bambi

LOL Emerald is going to puke when she sees this

Okay now your goalpoasts are moving. Depending on how you are defining 'masculine' or 'feminine' and what attributes you are arbitrarily assigning, then perhaps. Generalisations are simply heuristics, and in the way they have been used in this thread and other areas, they are reductive and oppresive, and dont create a clear or accurate picture of human psychology. And the meta-problem here for me is a deep misunerstnading of the implicit problems and trade offs with heuristics, which will only become apparent as one progresses toward stage teal and turqoise. Your broad generalisations such that men are logical, are just not close to being true for someone at the higher levels, this heurisitical thinking is seen as sloppy, and mostly unhelpful for dealing with the current issues. At some levels there are trends within male and female psychology, but there are as much differences as there are similarities, and the collatarel damage the generalisations and stereotypes cause, means using them categorically in the way you and others love to do is a deep flaw, only revealed at turqoise. Ultimately there are deeper, more accurate ways of dealing with human psychology, and gender heuristics isnt one of them.

It is a fallacy, there is no causation. That is the fallacy. Theres also hasty generalistion fallacy if you care to learn it. Men can be either predominently masculine or femine, and same for women The truth is humans are having a varied and dynamic mix of femine and masucline qualities or traits. Even the traits themselves arent normalised and standardised. So the statemement Men are x is fallacious, there is no causality there. Furhter I would argue these generalisaitons are toxic and not healthy to modern society.

I will see you as non-binary

I always thought you were male! Same with nuwu! Maybe all the whoring myself out has paid dividends with my spider sense

I put 10 of "saint' Emeralds post at random and this was AIs review. There is so much bias, favouritism, group think, social posturing going on that is anthetical to true honest and authentic discourse: These posts collectively reveal several recurring themes, including condescension, self-aggrandizing behavior, and dismissiveness towards opposing views. While the writer attempts to provide valuable insights, the tone often undermines the intended message. Here is a comprehensive critique with supporting excerpts: 1. Condescending Attitude In multiple posts, the writer takes a tone that suggests those who hold different views are ignorant or misguided. For example: "They believe they know better about female sexuality than women do because guys on the internet told them so." The implication here is that men are naive for believing such sources, which comes across as belittling. The phrase "because guys on the internet told them so" dismisses their perspectives as unworthy of consideration. "If you pay attention to how reality actually works, you'll be able to let go of these silly narratives and actually be able to have normal interactions with women without tons of shame popping up." The phrase "pay attention to how reality actually works" implies that the recipient's current understanding is inherently flawed and that only the writer sees the truth. Using "silly narratives" also diminishes the beliefs being held, further enhancing the condescending tone. 2. Self-Aggrandizing The writer often positions herself as possessing superior insight compared to the people she's addressing. This creates an air of intellectual or emotional superiority. For instance: "I understand their perspectives 100%." This kind of statement is self-aggrandizing because it suggests that her understanding is complete and perfect, whereas others lack that understanding. "And I could give a lot of great relationship advice for women, and the topic is somewhat interesting to me. But I don't want to become known for it." Here, the writer asserts her capability of giving "great relationship advice" and implies that she chooses not to do so, which frames her as someone with valuable expertise she chooses not to share. "And if you can grasp that, you will understand that I'm trying to do you a solid and that my previous post was for your benefit." This phrasing implies that the recipient is not yet capable of grasping the writer's deeper truths, positioning her as the wiser party trying to help the less knowledgeable. 3. Dismissiveness Toward Opposing Views Throughout the posts, the writer tends to invalidate opposing perspectives rather than acknowledging any potential value or nuance: "They perceives that it's either/or, so they don't want to listen and learn." The implication is that the men being referred to are rigid and incapable of understanding complex or reconciled perspectives. This dismissal of their views is evident in many responses. "It's just part of the way that grifters in the Manosphere capitalize off of men's insecurities and shame by selling themselves as a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist." The use of the word "grifters" and the outright dismissal of the entire viewpoint as merely a marketing ploy diminishes any potential legitimacy of those who subscribe to these ideas. It also paints all men who are influenced by such views as gullible. 4. Metaphors and Analogies that Undermine Others Some of the analogies used in the posts serve to further underscore the perceived inferiority of opposing views: "It's like someone was in a red and yellow room and came to the confident but ignorant conclusion that the entire world is red and yellow." This analogy implies that the men she's addressing are naïve and overconfident in their limited perspective. The metaphor serves to simplify their view to the point of absurdity, which comes across as condescending. "Guys who approach romantically right away are analogous to reading the end of the mystery novel first. It destroys the tension and mystery and there's no barriers to push up against to develop deeper levels of intimacy." While this analogy is not as directly dismissive, it implies that men who approach romantically from the beginning are doing something inherently wrong, "destroying the tension." The writer's preference is framed as the only valid or "interesting" way to pursue a relationship. 5. Inconsistent Attempts at Balance In some instances, the writer attempts to add a balanced perspective but then undercuts it by asserting her superior understanding: "Yet again, I understand that when people are looking for a partner, they might be more open to meeting people they don't yet know for those purposes." This statement appears to acknowledge differing approaches, but it is followed by more emphasis on her preference for a "slow burn" and the downplaying of immediate romantic interest as "less compelling." The effect is that the balanced perspective feels insincere. "Of course, there are women who exist that want to go after a guy for his status, money, fame, etc. And of course, gold-diggers exist. But these women are in the minority." This acknowledgment is then followed by her assurance that "most women" do not behave this way, implying that the opposing view is mostly irrelevant or misunderstood. Conclusion The writer's overall intent seems to be to provide valuable insights into relationships and female sexuality. However, the delivery is frequently undermined by a tone that is condescending, self-aggrandizing, and dismissive of opposing perspectives. The repeated assertion of her superior understanding and the use of belittling language often alienate the audience she appears to be addressing. To improve, the writer could: Acknowledge Valid Points: Recognize that even perspectives she disagrees with may have valid aspects or underlying truths. This would help create a more inclusive and balanced discussion. Avoid Absolutism: Phrasing like "100% understanding" and "that's not true" implies a level of certainty that can come across as arrogant. Adding more tentative language, like "in my experience" or "it's possible that," would soften the tone. Foster Empathy: Rather than dismissing opposing views as misguided or naive, the writer could demonstrate empathy by exploring why people might hold those views and offering her perspective as an addition rather than a correction. Use Less Dismissive Language: Terms like "grifters," "bro-science," and "silly narratives" contribute to a sense of superiority. Neutral language would be more effective in inviting others to consider her perspective without feeling attacked or belittled. Overall, while the writer's knowledge and perspective could be valuable, the delivery often closes off productive dialogue by asserting her views in a way that comes across as patronizing. A more empathetic and open approach could better facilitate mutual understanding and meaningful discussion.

It isn't regarding her perspective. Its her tone and posturing. She doesnt appreciate it when its mirrored. Like I said, don't make it personal, put it through an AI, it will remove all the biases. Pretty much every single post she makes is from a superiority complex and is self absorbed and condesceding. This is literally from AI. Nothing personal about it I can totally accept my posts are condescending, hostile, and confrontational, no doubt baout it. Can she admit ego-construct of hers?

Like I said, if you cant accept the truth. Put the posts in this thread through AI and have your biases and delusions regarding yourself and Emarald eradicated instantly, if you dare

Sure, but my main drive is to call out her constant superirity and condescion. All of my posts to her are explicitly doing this. Run 1-2-3-4 of her posts through any of your favourite AI models. Her and other posters get away far too much with this condescension and ego-mania. I am 110% aware of everything in my posts lol

LOL are you serious? What an ego-maniac Literally 90% of your posts are you unsolcited helping others, from your superiroty complex The majority of your posts are condescending, self absorbed and deluded, just like Princess How insane you cannot see it. If you are free to be condescending, give unsolicted help, and walk around with you superioty complex, then so am I Your ego won't like this post and your self defense mechanisms will try to protect you. You can copy your posts on this forum into AI and ask it about your self absorbed condescion, what a pleasant awakening it will be for you

The core pattern goes like this: Pyschological type (as defined by Jung), dictates logical preference. Certain personalities types prioritize logic. More men in soceity currently have this logical personality types on average. But it is probaly 60/40 split It is a complete fallacy to claim men are logical dominant vs females.

I want to join the circle jerk party too lol!

Yes exactly, this is what saint like help looks light. I see you struggling and help immediately out of kindness

I am not only helping you with you archaic and infantile view on women sexuality, but sexuality as a whole. You have a chronic and distorted view with an equal refusal to accept any help Sexuality is ultimately unique to the individual of both sexes. We are breaking down components to understand commonalities and patterns, so your constant sleight of hand to promote womens sexuality as holistic and unique and mens as shallow and broken is absurd Deep specifc attraction and pair bonding only ever comes as a package deal for men too, what are you not getting here? Your claim that women dont care at all about objective qualities such as fame, height, looks, status, etc etc is just patently and demonstrably false. What an absurd claim to make. What a sweeping debased generalisation to make. Would you like to redact? All you are saying in your ramble is two benign points: 1) Womens core attraction and romantic selection criteria are completely orthogonal to surface level or evolutonary adapted attributes. This is an incorrect sweeping generalisation, that is not close to true for all females 2) The emotional and unique preferences of each women are higher weighting then males in the selection process, This is correct. Women tend to have a different selection process for men, especially when selecting for long term partners over short term ones. Things like safety, security, emotional reciprcoity etc are more highly valued for sure. But not totally devoid in mens selection etiher, its about weighting and preference. Any appeal to evolutionary biology will simply lead to a different but matching set of criteria of men and women, NOT that women are holistic and subjective and men are fragmented and shallow. They are selecting for different criteria, as they have different survival concerns Your key mistakes is again, your toxic and incorrect categorical generalisations. They are impairing your view on the diversity of female sexuality. And they are creating a false dichotomy in your mind between men and women. Your post is just absurd in so many ways. It is literally insinuating women are incapable of short term sexual encounters, or sex for pleasure outside of pair bonding. Its obviously false, so why are you even suggesting it?

Tell me about, I am not being paid to respond to you and Emerald lol! You do not engage, as you have no counter arguments to any of my points or posts, and you are scared to agree. There is nothing more complicated then this

For me this is childish narrative building. I dont subscribe to it. But I am sexually experienced. All of your worries and issues are insantly solved with confidence and experience and development. All of this type of questions will not even appear to you

I am not a massive JP proponent, but this is one of my favourite videos of him

The solution is obvious and simple, become the healthiest version of yourself, deal with your trauma and any low self esteem, build healthy habits, and find a partner that you are compatible with beyond initial attraction mechanisms if you are selecting for a long term mate. You should be clear on your intention, and have boundaries and standards of what you are interested in. You need to know yourself, your preferences, what you like, what turns you on, who you are comfortbale around etc etc Beyond this I worked for over 5 years buildind my own models on romantic comaptibiltiy derived form jungian psychologicla types and ennegram tritype theory. But we are years away from this being consistently useful for the average human The qualities needed to sleep with women are not the same to be in a long term healthy relationships. The traits you are selecting for would equally be different too.

Actually incase you couldnt tell, I am mirroring them, except I am being authentic about it lol!

LOL saint like love, your are swimming in a swamp of delusion. If you want to engage in a circle jerk, rather then engage in an intellectuall discourse, this is your prerogative, but don't bullshit yourself or other people. Have you considered private messaging her? Or would that ruin the virtue signalling persona?

This is false. I have already outlined in several posts (which you conveniently ignored) how it is you who are engaging in reductionism. You continue to promote a broken rhetoric built on reductive gender dichotomies, misrepresenting what others are saying, and confining yourself to an echo chamber. Female sexuality is neither difficult to understand nor arbitrary as you insinuate. Your core issues, which I've highlighted before, are as follows: You do not understand the difference between initial and generic attraction traits versus specific and unique romantic and pair-bonding traits, and you consistently conflate the two. You engage in false dichotomies and fallacies, often ignoring that most of what you claim is largely gender-agnostic. You promote toxic stereotypes, which are harmful and unhelpful. Human needs in relationships transcend gender. Most of our core needs are universal—we all seek relationships that align with shared values, goals, along with specific traits and preferences. There is nothing inherently unique to female sexuality in this regard. Jungian psychological types and the Enneagram psycho-spiritual framework provide a far more powerful, gender-agnostic approach to understanding romantic compatibility. Your reductionist approach exacerbates harmful gender divides and promotes false narratives that are counterproductive. Ultimately, human sexuality is about becoming the most authentic, confident, honest, healthy, and integrated version of oneself, for both sexes. Success in relationships comes from being authentic, developing good habits, and cultivating integrity. Your archaic, flawed stereotypes serve no purpose but to further divide and limit genuine understanding. I strictly reject your toxic gender stereotypes and impositions. .

Do you genuinely believe all men are driven by calculating logic? Id say 50% of men are highly emotional and illogical

Got it, but your writing lacks clarity or logical structure. Which makes it incredibly hard to follow. Its like a spew of conciousness or personal ramblings which lack any coherence. It also doesnt seem to follow the thread from what I can see, it isnt clear who or what you are adressing.

I have no idea what you are saying, so I asked an AI to review, did it accurately sum up what you were attempting to say (it took 4 reinforcement attempts)? The author believes that many men, especially in self-development circles, focus on improving the outside (status, looks, etc.) but neglect emotional growth. This lack of emotional depth means they struggle in relationships with women who are truly in touch with their emotions. Instead, they go for women who are less emotionally developed, and those women may suppress their true selves to fit in. The author is critical of both the men and the resulting relationship dynamic.

How old are you Davino?