Natasha Tori Maru

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.

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

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.

I saw that and it is appreciated. In between, there was a lot of defensiveness and justification. It created a sort of contradictory impression. On the one hand, you acknowledge that the mindset and descriptions were wrong (which I thank you for); on the other, much of your behaviour beforehand communicated resistance to that criticism. I don't want to come across as saying I know what your underlying intention was. The apology and eventual acknowledgement didn't completely explain the contradiction created by the behaviour that preceded it - this is just how it appeared. And I think other users noted this. Which might explain the critical way others responded.

Thank you, that is much clearer. I think you understand based on this, which is what I was looking for. I don't think the issue is that men have testosterone, sexual desires, or that men are allowed to ‘play’. I am steering toward whether those drives justify the way particular women were characterised and talked about. Do you think those particular descriptions were appropriate?

I am pointing out once again that you are evading here. You haven't demonstrated that you understand the criticism. You are responding to a different issue (whether men are being allowed to have a voice) rather than addressing the criticism about the language used towards women. So tell me specifically: how are we removing your voice? What have we actually prevented you from saying?

That is not what I am doing. This is 100% speculation on your behalf. Why would you think I would try to trap you like that? That is uncharitable.

You didn't even answer the question. Do you think you've actually addressed the criticism about the language used to illustrate women in this thread, or have you mainly been defending men's right to speak that way?

Can you state my criticism in your own words, in a way that I would recognise as accurate (regarding what this thread is demonstrating, not Leo)?

@Asayake I don't think it is possible to ignore a moderator - but its done from the profile dropdown menu (see markup below) 🙏

Think about what you are saying here - you are quite cruelly speculating about someone's private life. You speculating about Leo's personal emotional state, tolerance, and likely decision-making, and simultaneously framing yourself as someone who has an established relationship with Leo. How you can sit with treating another human being with such disregard (especially given how you frame your relationship)? @Leo Gura may have made mistakes in the past - he is a public figure so it is all on display - but at least he has demonstrated a willingness to listen to the women of the forum. You are just flat-out not listening and pretending it's all a joke. You are more likely to be demoted than banned. Why are you self immolating?

Leo selects. I don't know his criteria other than maturity and development. People also change - which convolutes the process...

Stop doing this. I am being serious and you make moves to try to undermine what is going on by turning me into a sexual fantasy. I have to genuinely wonder if you are okay or going through something serious on your end. Either way, please try to understand.

No. You just refuse to listen.

@yetineti They refuse to see how upsetting the way women have been framed a several times in the discussion. Continual, deliberate strawmanning and avoiding their negative emotions by claiming fun. Notice they judge you to block feeling the authenticity of emotion inside them that knows "I have done wrong" and won't claim it. If it was really felt and allowed, and apologies were earnest, this continued dialogue would have ended long ago It is extremely dissappointing to me, to see it here of all places. Do better, I say.

Declined. I don't need to.

He doesnt need to be an arbiter of truth to express an opinion and argue a case. You don't appear able to stick to arguements though. Your avoiding addressing concerns by challenging some perceived sense of authority.