aurum

I'd say no, assuming it's still early on and you're not misrepresenting yourself. If you're married and she's still not sure, that's a problem. Neither fuckboyness or bf-material-ness is the issue. The issue is when and how much.

There's probably a realistic middle. Little bit of fuckboy isn't bad. Especially in the beginning. Mom game

Yes that narrative is a bit simplistic. It can work to some degree, but I think it's also worth letting go of at a certain point.

I don't think it's so much of an issue around authenticity as it is about goal optimization. Most of the time with pickup, your goal is to have sex. The relationship only has to be successful until tomorrow, which basically means you can just coast on good vibes. And your process needs to be repeatable, since you probably want to do this more than once. With long-term relationships, you're just not optimizing for sex. There's some overlap of course, because you still want attraction, flirtation, investment etc. But you also need to be thinking more long-term.

The problem I see here is that "wins me over" quickly turns into "have sex with her without showing any real interest in long-term potential". I find this just doesn't work well if you want something serious. I don't even want to sleep with her if I don't see long-term potential at this point.

You’d need to describe more what is going on in your interactions. Otherwise we’re just guessing.

@Meeksauce you’re doing something wrong. Women have not become unapproachable in 2026.

Corrupting the World Cup: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/fifas-infantino-targeted-by-complaint-to-olympic-ethics-body-after-trump-lobbying-on-balogun-ban

Appreciate that!

That is what they're doing. Be careful of strawmannirg them as well. I don't agree with their conclusions, but they are mostly presenting it in a reasonable way.

Well, you tell me. Do you think you're still seriously open? How much are you going to try and understand these teachings if you assume it's just a bunch of hallucinated ramblings from a narcissist, wounded cult leader? Imagine you took that attitude with anything else you were trying to learn. If you're still open, great. But I just don't see that from you. From what I can tell, you seem quite certain in your position. And that's going to affect your results.

Yes, that's why debate won't resolve this. One of us is just going to be mistaken.

Okay, suit yourself. There will be no learning with taking that frame.

It's a big jump because that's obviously not how I think about it. I don't know how exactly Leo sees himself. Does he even think of himself as a "person" at all? Who knows. He obviously thinks extremely highly of his awakening, but it's not unwarranted. Maybe there are people alive with a better understanding than him on God, but I don't know any. It has nothing to do with ethics. It's more like I'm sometimes willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he might know something I don't. For example, I don't know about Alien Awakening. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt there might be something there and will test it. This is just called trust. Yes, you obviously you still need to maintain your own autonomy. But you can actually build trust when someone has demonstrated they deserve it over a period of years. Every healthy relationship also requires some trust. And you are closed-minded, so I'm not going to fault him for hitting you over the head about that. I don't idolize him, and I do focus on the work. This is whole thread is the most I've thought about Leo in a long time. I would prefer to just move on, but I felt I should address it since this thread was blowing up. Sure, fine. Sure, as long as you don't expect me to think Relativity means you get to gaslight me with your nonsense and I have to consider it "equally valid". Turns out understanding things is possible.

I was talking about you too, Carl. I know you don't agree with his teachings.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is the actual red line of this debate.

To the degree I grant Leo "special privileges", it's because I've spent ten years verifying the accuracy of his work. You, on the other hand, will not be granted any special privileges. I've debated with you in other threads and it's clear that you don't understand these metaphysical topics nearly as well. So you've not earned those privileges. If you want special privileges, go create your own metaphysical body of work on par with Leo's that I can verify. And if I can do that, then I will grant you special privileges. But until then, you get nothing.

This really undermines his whole project. No way you're achieving biological immortality if you can't even beat AIG.

All the critiques being leveled at Leo in this thread rest on top of the assumption that he is wrong. That is the actual red line. You're not mad because he called you close-minded. You're mad because you think you're openminded. You're not mad because he claimed he was the standard for epistemology. You're mad because you think he isn't. You're not mad because he claimed he was more awake than other spiritual teachers. You're mad because you don't believe it. You're not mad because he claimed he understood God better than you. You're mad because you don't think he does. The ultimate red line question is this: what is God???? Everything in this debate hinges on how you answer that question.

Still love living here. No other country I'd rather be. But yeah, we have some serious issues to work on.

I feel ya man. It can be rough out there.

@Zenterus Lol bro. This is why people eventually settle down. Hooking up with girls in perpetuity is a hellish roller coaster.

The men are deliberately withholding something they know their girlfriend probably wants to get a reaction out of her for social media.

That is exactly what some men do. Whether or not it’s “okay” requires looking at how coercive it was and what the consequences were. No one is getting hurt by your girlfriend wanting you to eat a brownie with her. This is a stupid false equivalence with something like sexual assault.