Natasha Tori Maru

@zurew FWIW I see what you are pointing to regarding terms being very loosely defined in Leo's worldview. I raised this well over a year ago somewhere. I mainly see loose definitions being used as a slippery loophole out of being 'wrong' in some arguments. But at the same time, words are very tricky, as they lack inherent meaning without context. Many of Leo's statements lack context as he shoots for the truth in isolation, removed from context. I do find some of his statements fall apart when viewed from different angles. When this happens it immediately flags lack of coherence in my mind. Normally you can push further nuance out of him which clarifies meaning and intent. Sometimes he does this intentionally to provoke contemplation - but it can really confuse some users also.

This is some wild slippery mental hoop-de-loop for not putting ones balls on the line with an argument to refute. Debating 101. I suppose I can just make wild claims and never have to justify anything. Courts will love this new system!

I read him like this also. I was amused he thought he had his definition of 'evil' down-pat with 'it is just violating another's consent'. He really doubled down there. My first thought was 'What about a parent who takes excessive candy from a child who is destroying their teeth with sugar - is the parent evil for violating the child's consent?'. Then I thought - how funny - is evil only manifesting at a certain 'age' when we gain independence from our parents? Haha Ana seemed much more certain in general. Hard to fill a cup that is already full. Touch of hubris thinking she was 'awakened'. But I think this was simply because she has a different definition of the term to what we consider awakened here.

I dated a man who was securely attached. He showed me good, gentle boundaries and what it meant to show love and compassion toward another in an un-needy and unconditional way. It was a challenge for me, initially. I was very conflict avoidant in relationships, and followed a pattern of over-valuing my partner, and then devaluing. But not in a pathological way - the devalue/overvalue process was more my own internal dialogue that manifested in a gentle openness/closed off push pull my partner felt from me. This would be triggered when my partner would put up a boundary. Instead of hear the boundary and aim to adjust my behaviour, I received it as him pushing me away. The boundary was communicating to me 'I do not love you' instead of 'I love you, this other thing needs to change'. I confused someone communicating difficult things with pushing me away. On addition to this, I would close off when my partner made bids for contact if I felt I was being smothered; the smothering feeling felt as if I was loosing my sense of self (enmeshment) so I would pull back and become quite aloof to try to maintain my self. This was happening because I essentially didn't know who I was. So I was not able to clearly and calmly assert boundaries because... I didn't even know where I begun and my partner ended! It was all a mess. This is fearful/ambivalent attachment. Insecure/anxious or avoidant are the other two types. Ambivalent swings between anxious/avoidant. It would be as simple as 'Hey, when I get home, I need some time to shower, get dressed and have a cup of tea before I get into my day. It is my unwinding process'. I would confuse something as simple as this with 'I do not love you'. Anything respectful request would be percieved as a threat to the union on the relationship. This stemmed from my own boundaries being violated by my family when younger. Through repeated healthy boundary assertion, and a gentle caring securely attached partner who was VERY patient, I gradually learned to also assert my own boundaries. Because attachment issues are a manifestation of violating our own self sovereignty. We have no idea how to advocate for ourselves. Erasing the self in service of love and connection. When it actual fact, I had to learn a relationship was about 3 axis' : the relationship, him, and me. Each as individuals and to be respected as such. Violating my own boundaries by not speaking up and asserting myself built the walls that destroyed all my previous relationships. Overall I see this pattern all through dating. Most people who are securely attached find each other, pair off and become committed. Much of what remains in the dating pool consists of those with attachment issues who attract each other because they each contain the style of love they needed to heal (this was learned in early infancy through parent/child bonding forming the template for love). But they are fundamentally unable to receive that love due to misunderstanding what real, secure, love is. Not all in the dating market have attachment issues. But many who get stuck in patterns and jump from relationship to relationship do. PUA attracts insecurely attached women. It leverages off their weakness.

Attachment styles are huge in attraction and dating. Unfortunately, we can be quite blind to them until we recognise the pattern - because they originate from being shown an incorrect or malformed version of bonding/love stemming from infancy. Typically one endures the pattern until something clicks, or the person begins to self analyse relationship trends they fall into. The concept and understanding of love those with attachment issues have is not really what love is. They misunderstand love/bonding and secure attachment. Healthy love is mistaken for lack of love. I used to suffer from ambivalent or fearful avoidance. My relationships all followed a broken pattern of terrible boundaries stemming from being shown love from broken parents. I have since done a lot of work to break and heal previous patterns. I consider myself securely attached now.

I am more worried about @Elliott tbh Those who need to listen to the message will never pay attention. Most of their thinking is fed by algorithms. Nothing said is really original. Most complaints about women's behaviour are a result of capitalism/society structure being fucked, and not women's freedom.

Self imposed temporary break from the forum. @Schizophonia will be back 👍

He raises some good points. I do question a lot of what you claim, as you often repeat manosphere / social media dialogues and claims almost to the T. You repeat all the main red pill catch phrases a lot. Not sure if you realise this, as it can happen when you are immersed in what algorithms feed you.

I am very selective and require emotional connection. Cannot do that casually because it lacks depth.

@Kid A 🤣 In before 'its not women's fault they are disgusting creatures, it is just their nature, we men need to adjust to their feral behaviours' and 'any man who disagrees is naive and hoodwinked by women' I am so filthy, don't you see!!!!

There is no guarantee of enlightenment no matter what you do; simply some things can make us more 'accident' prone.

Never a good thing to bypass another's suffering.

Damn right on the last point!

The only time I dislike humour is when there has been offensive stuff take place, and the humour is used to bypass an apology or contrition.

@Joseph Maynor @Ramasta9 I think some of the issue with weaponizing of SD is due to users perceiving the stages implying higher/lower development and equating it with intellect or morals. 'Later' gets all confused for 'better'. The sequence of it makes people instinctively rank the system. I understand it to be a value system and not a moral ladder. No-Self does get weaponized as well. Different axis though. Overall I think SD should be looked at to predict friction between value systems, help us communicate across stages & recognise our own blind spots. This would be applying the model in an attempt to understand and cooperate. Contrast that to some users leveraging it to divide, condescend or virtue signal morals. Just what I see on the forum. ANNNNYWAY! I digress sorry to derail.