Sugarcoat

Ofc one shouldn’t treat someone differently based on attractiveness as I said before some of it is biological so being attracted to people about your own level of attractiveness. But when it comes to women and much more attractive guys I’d say it’s not about him potentially treating them badly but simply how the woman might struggle finding herself desirable in comparison, independent of how he treats her (even if he treats her good) ofc this doesn’t apply to all women but some can work like this

I’d say similarly I think, but some might genuinely be into a more “bear” look sexually. But now we getting into details, as you say can’t know for sure

I thought similarly too

Also another point the first guy looks more masculine so might give impression of being more masculine subconsciously, this connects to what NoSelfSelf said about women connecting looks to behavior

I’m not

You have to understand women want to feel attractive. Emerald talked about this. So they might sometimes be drawn to less attractive men in order for them to feel attractive in comparison. Here the only other choice is a top model guy, if the choice was between a maybe 7/10 guy vs the first one I bet they would’ve chosen the 7/10 guy . Dating a top model isn’t quite appealing to many women who aren’t models themselves. Just because someone is more conventionally attractive doesn’t mean women will be more attracted to him, by this thing of feeling desirable themselves as I mentioned . And just biologically too, we tend to be attracted to people around our own level of attractiveness. Plus a last point women aren’t as looks oriented when being attracted to men as men are

This is indeed a fascinating topic

Ok I see

Thanks

Feel free to start a thread

Whaat I’ve gotten good impressions. Especially Jim Newman whom I like he’s very simple and straightforward

I didn’t quote them exactly

That’s an interesting take. I don’t know , it’s a tricky thing to figure out. Also in terms of language, how different people use words differently. When I say non dualists I’m talking about someone like Jim Newman or Tony parson, who claim to have no self but everything is in a way the same

I think like this too. But at the same time some non dualists claim it’s all the same. Maybe they still have a human ego but without a sense of I somehow, don’t know how that would work

How do you explain these non dualists though that claim the I sense had dropped for them?

Some people speak in terms of how the sense of self is “taught” through for example language by constantly being referred to. I don’t know if I agree with this, would a person isolated on an iland away from society from birth develop a sense of i? I do think so, because the sense of self in my theory seems to be of the human brain. Maybe the identity would be more simple though, but the person would feel like a separate self. I’m not fully sure though

Cool thx. I can maybe kinda get what u mean

What do you mean by “operative “

Ok I’m with you there I think

You’re saying “you” as in existence itself ?

No I live near the capital 😊

I agree.

Basically this post highlighted how the average human experience isn’t so bad after all. And by being conscious sentient beings it allows us to experience good things , in contrast to for example a plant that doesn’t have a conscious experience. One could wonder though , if the sense of self disappeared would all the things I wrote still be possible? What’s the difference between a vegetable and an enlightened person in terms of their “pov”? It might sound ridiculous but it’s something legit that could be discussed

How does that work? Enlighten me