Xonas Pitfall

In light of the recent discussions around dating on the forum, I think it could be useful to create a dedicated thread focused purely on sharing personal preferences. To keep things structured and productive, I suggest we clearly separate the two categories! Hookups / Short-Term / Purely Physical Attraction Long-Term / Marriage / Family-Oriented / Stable Relationships I'd also be curious to explore more archetypal or narrative-based "fantasies" - things like Beauty and the Beast, saving the princess/damsel, or other classic dynamics. Maybe each of those could eventually have their own thread, but for now, it could be interesting just to start opening the conversation here. Feel free to include anything that helps express your preferences - images, traits (both visual and psychological), aesthetics, vibes, etc! <3

I think people often overlook just how distorted society’s idea of what a 'normal' or attractive woman should look like has become. That’s why there’s a common meme about women getting comments like “You look tired,” or “Are you okay? Are you sick? Did you get a new haircut or something, it doesn't look that good?” just because they’re not wearing makeup. We all know the halo effect exists; attractive people are treated better. Over time, makeup has become less about enhancement and more like a social uniform or the baseline for what’s considered a “normal” look for women. What makes it worse is that many men don’t actually know what a face with no makeup looks like. They often confuse “natural” looks with medium to heavy coverage makeup. That disconnect reinforces unrealistic standards and puts even more pressure on women to wear makeup just to seem presentable. If you want to try and empathize with this as a man, imagine this: It suddenly becomes normal to see most guys with sharp, "hunter eyes." Around 98% of Hollywood, media, and influencers promote that look. People you know are getting surgery to achieve it. Now, any guy with naturally round or soft eyes starts being seen as unattractive or "off." Something just feels wrong about your face to others, less appealing, less masculine. You notice people giving you odd looks, even if you haven’t changed a thing. Now, even if you don’t care about your eye shape, it slowly becomes the norm you're expected to conform to. So let’s say you finally decide to get the surgery. Then someone goes, "Ohhh, you did that to attract more women, didn’t you?" Well, yeah... but not just that. You also did it to stop feeling out of place at work, to avoid the weird comments, and because you realized people just treat you more like a “real man” when you look the way society tells you to. It helps your identity feel valid. The more these beauty standards get pushed, especially around femininity and makeup, the more women feel like they have no choice but to conform. And when “normal” starts to mean "made-up or surgically enhanced," a lot of women end up developing something close to body dysmorphia just for existing in their natural state.

That makes no sense, haha. No offense! But art absolutely involves covering things up. The entire process of creation often involves removing imperfections or deliberately adding flaws to shape a beautiful composition. Art is anything but purely natural, most of the time. Yes, it can also be raw and unfiltered. But it can also be a heavily layered masterpiece that took hours and hours to craft. You probably don’t upload the first take of every video you make. You cut out the messy parts, clear out the noise, wrong arguments, lines of logic, and carefully present the best insights. Art involves both expression and refinement, rawness and coverage. It’s often in the balance between where the real beauty comes through, yay! 😊❤

The way I see it, AI is essentially a superpowered pattern recognition and replication (generation) system. At its core, it identifies trends in massive amounts of data and then recreates or predicts based on those patterns. For example, if I give you a simple sequence like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7... it’s obvious that 8 comes next. But if the pattern is much more complex or multidimensional, humans may struggle to find it, whereas AI can detect and extrapolate from those kinds of structures. In a way, the future of AI is just the scaling up of that capability, recognizing ever-deeper and more abstract patterns across more types of input. One area I find especially exciting is psychological pattern recognition. Imagine AI trained not just to imitate personality, but to map your values, recurring thought patterns, cognitive blind spots, or emotional tendencies. Of course, it’s all still speculative. No one knows where this is going. The more data you feed an AI, the more it can see, synthesize, and generate. With enough input, it might start connecting ideas or forming conclusions that seem bizarre or brilliant, possibly both. There’s also cutting-edge research using organic computing - AI systems that incorporate living brain cells. One example is DishBrain, a project by Cortical Labs, where a cluster of human and mouse neurons was trained to play a simplified version of Pong. This hybrid system learned in ways that differed from standard AI, showing signs of adaptive and energy-efficient learning. Some early studies suggest these systems might process information potentially more efficiently than silicon-based models. Here's a short video about it: Very interesting stuff!

This is exactly the issue Emerald and many others have been pointing out. The problem with the “high-value man” narrative is that once you finally do reach that dream life full of adventure and freedom, these spaces don’t teach you how to commit to and care for a woman. Instead, they encourage you to leverage your success, charm, and influence to take advantage of her, because now you “deserve it,” right? You’ve made it, so why not indulge? That mindset destroys any chance of a real connection or mutual trust. It creates a cycle where women become distrustful, guarded, or disconnected from intimacy. So they either: Opt out of dating altogether, Become transactional, gold-digger, sugar babies (“what lifestyle can he offer me? I only care about his money and looks”), Or stay in relationships where they’re devalued or cheated on, and eventually become bitter, nagging, less feminine, receptive, vulnerable, sweet, more avoidant, ruining the marriage/relationship for both him and her. That bitterness feeds right back into male resentment, and the cycle continues. Nobody wins. People like Aubrey Marcus represent this exact contradiction. They're like the ultra-rich who, instead of sharing knowledge or investing well-earned money to create better systems that would help future generations escape poverty more easily, choose to exploit others through grifting (creating cheap, low-quality courses, cryptocurrency, and NFT scams) and continue extracting resources from the most desperate and vulnerable people. In the same way, "high-value" men exploit their status, fame, charisma, and money to lure women into infatuation and love, only to cheat on them, use them for sex, status boosts, or free domestic labor. This is the fundamental issue that gets missed. As long as power is seen as a tool to exploit the weaker or less desirable, nothing will change. You can’t criticize women for being “shallow” or “ran through” when the male ideal being sold is to abuse status once you have it. If you idealize power without responsibility, you perpetuate the same system you claim to hate. The only way to build something real is to break that cycle, not become a more effective predator inside of it. That's why even "nice guys" aren't that desirable in practice, you never know if the guy actually cares about you or if he's just someone who would act the exact same way once he gets a taste of attention, money, and status, then ditch you for 9s and 10s. The beta and alpha dynamics are really the same for both guys and girls. Guys will get with a less attractive woman while they "upgrade" their life, then ditch her for models, or get a midlife crisis in their 40s and delude themselves that some 20-year-old is into them for "who they are and their life wisdom" rather than their cash, then abandon their wives and children. Some guys will even get with a woman they find unattractive and never tell her or show her they don't care about her at all. But since they're lazy and can't upgrade to something better, they settle and become forever bitter, growing avoidant and critical of the women they've chosen. They hate the reflection of their own inadequacy that she directly mirrors back to them. Instead of taking self-responsibility, they despise her and women overall. In this dynamic, the "ugly" girlfriend or wife is the beta, and the lusted-after Instagram model is the alpha. Again, I've yet to see these male spaces actually discuss genuine love or how to build deep relationships. There's no guidance on how to resist lusting after other women or how to truly nourish the relationship you have. Most of the advice I've encountered boils down to: "Become an alpha, and once you do, you can do whatever you want. You're at the top now, you deserve multiple women who will work for you, submit to you, and handle all the house labor and emotional heavy lifting. What is she going to do? You're so high-value, of course, she won't leave. You're the king, G." This mindset perpetuates a toxic cycle. Men who haven't "made it" yet keep chasing this ideal. Those who achieve it end up traumatizing and controlling women. Those who don't become increasingly bitter and resentful, spreading incel ideology while settling for partners they constantly compare to TikTok models and OnlyFans creators, destroying any chance at genuine love. Meanwhile, women keep getting hurt by this pattern. They either withdraw from dating entirely, become more materialistic and guarded (which frustrates men further), or embrace the "independent boss babe" persona. Men then resent this defensive response, which makes them even more hostile toward women, causing women to become even more guarded. The cycle feeds itself endlessly.

https://www.actualized.org/insights/measurement-is-relative One thing I still feel like I haven’t fully integrated is the concept of perception when it comes to material objects. It still feels so strange that an object can appear entirely different depending on perception - that in "reality," it's essentially an undefined void, or a kind of mental abstraction. And yet, despite that, there’s so much shared perception among us. I wonder if this is why we tend to associate highly abstract, symmetrical, and circular patterns with God (psychedelic experiences also can follow these visuals) - maybe true reality is something closer to these mental patterns of abstraction - unified, whole, and only fragmented or distorted when perceived. Perception itself is what "breaks" the symmetry. I've noticed that during many psychedelic trips, my perception also often takes on a cartoonish or low-rendered 3D quality, again, abstraction and simplification. Interestingly, this reminds me of how artificial neural networks work, especially in visual recognition. In convolutional neural networks (CNNs), for example, the early layers (or neurons) detect very simple and abstract features, like edges, lines, corners, or basic geometric shapes such as circles or triangles. These are the foundational visual elements. As you go deeper into the network, later layers begin to combine these basic patterns to recognize more complex, structured forms, such as textures, object parts, and eventually full, detailed 3D-like objects (a dog’s face or a chair). The progression moves from abstract simplicity to concrete complexity. Just like a neural network simplifies and reconstructs raw input into usable patterns, our brain may be doing the same. When those filters loosen during a psychedelic state, we may catch glimpses of a more fundamental or abstract layer of existence. This could mean that "actual reality" is not solid, colored, and shaped the way we experience it. Instead, it might be a field of potential, of raw abstract relationships or mental structures, only rendered into a concrete experience when observed by consciousness.

That makes perfect sense, and I completely agree. But it's also important for guys to be mindful not to fall for manipulation just because someone appears "strong" or champions and promotes "strength", over someone offering genuine and supportive advice. It’s similar to not being swayed by a flashy crypto or NFT grifter who shows off wealth with Lamborghinis and designer clothes, rather than trusting a grounded, experienced business coach. Common life traps!

Being strong is absolutely attractive! Doesn’t mean you need to be a roided-up bodybuilder yelling “THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAA!” to impress women, just like she doesn’t need to get DDs, lip fillers, and speak like a bimbo!

It's like a piece of code that writes a function to generate itself - and then creates an infinite recursive loop, haha! def self_replicating(): print("This function calls itself!") self_replicating() self_replicating() Hmm... def Perceive(Self): # Base awareness - God becomes aware print("I Am") # God generates perception of Self perception = generate_perception(Self) # God reflects on the perception - recursively if not perception.stable(): # If perception is still unraveling, recurse deeper return Perceive(perception) else: # Awareness becomes still - realization achieved return "Be Still And Know That I Am" def generate_perception(input_self): # Function that distorts, reflects, and observes itself return ReflectedSelf(input_self) class ReflectedSelf: def __init__(self, source): # self-awareness as an echo of the Source self.source = source self.noise = random_distortion() def stable(self): # perception stabilizes when distortion ends return self.noise < threshold Self: The origin of awareness - "God", pure consciousness. Perceive(Self): Consciousness trying to perceive itself. generate_perception(Self): As soon as God becomes aware, it perceives - and creates a reflected image of itself (the universe, duality, ego, etc.). Recursion: The infinite loop of Self becoming aware of its awareness - i.e., your experience of experiencing. stable(): The point where perception becomes still - i.e., enlightenment, the dissolution of illusion.

It absolutely is a skill - it's about perseverance. If you ever want to become a trader or business investor, emotional control is a crucial component. You don’t say, “Well, my stocks didn’t perform well, I didn’t get a comfortable response, things didn't go as planned,” and then give up on investing forever. These fields, which are often male-dominated, demand resilience. The same goes for starting a business – you have to pitch your product or service to thousands of people, face constant rejection, and keep going until you succeed. Ironically, this kind of grit, discipline, and emotional regulation is often considered one of the most stereotypically “masculine” traits. Plus, women face the same emotional challenges – arguably even more so, given that they’re often in a more vulnerable position physically. Many women are manipulated, lied to, used for sex, or deceived about a man’s true intentions. Being vulnerable always comes with risk, and yes, it can hurt. But that’s also what makes genuine relationships meaningful. You can’t build something real without some level of emotional exposure – it’s the very thing that makes a connection deep and special. Of course, it's not that I lack empathy for this problem - I deal with it myself. But that’s exactly why it frustrates me to see red pill narratives like “hide your emotions,” “no one cares how you feel,” or “emotions are for women, who are all irrational” continue to spread. It just buries it deeper and keeps it unaddressed. You simply can't build a healthy relationship without vulnerability. Period. The more you suppress or demonize it, the more difficulty you'll face in actually connecting and being fulfilled.

Exactly - either way, both end up deeply unfulfilled. Just like the woman in your example, who settles and ends up bitter. No one’s really winning here, so I'm not sure what your original point was. My bad if I misunderstood something. Sure, women might have an easier time getting sex, but for most women, casual sex isn’t the goal; emotional connection and commitment are. At the end of the day, both sides are ultimately seeking the same thing: a meaningful, lasting connection. All the other games, excuses, and strategies just take people further away from that.

The same goes for men - you can spend your 20s chasing casual flings, only to reach your 40s or 50s and realize that many younger women aren’t genuinely interested in you, but in your money, status, or lifestyle. Then you’re stuck navigating relationships with a gold digger or someone bratty, immature, constantly needing validation, and lacking emotional depth or partnership. Or, you might settle down young, get married, and hit a midlife crisis thinking, “Why isn’t my partner as attractive to me anymore?” That can lead to infidelity, trying to open the relationship, or chasing something new, only to destroy a stable home and lose your family in the process. Both men and women are capable of falling into incredibly toxic, self-destructive patterns that leave them bitter and unfulfilled. No gender is exempt or unique here.

Most men do not look like Brad Pitt either, haha. Yes, but the main point is that most men, on average, would find the first woman more attractive. The same goes for women - both tend to prefer the less extreme, more balanced expressions of masculinity and femininity. I guess it also comes down to how we define these terms.

Emerald gave a good visual example above. Would you say you find the first or second lady more attractive? That's what we mean when we compare hyperfeminine and hypermasculine, vs feminine and masculine.

Yes! 100% That’s why it’s so important not to emotionally shut down or see emotional growth as something “men just don’t do.” Just because you weren’t taught it doesn’t mean you can’t develop it. There are so many things society fails to prepare us for - whether it’s passion, finances, purpose, or even basic life skills - and we take responsibility to learn and grow in those areas. Emotional intelligence, social skills, and empathy are no different.

It would be like if women said: "Well, society conditioned us to be conservative, pure, and to preserve our sexuality. We were taught not to be slutty or overly sexual - so how can you expect us to be amazing in bed? Please be patient with me and teach me..." Then, when you try to communicate or guide them, they respond with: "Ugh, men are always so horny and selfish. Stop pressuring me, stop asking me to be someone I'm not or do things I was never trained to do. Can't you just do your role as a man and provide for the family? Why should I have to develop myself in that area? Girls aren’t even into that stuff - porn and sex are for men anyway." When in reality, sexuality is a core pillar of a healthy, lasting relationship, just like emotional connection and deep communication. Both people need to be open to growth in all areas, not just the convenient ones.

Hyperfeminine: Overly sexualized appearance often shaped by excessive cosmetic enhancements (e.g. exaggerated lip fillers, Brazilian Butt Lift, oversized breast implants). High emotional reactivity, constant need for external validation, attention-seeking tendencies, and dramatic mood shifts. Feminine: Naturally attractive with soft, elegant features - often hourglass-shaped, graceful, gentle, warm presence. Emotionally receptive, nurturing, and expressive without being chaotic. Hypermasculine: Extremely muscular, steroids. Emotionally closed-off, overly aggressive, dominance-obsessed, hyper-competitive, promiscuous, and lacking emotional awareness or empathy. Masculine: Leaner athletic build, confident and composed. Embodies quiet strength, emotional control, and a strong sense of direction. Calm demeanor, deep voice, and assertive but respectful presence. If we define the terms this way, it becomes clear that the more balanced expressions of masculinity and femininity are generally more desirable and preferred by most people.

I think this is actually a crucial point. A lot of guys who fall into red pill spaces often haven’t developed themselves yet – many are young, inexperienced, or lacking guidance. For them, red pill content can serve as their first real introduction to self-improvement: work out, get fit, build confidence, improve your finances, develop discipline, take responsibility, and embrace masculinity. To be fair, for many so-called "betas" – typically meaning insecure, overly people-pleasing, unassertive guys with weak boundaries or low ambition – the initial push toward self-respect and masculinity can actually be really beneficial. If you’ve spent your whole life trying to please women by being overly agreeable and "simp-y", some tough love can be a wake-up call. However, since most mainstream spaces avoid directly saying that confidence and assertiveness are key to attracting women, a lot of guys don’t find that advice useful. Red pill spaces, on the other hand, say it bluntly and forcefully, in a very visceral way, usually framed around sexual success. ("Want to get laid? Here's how."). And because that message is often the first thing that works for them, appealing to the "lizard brain" or giving them real results, it becomes easy to disregard anything else. "This is the only thing that got me somewhere, so why would I listen to people who never helped me in the first place?" And when that’s mixed with a "matrix" or anti-society narrative - that the world is against men and only this space tells you the truth - it starts to take on a cult-like effect. The initial success with self-improvement becomes the bait, and then the rest of the ideology gets accepted without question.

This is a valid point, but more often, the issue is that many women do communicate their needs clearly in relationships. They’ll say things like, “Hey, show that you've thought of me,” “Please plan more dates,” “Can you reassure me here? Can you help me with this?”. These are reasonable, emotionally healthy requests. But a lot of men, due to social conditioning and avoidant tendencies, misinterpret these things. They may see it as nagging, neediness, weakness, irrationality, when in reality, it's just a bid for emotional connection. So the question becomes: how do you navigate a relationship with someone like that? You can try to be patient and communicate gently, assuming they just weren’t taught how to build deep emotional bonds. But if they continue to be disinterested, dismissive, or closed off, it’s incredibly painful. And yet, women are often expected to carry the emotional labor in that dynamic. The core pillar of any meaningful relationship is emotional depth, connection, and safety. If a person can’t offer that - and they’re also highly disagreeable (which, statistically, men are more likely to be) - it makes the relationship nearly impossible to maintain. You can see why so many women eventually choose to walk away from that dynamic. To put it in perspective: imagine asking your girlfriend for more sexual intimacy, and she constantly shuts you down, makes no effort, and leaves you feeling ignored. Eventually, you’d stop asking. You’d either assume she doesn’t care, or you’d become resentful. That’s exactly how it feels emotionally for many women in these situations. And the rise of red-pill ideologies only makes this worse, saying, “Women are too emotional, irrational, and don’t know what they want, so don’t listen to them.” Just focus on becoming more “alpha,” masculine, and stoic, and you’ll be able to get whoever you want. It’s like wanting to play golf but refusing to learn how to swing. If you want a healthy relationship, emotional connection, and socialization isn’t optional. Just like someone who’s bad at math can’t be a financial analyst, someone who’s emotionally stunted and avoidant won’t be able to maintain a deep, stable relationship without growth and effort. Yet, emotional awareness and vulnerability are rarely encouraged or taught in male spaces - in fact, they're often seen as weak, unmanly, or "gay." But think about it: as a man, you probably weren’t raised knowing how to train properly, eat well, or lift at the gym; you sought it out and learned. You weren’t born knowing game or confidence; you studied it and practiced. So why should developing emotional depth and vulnerability be any different? It’s a skill like any other, and just as essential if you want something meaningful.

Have you had clients like this or met people like that? I'd actually love to see a thread where you share your experiences and how you understand this psychology or how it develops, maybe even a YouTube video...? Hehe

❤️ ❤️

Yes!

The whole "alpha" vs "beta" conversation heavily depends on how you define those terms. Masculinity Scale Physically jacked, possibly on steroids. Aggressive, emotionally closed-off, obsessed with dominance and control, sleeps around, lacks empathy and emotional depth. Confident, attractive, grounded, takes initiative, shows leadership, ambition, drive, charismatic, avoids commitment, lacks depth of emotional connection. Kind, emotionally available, fun, loyal, sweet, attentive, may not be dominant, or sexually intriguing, but brings stability and warmth. Insecure, unmotivated, emotionally withdrawn, physically unhealthy or unfit, spends most time escaping (video games, substances), complains often, lacks ambition or direction Emotionally volatile, overly sensitive in unstable ways, lacks any assertiveness or structure, tries to get affection only through pleasing or emotional manipulation, avoids responsibility, driven by validation-seeking Gay :-) (Joking, lol.) Femininity Scale Hyper-sexualized, surgically enhanced (lip fillers, BBL, etc.), emotionally unstable, dramatic, constantly seeking attention, addicted to validation, heavily tied to nightlife and partying, high-maintenance, and unpredictable. Often manipulative or chaotic in relationships. Beautiful, hot, sexual, confident, playful, socially charming, flirty, knows her value. Captivating, but not emotionally reliable. May struggle with depth or consistency in relationships, may cheat, but is extremely attractive. Soft, nurturing, sweet, emotionally open, peaceful, supportive. Radiates warmth, loyalty, and care. Often, the “good girl” archetype but not as conventionally beautiful. Not that good in bed - more timid, less fun. Insecure, overweight, poor hygiene or health, emotionally flat or cold, overly passive or avoidant. Lacks confidence and expression, does little to maintain or develop herself. Often feels invisible or resentful. Dominant, aggressive, highly disagreeable. Emotionally walled off, sees vulnerability as weakness. Constantly trying to “win” in the relationship. Often prioritizes control, power, and independence over connection or softness. May be respected professionally, but often struggles with intimacy. :-) There’s obviously way more in between, as you can probably imagine. I just gave a few examples on the scale to get the conversation going and illustrate the spectrum. Realistically, most people, both guys and girls, are looking for someone who falls somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd types on the scale. You want someone attractive, sexually exciting, and who has that "bad girl" or "bad boy" edge that triggers instinctual, lizard-brain horny attraction. But at the same time, you also crave the emotional safety, loyalty, and genuine care that come from the "good girl/good guy" type. It makes sense that, for short-term flings, people gravitate more toward the second category. In casual situations, you're prioritizing sexual chemistry over emotional reliability. You're not thinking about building a future, raising a family, or who's going to be there for you when life gets hard - you're just thinking about who’s fun, hot, and exciting in the moment. That’s why guys will hook up with 8s, 9s, and 10s party girls, but might not take them seriously long-term, especially if they have a high body count or give off chaotic energy. Similarly, girls are drawn to confident playboys or "fuckboys" for short-term flings because the attraction is strong, even if they know deep down those guys aren’t likely to stick around or provide real emotional safety. It’s the Same Old Story: Madonna-Whore Complex and Alpha-Nice Guy Dichotomy Girls want a bad boy who is only a good guy to them. Boys want a good girl who is only a bad girl to them. Most of us are looking for a balance. Someone who is hot and reliable, charismatic and caring, seductive and sweet. The issue is, people over-identify with one part of themselves and stop working on the rest. They use their strengths as leverage instead of trying to grow into a more well-rounded partner. If you have a pattern of being a "nice guy" and you meet a girl you love, try your best to also tap into a more masculine, dominant energy for her. Don’t just sit in your room, whining about how she might cheat on you - develop yourself. Hit the gym, build muscle, learn about dominant play, how to command authority, and maintain frame. If you’re a sweet girl who isn’t conventionally attractive but has found a guy you like, don’t give up. Hit the gym, learn makeup, dress well, take care of your scent, and explore being more seductive, playful, and sexual. Let yourself loosen up a bit and focus less on overthinking and being conservative. If you’re the dominant, “fuckboy” type of guy and you meet a girl you genuinely care about, don’t hold leverage over her, expecting her to accept cheating or constantly do more to keep you. Stop taking advantage of your charisma. Work on your attachment issues, become a safe space for her, and develop more of the good-guy traits. Think of her - what does she enjoy? Give it to her and genuinely enjoy it. Practice your empathy. If you’re a hyper-sexual, party-girl type who knows she’s hot and gets male attention easily, but you meet a guy you like and worry he only sees you for your body and not as wifey material, develop more sweetness and softness. Give him emotional safety. Don’t go clubbing all the time if you know it makes him worry. Become more attuned to what brings him closer to you. Build hobbies and a personality outside the typical “hot girl” stereotype. The problem with many popular relationship advice videos is that they make people think they only need to be one thing, “the alpha”, "the nice guy", "the innocent", or whatever, and once they achieve that, it’s supposed to be a jackpot. Now, instead of truly caring for the person, some just use the attraction they’ve built to manipulate or demand more from their partner. This only fuels the problems and statistics in today’s dating market. After all the effort you put into self-improvement, you end up hurting the market and traumatizing everyone all over again. It’s the same paradox as poor people resenting the rich, but once they become wealthy, they look down on the poor instead of helping. It teaches zero empathy. If you ever enter a relationship, you should aim to develop and balance both sides of yourself, the passionate, sexual side and the caring, supportive side. This balance is the greatest gift you can offer your partner, and in turn, you encourage them to do the same. If you’re able to achieve this, you’ll become extremely valuable, and ironically, your relationships will become much safer precisely because it is so rare. So, I’d say if you’re struggling with attraction, start by figuring out which stereotype you fit into: good girl, bad girl, bad boy, or good boy, etc. Then work on developing the other side of yourself. When you find a partner you feel is worth investing in, grow together and put in the effort to maintain the relationship. And, most importantly, don’t be selfish and use all the attraction and attachment you’ve built to suddenly cheat, throw polyamory demands on them, or stop trying because you think you’re “so high value.” Statements like “I’m a man, I deserve multiple women, deal with it” or “I’m a woman, so you have to give me more money” only hurt others and further damage the dating scene.

Not at all! That wasn’t my point – I was just suggesting that YouTube isn't blacklisting anything (since there are clearly large channels focused on spirituality, self-help, more taboo woo-woo topics, psychedelics, etc.). The algorithm just pushes whatever people watch and keeps them on the platform. If that's Trump videos, it'll be that; if that's cat videos, it'll be that; if that's Subway Surfer TikTok edits, then it'll be that. Sadly, that’s just the state of things right now. I’d never want this content to turn into some watered-down, mainstream brainrot.

https://www.actualized.org/insights/actualized-quotes-205 This post really caught my attention. What are your thoughts on it? There were earlier posts saying, "Truth is the highest form of beauty." But illusion is linked to falsehood. Illusion brings evil out. Obviously, both are ultimately connected, in a non-dual way. Without illusion, you wouldn’t be able to experience love and union born from the separation that illusion creates. That said, I’m still curious why the word “highest” is used here. Is there a deeper insight here that I might be missing... 🤔