aurum

Yup

You're making some good points about better outcomes requiring more fictions. In a sense, monogamy creates an artificial distinction / construction that did not exist before. This human now becomes your "husband" or "wife" or "partner" or whatever. And within this construction is another construction about sexually exclusivity. It's kind of like a border for a country. Technically all borders for any nation are a construction. And yet, even if one is conscious of the imaginary nature of borders, this does not mean getting rid of a border is a good idea. Rather, construct-awareness means that we simply are conscious that a border is a construction. And therefore the construction can either be altered or kept the same, vs just buying into it as an absolute truth. So you can argue that non-monogamy is more truth-aligned in the sense that you are deconstructing the constructions of monogamy. But it would be a mistake to assume that means it is a better way to live. And really, you are not just advocating for non-monogamy theoretically. We are considering this for a actual lifestyle. So we need to talk about survival and what the tangible outcomes are likely to be. I don't think the goal should be to erase just relationship constructions. Our goal should be construct-awareness around them. Another point: non-monogamy may deconstruct the constructions of monogamy, but what constructions might it sneak in unawares? This would be interesting to contemplate more if your concern is fictional constructions. Not exclusive to non-monogamy though. That's just a feature in general of most healthy relationships. That seems like a good summary. That's not been much of an issue for me. The biggest vulnerability from the masculine perspective is simply not being able to live up to the list of things I described. You fail at being a provider, protecting her or simply leading the relationship to a better place. I think this is why guys tend to overpromise and put on a strong front. You want your girl to think you are Superman, and she wants to believe it. But the truth of course is that you can never guarantee a positive outcome. You can't guarantee her safety or even your own. There is wisdom in wresting with this vulnerability. But it's hard. And it's hard to know what to say to her when she's hoping you're Superman.

But do you apply that standard equally to non-monogamy? If monogamy requires nigh-superhuman development, then I'd argue non-monogamy requires nigh-super-superhuman development to be successful. My proof for this would simply be the fact that monogamy is the dominant mode of romantic relationships on the planet. Meaning it requires less development to have reasonable success in. However many couples fail at monogamy, more would fail with non-monogamy. Most of my inspiration comes from my own past relationships. I've been able to see what did or didn't work for me. The most important thing I've found is that we are in our energetic polarities. From the masculine POV, the implicit frame is something like this: "I am here to lead this relationship. I will protect you, care for you and provide for you. I am proactive in honoring your sovereignty and your needs. I welcome all your emotions and will be there at your worst. I am fully here and committed to you. I am better because of you. You are safe with me." From the feminine perspective, the implicit frame is something like this: "I am here to follow you. I trust you to protect, care and provide for me. I will support you and heal you when needed. I respect you. I will show you your king. My heart is fully open. I melt into you. I am safe with you". Of course all of that is somewhat idealistic. In reality, we fight and argue and fail to live up to our best expectations. But man, even when we are in the vicinity of embodying those frames, it can be like magic.

That's not going to cut it. Alternative medicine does more propaganda than mainstream medicine.

Looks like he got smoked pretty bad, but it's hard to say how impactful that actually is on his confirmation. Fingers-crossed. And like I said yesterday in another thread, this is the kind of heat the Dems need to be bringing. Trump and his goons will totally bulldoze you if you are too passive.

Monogamy is possible without making some sort of neurotic vow. More than you know. I'd say that's on the right track. The key is choosing your limitations and who you want approval from. Everyone needs approval or you cannot exist in society. Living without gaining people's approval is a fantasy.

If being canceled is a regular problem in your life, you may need to do some self-reflection.

Yes, legacy media can only do so much. But still, things would be much worse without it. The only reason we are aware of things like trans people being banned in the military is because of legacy media. Politics is primarily information warfare.

Absolutely yes. Every authoritarian state needs to strongly control the media. That's the only way it works. As long as legacy media retains freedom of the press, Trump will have a hard time doing true authoritarianism. Imagine if we didn't have legacy media calling out all of Trump's lies over the years. Things would have degenerated much, much worse. Journalists and democrats need to be doing a full court press against every corrupt, devilish thing Trump does. Blow it up, hammer it home. The public will not understand otherwise.

This was not a good segment by Stewart. I get the point he is making. Yes, discernment is needed. And yes, you shouldn't just yell fascist at everything Trump does. We don't want a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. But it should also be obvious what Trump's larger agenda here is. As well as the fact that he only follows democratic rules when he is forced to. The fact that Trump has so far mostly acted within democratically given power means little. He will bulldoze democratic rule as soon as it benefits his larger agenda. And the whole point of removing things like inspector generals is to get away with even more egregious acts in the future. Democratically enacted or not, you should be concerned about decisions like this. If anything, I'd argue people are mostly being too complacent about Trump. We need legacy media doing their job of calling out MAGA nonsense more than ever.

I already explained my thinking. I'm willing to grant there may be some exceptions and edge cases. But I believe what I said was mostly correct. The vast majority of people choosing non-monogamy will be chasing sex, which is immature. How much sex do you really need to have to be satisfied? But it is a big deal. Because the reality is that you will not just get all that extra sex without tradeoffs. People adapt their life around non-monogamy. You have to decide whether that's worth it to you or not. Defining your life by rebelling against culture and what you're told you can't do is peak foolishness. Consider the wisdom in giving up freedom. And no, I'm not backing down on the "chasing sex". The more this conversation has progressed, the more I think this is the core issue for me. Less so than whether you are even doing monogamy or non-monogamy. Prioritizing sex does not match my highest values.

And both of them confuse what is with survival.

The bottom line is that monogamy can be repressive. But monogamy can also be genuine. You are hyper-focusing on the repression. I am clarifying my thinking in real time. It's a hard question. Some people like to journal, I like to forum. Because otherwise you are chasing sex. And chasing sex is inherently a lower, immature motivation. It's like if you made eating food one of your top priorities in life. Monogamy can help you focus on higher things than sex. Of course if you're a young guy, then this immaturity might actually be correct for you. Because you are immature. So go be immature.

I’ve been on this forum since the day it started in 2016. I’ve seen a lot of mods come and go, including myself. I think this is a fair call. Just the fact that NoSelfSelf made a thread like this proves the point. This is not how mods should be acting. Mods are defacto leaders of this community, which requires extra maturity. This is a special place. The work we do is unique and challenging in ways some of you don’t yet grasp. I encourage you all to treat the forum and Leo with respect. Do not take it for granted.

If everything is here now, then where are the wrinkles in your skin from old age? And how come it has took humans thousands of years for these stages to even emerge? It’s not as simple as prioritizing it, because the reality is that your mind will limit you. You only have so much control of this process. Anyone here should be so lucky to reach Turquoise. This is like a superhuman feat. I don’t sense that you appreciate the magnitude of what these higher stages of development require. You think I’m imposing these artificial limitations on you, but that’s not what is happening. Reality has limits.

You are not 10,000 years in the future. You are here now. And the reality of “now” is that achieving Tier 2 development by that age is essentially impossible. The vast majority of humans will never achieve it at all. Development just takes time, like an egg hatching. Your prefrontal cortex physically is not even fully mature until 25. If you found Leo’s content in your twenties or earlier, a good goal might be to shoot for Tier 2 by your 30s. Be careful of getting ahead of yourself.

Trump is just too easy for these examples. We are going to need to ban him from this thread Low: Contracted circle of concern, self-deceptive victim narrative, ignoring of historical context, strawmanning of higher perspectives, lack of self-awareness of how American hegemony backfires.

I think you may be trying to convince yourself more than me. You're not wrong that the vast majority of women will not have been socially conditioned for ENM. And undoubtably, if you are going to do it, you will need to have a talk as early as possible. Your framing of monogamy is highly dubious though. Yes, it's a commitment. Yes, it's a loss of freedom. That's just a part of life. You don't get infinite freedom, you have to make your choices and make them well. The question is not whether it limits your freedom, but whether or not it's worth limiting your freedom. Seeing monogamy as "castrating yourself" is your own personal frame, and not an objective way of seeing it at all. You could easily choose a different frame, such as making the choice to be with one woman out of your own sovereignty and highest values. But I don't think you are interested in this frame because you want to get laid. So the "castrating yourself" frame serves you. Ultimately I remain unconvinced ENM is in alignment with my highest values. Too much focus on chasing women and trying to be some kind of playboy. It's immature. Also, it needs to be said that the best women have good boundaries. And you will not want to lose them, even if you think you've cultivated an abundance mindset. So this hypothetical frame control scenario may not play out as imagined.

Nailed it! Way to go.

RealLifeLore does some seriously good political videos. People don't even recognize it. If you watch 30 RLL videos, you will drastically upgrade your political worldview.

Dumb like dumb.

Lower mind sure relates with lower mind. Funny how that works.

@Socrates Total nonsense. Right-wingers cry about not having a voice while literally dismantling the government and free speech in their favor. It's absurd.

Most modern people move through Purple at a young age. You may not even remember it, depending on the culture you were born into.

It's "just a theory" in the sense that I have no experience of it working. You can predict what you think non-monogamy will be like for you. But until you have actual experience, you have little idea how your expectations will match with reality. You could be deceiving yourself. In fact, you probably are. The mind loves to conjure up all kinds of fantasies about how much better things will be. You've already identified many of my reservations. I find even just meeting a partner seriously interested in mature ENM is a hell of a task. My standards for getting into a relationship are already high enough that I disqualify the vast majority of women I meet. Add in ENM, and I might as well be looking for a unicorn. Then there's also the issue of all time you will be spending on your extra romantic relationships. Is that really the highest use of your time? I don't think it is for me. Especially not if you're having kids. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible. But these are some of my concerns.