with minimal artificial mental constructs and fantasies?

I don't know, the self-castration mechanism seems pretty unavoidable even if I'm overemphasizing it for the sake of argument here. With a monogamous pact, no matter how you frame or spin the emphasis of the situation in a wholesome direction, you can't avoid the raw content of your promise to her. You are taking your nature as a sexual being, and willingly putting it in a straitjacket to appease her. Maybe you don't see that as a bad thing, or perhaps you even see it as a good thing, but the "self-castration" is active nonetheless. --- I've always found it odd that prior to entering a relationship, your authentic desire has a dynamic and spontaneous range. But then the moment you enter a monogamous relationship, you artificially limit this range, and furthermore you tell yourself that you are a virtuous person (suspicious self-serving story) For example, prior to entering a relationship, you can be in a coffee shop, see a cute girl, and immediately feel a spark of desire inside. You can follow that desire, talk to her, and proactively build connection. This goes beyond being horny and using women for their bodies. This is about being attuned to the omnipresent beauty of feminine energy every time you leave your house. It's a matter of worship. You see the beauty, you feel the beauty, you honor the beauty, you connect with the beauty. It's like swimming in the ocean because you want the nourishment of water enveloping your body. It's a natural process of integrity and expansion. But then, the moment you enter a relationship, this chain of feminine worship gets fractured at the root. Let's rerun the scenario in the coffee shop, except this time you have a monogamous girlfriend. Instead of see > feel > honor > connect, you stop the chain after you lay eyes on her. Your psyche says "I'm not allowed to go there" and you choke out your inner desire before it becomes a problem. Worst case scenario, this is repression, as you don't even allow yourself to feel the desire. But if you're greedy enough to dare to feel your own authentic spontaneous desire, you are now in an existential bind, the situation is no better, since now you've acknowledged your own feelings, but you're still not able to do anything about it per your own rules. But then, in order to live with this juxtaposition, you have to invent narratives like "I'm loyal" or "I only love my girlfriend" or "I'm too mature to feel anything for new people I've just met" in order to preserve the sense of agency which you've lost. The reality of the situation is multifaceted of course. Maybe your loyalty is genuinely a virtue. But the ego would rather play that up instead of look at the full picture. Because it would kill you to admit that: "yeah deep down I really want to see, feel, honor, connect, and worship her, but I willingly promised someone else that I'm not allowed to do that, so I have to pretend I am asexual or else the inner conflict is too much to bear" I see this whole situation as hypocritical. In order to get into your treasured relationship in the first place, you had to take a stranger through a chain of increasing intimacy and connection, starting at, "Hi! what's your name?" But then, once you get into a monogamy pact, you forbid yourself and your partner from ever exploring that chain ever again with another person. It's a pure, selfish, double standard born of fear, which would not be so bad if you could just admit what you're doing, but the worst part is that instead of acknowledging the facts (e.g. "babe, let's limit each other because we're afraid"), you're going to spin self-serving narratives about loyalty and true love to the point that you will actually start believing that you have no interest in other girls, which is an obvious lie because the moment your girlfriend leaves you, you're back to scouting for new women. If you truly think that, "I only love my girlfriend, and other women don't interest me," then I'd like to see you be a male widow forever if she ever leaves you. If you are capable of being interested in new women while you are single, that means you are capable of being interested in new women while you are taken. Bottom line is, let's be honest. It's not even about getting laid necessarily. It's about wanting to cherish the full expansive range of my spontaneous attraction potential. That's fair. But then why have this conversation? Why not go get a monogamous long-term relationship like everyone else and call it a day? If sexual freedom is immature, are you able to spell out for me exactly how genital gatekeeping is mature? "Babe I will never put my penis inside another woman every again, matter of fact I won't even think about it. And of course, you better not spread your legs for any man ever again, much less think about it! If you cross this line you are a liar and a cheater!" Is this mature? This is the inherent implication of all sexual monogamy, even if it's not verbalized. This implication is usually sneaking in the background, dressed in virtue. This axiom is taken on faith, and has deep practical consequences. Here's something I've been thinking for a while. If you're so convinced that the two of you are only meant for each other, shouldn't you have no problem with anarchy or temptation? It's the difference between resisting the junk food because "you shouldn't eat it" vs barely even considering the junk food because it's so obviously not for you. It's the difference between keeping your dog on a leash every time you go outside vs trusting him to walk by your side. If it's truly you and her vs the world, your actions will prove this, without any rules or expectations, in a lawless environment full of temptation. If a girl says she only wants me for the rest of her life, I WANT to throw her in a pool of men without any strings attached just to see how she reacts. It's not even a test per se. I don't plan to punish her if she "fails" or reward her if she "succeeds." I just want to see the real her in a real environment without artificial shackles and the burden of my expectations. The moment you have to erect guardrails and build elaborate promise-structures, you're basically admitting to yourself "yeah I would cheat if not for these rules" or "yeah I don't trust her if not for these rules" In my eyes, the only way monogamy is intellectually and philosophically salvageable is if you have 0 sexual guardrails and 0 genital gatekeeping, and you happen to organically and incidentally choose only each other for the rest of your lives. This is true. I'm used to losing women.

I wrote detailed, point-by-point deconstructions and questions for you on page 2 roughly 21 hours ago. There's a chance you just didn't see it, in which case fair enough. But if you read it and chose to ignore it and double down on your thesis word for word, it seems like we just don't have the same intellectual standards.

That's fair. My confidence only comes from observing my friends in-person and online. But their futures are yet to be seen. And especially my own future is vague. More testing is required. I sympathize with this deeply. Not only must she be attractive, but she must also energetically compatible, have values alignment with you, and now she has to be non monogamous?? That's an impossibly high bar In my experience, women tend to be unfathomably flexible, explorative, dynamic, and go with the flow (i.e. feminine). Feminine women will mold to fit the shape of their container, like how water takes on the shape of its cup. Maybe you have observed this. The same girl you were once dating will get a new boyfriend and it's like her entire personality changes. It's not that she was ever real or fake. It's that her bliss is to follow the leadership of whoever she currently trusts with her heart. This gives her a shocking (and incomprehensible) degree of personality flexibility. This is also the mechanism that abusers and narcissists exploit. Since women naturally have looser boundaries than men, this allows disgusting guys to push and push and push until she bends or breaks. Obviously I am not recommending that we do this. I want the women in my life to be on board with my leadership without any coercion. I'm merely bringing up this dynamic to make the point that women are happy to try new things, so long as their heart follows you. Your dream girl basically has a 0% chance of having non-monogamous software preinstalled. This is an offer you must make, with no strings attached, and she has to willingly choose to give it a shot with you, because she's naturally adventurous, and she wants to keep you in her life. It's a frame battle of sorts. If you really really really really want her, and you're afraid of losing her, you will fold and offer monogamy to placate her. There will be 0 conflict, and both sides will appear initially thrilled. But you did very much just castrate yourself. Your sexual freedom is now nonexistent. You are no longer "allowed" to show interest in any other woman, or else you are a liar. This may cause issues down the line. Are you seriously going to be with this one girl, and only this one girl, FOREVER? That's the implication and promise. So you have to "hold the line" so to speak. The frame is, "I really like you and I want to take this to the next level, but I can't hand you my balls. I want to explore emotional exclusivity, but I can't promise eternal sexual subservience to you. This is not a wise thing to do for our future longevity. I am open to compromise." And if she says no, then that's that. But if she likes you, it's more likely that she will pause and furrow her brow as she's faced with an internal conflict. She may push back or try to change your mind. This is where you gently but firmly hold the line. You want her but you're willing to lose her. If she sees your sincerity and she has an open mind, odds are actually in your favor!