Natasha Tori Maru

A lot of karma was resolved. Claiming and owning our poor behaviour stops us resisting the truth, and the feeling of shame dissolves very rapidly. In a flash. Resist or deny that behaviour and we create a bad relationship to it/our emotions - this is where Ralston's unnecessary suffering comes into it. How we relate to emotions, feelings and thoughts. That's the unnecessary suffering we can affect. Your forum use has let you sit in more of your authenticity, in my opinion. Just from reading your interactions over time. Your expression is evolving. I know. It is so difficult too because others are snap quick to psychologically profile (it is actually magical thinking this "mind reading"). People never stop to ask more questions "what exactly do you mean by this and this?" they reply to what they think they understand and then... TRIGGER RAGE Just ask more questions before thinking you know - half the problem!

@LordFall I sort of like getting triggered by my interactions with you though, not gonna lie! I don't mean that in a bad way at all. More like "oh shit, im triggered! there's something there I need to look at!" You were one of the biggest characters on the forum that made me realise one of my biggest triggers is being misunderstood. Probably my largest trigger. Because when you look at our interactions and debating style - you are really direct in how I see your argument style: Claim > counterclaim > evidence > defend position > challenge opponents reasoning > interprets opponents objection. Pure logical and clean analysis. I think I do more of Claim > underlying assumption > epistemic standard assessment > relational dynamic > assess how the interaction is functioning. Also - I have a tendancy to make a broad claim that isn't accurate to my meaning - I then narrow it to my intentional meaning. This can look like I am sidestepping. It's me just not being precise the first time. So when that happens between us, I think I am maddening for you to speak to because I go for everything underneath the argument and then look at how that is known - while also attending to how I personally relate. So I am often not sticking with analytical logic only. I think this ends up in arguments dissolving into being misunderstood or looking like aversion. Combine that with me often not wanting to push my assessment onto the other person (sometimes I don't want to state my opinion as I don't want to influence someones thinking in a negative way - which is egoic in itself) - I want them to inspect their thinking in a rather pedagogical way/method. This style simply fails in some engagements Anyway I am glad this clears some air - in a sex thread of all things! Sorry for any clashes and reactions I may have had with you.

@Asayake Grateful for your honest assessment here. And to be understood. I tried to stick to just what was happening through evidence and move away from any sort of psychological understanding/interpretation. I think the most common types of friction and arguments on the forum are when meaning is taken and a psychological interpretation is being applied to members when it is all based on inference and there isn't sufficient evidence. Most of the time I end up clashing here because I go for the epistemology behind someone's argument rather than the argument itself "how does this person know this though" and it can look like evasion or be irritating for others who want direct engagement (especially when I look for assumptions inn their argument first). I just really enjoy getting into how others think - but this can feel invasive if they do not perceive I am charitable (which often happens through poor rhetoric from me). I want you to know I sincerely apologise for the clashes we have had.

This is a broader topic that can also apply to many users issues with understanding women ❤️❤️❤️

Yep I do fall into traps like that. I give up engaging and dismiss. Mostly when I think either 1) my point wont be received or 2) I run out of steam. I don't think criticism is bad - even this directed at me. You can asses and critisize someone and have good intentions, especially when it is valid like here. Which is why my kindness or warmth after is simply and expression of no ill intent. I tend to fall into the trap of intention outweighing outcome. It is from frustration regarding not being understood the first time, and then pushing which results in bad outcome. None of this excuses the results. So I am happy to sincerely apologise (and I do so here!) to anyone I have hurt or offended through my rhetorical patterns of engagement. Many times I don't express my meaning sufficiently originally, then I become upset internally and I become averse to continual engagement. It is my own ability to communicate that is an issue

I am... familiar with the carnal side of the male To be perfectly honest - my view is that most women aren't aware of how overriding a drive it can be for many men. And it isn't just young men either. It is really interesting to read up on cases of trans people who take hormones. @Raze has linked some great videos in the past that help either sex get into the others head. I dated a 60+ year older fella who was just as virile and consumed by women as any 18 year old.

Economy seats are horrible for maneuverability And I am sure no one who joins the mile high club gets away with it being unnoticed! I suspect you don't understand what I am saying - just based on this reply.

@questionreality To be clear - you are operating from an assessment that does not contain all data. You aren't privy to private messages that have transpired between that user and others to remedy / moderate.

At the end of the day conflict happens. It cannot be avoided. Even in the best, most high consciousness pairings. Even on forums. We make mistakes. We grow. But mature relationships and genuine connection are revealed in how we repair. We can become more comfortable setting boundaries - and recognising that doing so involves authentic vulnerability. When you set a genuine boundary, you risk the other person rejecting it, disagreeing with you, or even rejecting you for having it. But that risk is part of what makes the interaction authentic. We can do that here

Anyway if you want my sex story - but I won't go into details. Mile high club UNCOMFORTABLE. LOUD. CRAMPED

You are already doing that !!!

Lies - you've been in this section forever! Just in real life lol

@Inliytened1 I sincerely apologise if you read that as an attack - it is more an attempt to moderate and help other users who feel something unjust has happened and has been allowed. I linked and raised your apology to emphasis this part the most - and emphasised also that we need to be charitable and good faith toward you <3

If you carefully read and analyse the rhetorical style @Inliytened1 engages in - you will notice that the explicit recognition of error happens, and it changes much faster than the relational frame. This is one potential way others are interpreting the behaviour / words: Words - Page 5 - most damaging rhetoric Page 8 - apology The following pages are a combination or criticism, personal attacks and aversion by a few parties who engage. Ulax does the majority of the work assisting Inliytened1 understanding the error. What users are sensing (just my opinion and read of the situation - and I qualify myself as being able to assess this due to facing similar situations continually working with men in construction) is that there appears to be a recurring rhetorical loop that can appear to make the conversation move away from moral accountability, despite the verbal apology. It appears to transmit this sort of message to others: "People are overreacting; this is mostly sexual humour; I'm being targeted; these critics are moralising; Leo knows me; I'm basically just being authentic." The move made is: controversial statement -|- joke/minimisation -|- reframing -|- counterattack/criticise the critics -|- invoke context or relationship -|- apology -|- resume substantially the same rhetorical frame The overall effect is that the apology appears to address the boundary crossing (or phrasing) more readily than it addresses the underlying relational attitude embodied in the rhetoric. Some of this comes down to users accepting words as truth and giving them more weight (charitable), and others assign more weight to broader rhetorical pattern as truth. When these two things are out of alignment a weird intuitive feeling is provoked internally. I've seen it previously play out like this on job sites. I don't think it begs to be stated that some of the above is psychological guesswork - but it is a theory on how others psychologically perceive the overall interaction and ensuing dialogue. Not my own judgement or assessment personally. At the end of the day (and if we want to be good faith and charitable) and avoid mind-reading, words should be generally accepted at face value - unless we are given good reasons not to. I hope this gives some users some closure or understanding.

Before you take someone's advice - qualify them. Do you want to live like they do? Do you perceive them as integrated, healthy, stable? Do you feel connection and relational understanding from them? Do they try to understand your meaning and experience before dispensing their solution to you? Do you want to move through life like they do? If not, seriously consider if their advice is going to produce what you want .

I think it's a HUGE body of understanding that has so much nuance to be fleshed out. It can really bring another level of sophistication to our thinking. I think it would fit perfectly with Leo's repertoire. And I can't find a good long video on YouTube that does it justice.

Analytical understanding, relational understanding, and systems thinking overlap, but they are not the same thing. Primary question What it emphasizes Analytical understanding What are the parts, properties, causes and logical relationships? - Primary question Decomposition, logic, evidence, distinctions - What it emphasizes Relational understanding How does this thing exist or make sense in relation to other things, people, and context? - Primary question Context, perspective, meaning, interaction, mutual influence - What it emphasizes Systems thinking How do these parts interact over time to produce the behaviour of the whole? - Primary question Feedback loops, emergence, interdependence, dynamics - What it emphasizes 1. Analytical understanding Analysis tends to break something apart. It focuses on: Breaking things into components Logic and reasoning Evidence Identifying causes Distinguishing concepts Finding inconsistencies Understanding mechanisms The basic question is: “What are the parts, and how do they work?” Someone can be extremely analytical without necessarily seeing the broader dynamics those components participate in. 2. Relational understanding Relational understanding is about understanding something through its relationships and context, rather than treating it as an isolated object. It focuses on: Perspective Context Interaction Roles Meaning Mutual influence How one person's behaviour affects another How something changes depending on its relationship to something else The basic question is: “How does this make sense in relation to other things, people, and context?” Relational understanding doesn't necessarily mean making psychological assumptions about people's motives. It can simply mean recognising how behaviour functions within an interaction. 3. Systems thinking Systems thinking goes further into dynamic relationships and the behaviour of the whole. It focuses on: Feedback loops Interdependence Emergence Nonlinear effects Delays Unintended consequences Competing objectives System boundaries Patterns over time The basic question is: “How do all these relationships interact over time to produce the behaviour of the whole?” For example: A affects B → B changes the system → the changed system affects A → A changes again → producing a feedback loop. So: Analytical: A affects B. Relational: A and B affect each other within a particular context. Systems: A affects B, which changes the wider system, which feeds back and changes A. The three aren't a hierarchy. They're different lenses. The strongest approach is being able to move between them: Analyse the parts → understand the relationships → see the system → return to the parts with a better understanding of the whole.

I don't feel judgement - there isn't any blocking - only authentic feeling in that post. I went for a walk on lunch and had a think about the thread. Thought "what would I say to a man I admire, who might be going through something rough, to inspire him? To ignite his masculinity to be the best man he can be, so he can attract the best women for him?" I suppose it came out from my femininity - it rereads to me like feminine expression. Dunno. It suddenly came out! I just tried my best to relationally understand. To really see him

It is funny - because she slowly removed herself from the forum for precisely the issues raised in this thread. Leo doesn't want this to be a male only space. He has made that expressly clear.

No need, no transgression. Like I said, I think the topic is fun and very open - some of the rhetorical terms depicting women got wonky. Sometimes we aren't aware of how it can appear Amazing. At first being alone was daunting. I had never experienced it. It has been the most enriching experience for me to get in touch with my true self - I wish I had done it earlier. I remain in a really good, happy, peaceful and content space @questionreality It was not just me (as the only female) that noticed the poor rhetoric. And I was not offended as much as I was disappointed. I work in commercial construction. In an overwhelmingly male environment (so I'm very familiar with male banter and how men communicate) and I know where the line between rough humour and genuinely degrading rhetoric tends to fall.

It is the wrong angle - be on your best behaviour for YOU. It's for you that you remain in control and authenticity with your expression in a civil way. Hold space for your emotions and feelings in full masculine expression and containment. You can say "I find her unnattractive" in healthy authentic expression without the need for rhetoric like "That woman is a disgusting whale". Your outer behaviour should be calibrated against your inner voice (and not dictated by it), otherwise there is a risk of becoming out of integrity with your considered values. And you value good, strong and loving feminine women who are higher consciousness (from what you have said previously!). That's a fundamental value as it touches on connection, unity, love. Oneness. Infinity through the yin/yang dichotomy. Most of the time people with healthy boundaries tend not to tolerate that type of speech. They don't need to control you; they can simply remove themselves from your world. On the flip side, people with weaker boundaries may remain and either tolerate the behaviour or attempt to control it. Boundaries are never about controlling others - always about what we let in. You want that high consciousness healthy woman! Your expression is part of what that woman will evaluate when deciding whether she wants you. You want that woman! Your masculine expression can attract that. But it might be difficult when you call women “whales,” ay? With love!

No. I've been single for 11 months so far currently. I chose to be single for a length of time after my last relationship. I've been dating or in long term relationships since I was 17. So that's 22 years of romantic relationships. 7 years was my longest. 4 of the LTR there were maladaptive power struggles / dynamics

You can create it. I've experienced it. Have faith

I don't think I can be any clearer.

Thanks, you worded it well. Appreciated. This is my stance.