Xonas Pitfall

The problem with these discussions is that I cannot tell which claims are actually being made. The position keeps shifting, which makes real debate impossible. For example, AION initially said we live in a matriarchy, and people responded by explaining why that claim is false. Then the response became, “That is not what we are claiming, we are just saying men and women are different. The system isn't working, it needs change.” Sure, but different how, exactly? Or, he said, “the egoism of our time, it is always me, me, me,” that sounds like a moral complaint, but it does not actually specify a position. What would a society with "less egoism in women" look like in practice? What behaviors would change, and which ones would be discouraged? I am not denying that differences exist. The issue is specificity. There is a huge gap between a modest claim like “women are shorter on average than men” and a sweeping systemic claim like “we live in a society ruled by women,” or “the world is ruined by female egoism”. Those are not even in the same category. What differences are actually being asserted? How large are they? In which domains do they matter? The same problem appears with proposed solutions. Statements like “there should be less promiscuity,” or “families should be more stable” are things most people already agree with. The real disagreement is about the methods. For example, some people might argue that women should return to traditional roles. Others disagree with that approach. That is where the actual debate is. But unless you clearly state whether that is your position, and why, the discussion never reaches the point where disagreement can be meaningfully evaluated. You need to make concrete claims about systems, causes, and proposed changes. Otherwise, we just end up talking past each other.

Self is God! Truth is not meant to be humble nor grand; that is why it is a perfect duality to say the Self is God. Some people make “God” into an other, something separate, and that isn’t in accordance with truth either. Owning that and saying “Self is God” or “I am God” can actually be more truthful. A lot of gurus avoid this. They fear public backlash, sounding too grand, or disrupting a certain identity, so they say things like “All is One” or “All is Love,” but never really own the God aspect of it. Many people also feel that God is too grand, that they could never be it, so they never own it. “Oh, it’s something out there, far away, too perfect, too good. I could never possibly be THAT!” That is also misleading, because it keeps you from realization. At the same time, some people use “God” to make themselves superior to others. In that sense, saying “I am the Self, I am All, Everyone”, "All is Self" can be more humbling. Many cult leaders abused this by placing themselves as a deity and misusing that power. Whatever stops separating you from the other, the self from the other, is the truth. So if you personally find it more truthful, and easier to remember, to see Truth or God as Self, then that is what resonates with you more and aligns you more with truth. Ultimately, it is all the same. A squirrely, weak little ant is God. A trembling leaf in the wind is God. A cracked pebble on the road is God. A tired stray cat hiding from the rain is God. A fading candle flame is God. A bent blade of grass growing through concrete is God. A shallow breath taken in fear is God.

Hahaha, @NewKidOnTheBlock is the saviour! Free my sanity. Keep me away from rage bait. I am calm now. Ommm 🧘‍♂️ Ammm 🌿 Oooom ☁️ Hum 🕊️

@Basman What are you advocating for? What I mentioned is very real. There are plenty of red pill and incel communities that openly think this way and actively promote these ideas on podcasts and across media platforms without any shame. I also brought up the exploitation earlier because it directly relates to this. I don’t understand how my comments are considered irrelevant. I’m interested in hearing your stance. I agree that movements can sometimes swing too far in one direction or another. But overall, I don’t see why feminism would be framed as the biggest problem in society right now, or as some kind of “new moral authority” in the West. It feels similar to when people blame transgender individuals for the supposed decline of society, while those who actually hold the vast majority of power and authority continue to act without accountability. When people at the top control most institutions, wealth, and political influence, it’s hard to see how marginalized groups are the primary cause of broader social or economic issues.

That is exactly my point. Where was the public outcry and dramatic social concern when men commonly had double families or cheated on their wives? It was practically a cultural trope. The husband leaving his wife for a younger woman, the maid, or the secretary was treated as a punchline. There are entire popular films built around that storyline. Back then, it was not framed as a global crisis of male promiscuity. It was brushed off as “male nature.” No one was holding emergency discussions about men’s moral decline. No one was organizing think pieces about how male sexuality was destabilizing families. And where were the conversations about women’s loneliness then? When women sacrificed years of their lives for their husbands, only to be abandoned, where was the concern about a “female loneliness epidemic”? Where was the social panic about the emotional and financial consequences for those women? The same pattern shows up in education. When women were excluded from universities, denied the vote, and kept from literacy and professional life, it was not framed as a social emergency. It was presented as natural. Men were “naturally” the educated providers, the independent ones. Women were “naturally” domestic and dependent. Now that women are entering universities in large numbers, becoming financially independent, and in some cases outperforming men academically, suddenly it is framed as a crisis because men are “falling behind.” Now it is a societal emergency. Now we need urgent discussions, task forces, and concern panels. If we are going to call past imbalances “natural male nature,” then why is current male disengagement not treated the same way? Why is it not described as men being “naturally wired” to retreat into video games, online echo chambers, red pill forums, and pornography? Why does it suddenly require intervention and sympathy instead of being dismissed as biological destiny? That was not the dominant cultural narrative in the past. For decades, marriage was framed, especially among men, as a loss of freedom. The bachelor party was literally marketed as a “last night of freedom.” Sitcoms and stand-up comedy were built on the joke that the husband was trapped, domesticated, and sacrificing his wild, independent life. The cultural archetype was the avoidant who wanted variety and saw marriage as a concession. Women, meanwhile, were stereotyped as the ones pushing for rings, stability, and children. Now that more women are delaying or rejecting marriage and children, the narrative flips. Suddenly it is a crisis. Suddenly it is “decline,” “loss of femininity,” “selfishness,” or “societal collapse.” Now there are urgent conversations about birth rates, tradition, and what women are “supposed” to want. So which is it? When men resisted marriage, it was independence. When women resist it, it is dysfunction. When men avoided fatherhood, it was freedom. When women question motherhood, it is moral failure. Again, this is what keeps proving my point. Where was this sudden level of concern for young women when porn industries were openly exploitative? When pimps operated in plain sight? When modeling agencies recruited teenagers and quietly funneled them into predatory environments? I do not remember endless viral debates, newspaper headlines, or daily podcast outrage about women being coerced, trafficked, and manipulated at scale. But now, when women can enter platforms by choice and control their own income, suddenly it is a moral emergency. “Is OnlyFans destroying society?” “Should we ban it?” When women are lured into cults or exploited by powerful men, the reaction is often dismissive. They are called naïve, attention-seeking, stupid. “Why should I care?”. But when women independently profit from the same desirability that was exploited for decades, now it is framed as corruption, decline, and societal collapse. In a world where figures like Andrew Tate, Diddy, Trump, Epstein, and countless cult leaders operated for years while exploiting young women and girls, often with protection, wealth, and influence shielding them, it is hard to take any claim seriously. Millions of women were harmed in systems that thrived for decades before facing consequences, if they ever did. And then we are told we live in a “matriarchy.” Yet we are supposed to believe that men are overwhelmingly concerned about women’s morality and safety. If that concern were truly consistent, it would not appear only when women gain agency. It would have been just as loud, just as relentless, when women had far less power and far fewer choices. That inconsistency is the real issue. And again, this goes back to the same inconsistency. Where was this intense concern for women’s “health” when the dominant beauty standard was extreme thinness? When hyper-anorexic bodies were promoted as sexy, cute, and ideal? When very young women were pushed into porn or modeling because their youth was fetishized? When increasingly unrealistic beauty standards were amplified through filters, cosmetic procedures, and digital editing, to the point that many men cannot even tell what is real anymore? At no point during those eras did we see the same level of widespread moral panic about women’s health. There were no constant viral debates about how damaging those beauty standards were to women’s bodies and mental well-being. There was no collective emergency about the harm of impossible thinness, cosmetic overuse, or sexualizing barely adult women. But the moment an overweight woman appears confidently in media, suddenly it becomes: “We need to promote health. We care so much for our women.” To be clear, I am not arguing that poor health should be promoted or that obesity has no risks. That is not the point. The point is the selective outrage. The concern often appears only when women’s bodies fall outside of what certain men personally find attractive. Historically, when a body type was desirable to men, even if it was unhealthy, extreme, or exploitative, it was normalized or celebrated. When a body type is undesirable to them, it becomes a crisis, a moral issue, a threat to society. That is why claims of pure concern for “health,” “morality,” or “protection” can ring so hollow. If the standard were truly about well-being, it would be applied consistently across all harmful trends, not only when women stop conforming to a preferred aesthetic. It is reasonable to care about health. It is reasonable to care about promiscuity. It is reasonable to care about hyper-sexualized self-promotion. I agree that these things deserve scrutiny, discussion, and regulation. What feels disingenuous is pretending that personal preference and moral panic are the same thing. If you truly cared about women’s health, dignity, and safety, that concern would be consistent. It would not appear only when women behave in ways you personally dislike. It would not disappear when harmful trends align with what you find attractive. Real care is comprehensive. It does not fluctuate based on aesthetics. What this often comes down to is wanting women to conform to specific standards that you find most appealing. When they do not, it becomes framed as cultural decline, moral collapse, or proof that feminism has gone too far. Women’s autonomy becomes the scapegoat for broader frustrations. Again, in light of all these sexual trafficking scandals (Diddy, Tate, Epstein, and so many others) women should feel horrified at how many young women can be exploited, raped, abused, killed, and allegedly cannibalized, unspeakable things, while the perpetrators take years to face consequences. These men operated with money, status, connections, with institutional protection. They moved in elite circles. They were shielded. Justice was delayed over and over again. And somehow we are supposed to believe the real issue is feminism? What feminism, exactly? The problem is that abuse at high levels of power can persist for years before accountability catches up, if it ever does. So when people say society is a “matriarchy” or that feminism is the root issue, it sounds detached from reality. If women were truly running everything, how did so many of these systems operate for so long?

@Natasha Tori Maru

People do not willingly support or remain committed to things they strongly dislike over long periods of time. You never hear a Black person wishing to return to slavery or missing their former enslaver to pick cotton for. You rarely hear children longing to go back to abusive households, or adults wanting to return long-term to toxic, abusive relationships. People do not voluntarily return to what harms them. If there is one thing to learn from Actualized.org, it is that falsehood cannot sustain itself indefinitely. When people are free to choose, they tend to move toward what aligns with their sense of truth and self. The self reveals itself when unconstrained. People want to live in ways that feel authentic to them. I do not fully understand why some men are so intensely concerned about women being promiscuous. For decades, many men openly pursued sexual access to women, often disregarding consent or boundaries. So why is it suddenly a major concern when women exercise sexual choice on their own terms? Why does autonomy create anxiety where coercion once did not? The same question applies to marriage. Marriage was often described as a burden for men, something to avoid or resent. "The old ball and chain" = wife and kids. Now, men express disproportionate concern about women choosing not to marry or not to have children. Why the sudden shift? Where did these strong “concerns” for young women’s life choices come from? It reminds me of when some men suddenly became “women’s health activists” the moment more plus-size models began appearing in mainstream media during the body-positivity movement. In reality, it often seemed less about health and more about frustration that beauty standards were shifting away from what they personally found attractive. It is fine to admit that you prefer looking at conventionally attractive models. It is fine to acknowledge that you have personal standards or preferences. What feels disingenuous is framing that preference as sudden concern for women’s health and well-being, rather than admitting it is about attraction and aesthetics. Similarly, if someone prefers women who are less sexually open because that feels more attractive or more traditionally feminine to them, they should say that plainly. It comes across as inconsistent to claim it is about protecting women’s safety or purity “for their own good,” when the real issue may simply be personal preference or discomfort with autonomy. It is the same pattern you see with the adult industry. Suddenly, porn became a massive moral crisis when women started joining platforms like OnlyFans by choice, controlling their own content, setting their own prices, and keeping their own profits. Now it is framed as societal decay, exploitation, and an emergency that must be stopped. But where was that same energy when thousands of women and girls were trafficked, coerced, manipulated, and pushed into porn or modeling through shady agencies and predatory systems? Where was the daily outrage then? It existed, but it was nowhere near as loud or culturally obsessive. That contrast is hard to ignore.

The title says it all! Inspired by some of the recent blog posts shared, I thought it would be valuable to open up a space for reflection and discussion on the darker sides of human behavior - selfishness, corruption, underdevelopment, and the systems that perpetuate them. Of course, we'll aim to keep everything within the forum's guidelines - and moderators, feel free to step in or close the thread if it veers off course. On a balanced note, I’ll also be creating a companion thread focused on humanity’s goodness, love, selflessness, and progress - both aspects are real and worth exploring.

All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊

Meow... Psss pss pss...! 🐈🥛 /\____/\ > • • < ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡶⠚⢷⣤⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣲⡶⠛⠻⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⢠⡿⠁⠀⠀⠙⣷⣄⠀⢀⣴⡟⠁⠀⠀⢷⢹⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣾⠃⠀⠠⠶⠚⠛⠛⠛⠛⠋⠀⠀⣀⡀⢸⠈⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢸⣏⡔⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠚⠉⠉⣿⠀⢹⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢾⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢠⣿⢠⣶⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢒⡾⠁⠘⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠉⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠃⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠠⣍⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⡇⢀⣤⠶⠛⠛⠻⢦⣄ ⠀⠸⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⡟⣴⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻ ⠀⠀⠀⠛⣷⡦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⡴⠞⠋⢠⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡾ ⠀⠀⠀⢰⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠳⣤⡀⢸⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡶⠟⠁ ⠀⠀⠀⣸⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢷⣹⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⡄⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⢸⡀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠈⣧⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠘⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⡇⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠙⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠞⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⢸⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⣟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠇⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡇⠀⠀⢀⣴⡟⠁⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠘⠿⠶⢶⢧⣦⣦⡴⢾⣥⣽⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⡴⣯⡤⠴⠶⠛⠋⠀⠀⠀

Please yes! ≽(•⩊ •マ≼

ִֶָ. ..𓂃 ࣪ ִֶָ🪽་༘࿐࿐Your profile is so pretty ~ ~ ~ 😊༊·˚༗𓆰𓆪꧁⎝ 𓆩༺✧༻𓆪 ⎠꧂ ⸙@XXXXXX

@Cred OK, fine. That’s it. I will now make it my life purpose to out-neurodivergent you.

Hmm... if I recall, a few years ago he said he had made enough money to be able to not work for about ten years of his life. Now, given that he lives in Las Vegas and owns a house, that would suggest he at least had a high seven-figure net worth (I think?). ~$1.9M to $2.4M, conservatively Comfortably $2M+

An even better (?) version is pure translucency. Or actual emptiness. Nothing at all. Like a mirror endlessly reflecting itself back into itself! The Droste effect is a recursive visual technique where an image appears within itself, creating an, in theory, infinite, looping, picture-in-picture effect. Often called mise en abyme, it is characterized by a smaller version of the scene appearing inside the original scene, similar to placing two mirrors facing each other.

I’m uniquely unique. I’m so unique that I’m special in my own way, but I also recognize that everyone else is special and unique too. I’m uniquely unique in a way that makes me special, but the kind of special that only works if everyone else is also special, which means my uniqueness depends on your uniqueness, which then loops back and confirms mine again. I’m so uniquely unique that I have to acknowledge everyone else’s uniqueness just to keep mine functioning properly. That makes me special, but only in a very normal way, the most average kind of special possible, like a perfectly balanced human being with an average IQ and an unremarkable label that I don’t use because labels would interrupt the loop. I don’t divide people into neurotypical or neurodivergent, because that would make things asymmetrical, and my uniqueness requires symmetry. So instead I remain normal, which is its own special category of unique, which brings us back to the beginning, where I am uniquely unique again, but only because everyone else is too. I am special

You are still human, neurotypical or not. Because of that, many life lessons about priorities and self-actualization still apply to you. If you need help focusing or functioning in society, that is simply another self-help issue. Whether the support comes from therapy, EMDR, somatic work, ADHD or ADD medication, or other forms of assistance, it is up to you to figure out. This does not mean it will be easy, of course

As Consciousness / metacognition approaches → ∞ → distinctions collapse, everything converges into 1 Singularity/Self/Concept, which can be called |God|→ 0 (Even 0 “exists” as a concept, so 0 + 1 → 1 "concept" of Singularity) As C approaches → 0 → pure nothingness: no distinctions, no ego, no God. Awareness is dormant. As C approaches → 1 (singular focal consciousness) → ego / attachment emerges; distinctions appear relative to that self. C = consciousness / awareness / metacognition D = number of distinctions G = God / unified Self E = Ego / self-identified entity C → 0: nothingness, D → 0, G → 0, E → 0 C → 1: E → ∞, D → ∞-1, G → 0 C → ∞: G → ∞, D → 0, E → 0 Equations: D = C * (1 - 1 / (1 + C^2)) E = C / (1 + C) G = C^2 / (1 + C^2) Limits / Behavior: As C approaches 0: D ≈ 0 E ≈ 0 G ≈ 0 # pure nothingness As C approaches 1 (focal consciousness): D → ∞ E → ∞ G ≈ 0 # ego and attachment emerge As C approaches infinity: D → 0 E → 0 G → 1 # unity / God / Self

If by “metacognition” you mean increased self-awareness and consciousness, then yes. The whole point is that awareness becomes so expanded that you start seeing self, self, self, God, God, God everywhere, both in the world and in yourself. At that stage, the distinction between self and other begins to collapse. The higher consciousness becomes, the more unified it is, moving toward oneness. Metacognition is often used to mean thinking about thinking, mental observation, and conceptual relationships. In that sense, the term is not fully accurate here, because the final movement is not more thinking, but embodied being. However, if we use the simpler example of mirror recognition, then yes, it applies. What separates a donkey from a human is that a human can recognize the reflection in the mirror as itself. That capacity is a basic form of metacognition. In that sense, you are already “higher” metacognitively than a donkey. But you still see a human in the mirror, not the total reality, not the whole self, not God. LEVEL 1 — DONKEY __ (oo)\_______ (__)\ )\/\ ||----w | || || Donkey ───▶ [ Mirror ] ───▶ ??? "I don't know." LEVEL 2 — HUMAN O /|\ / \ Human ───▶ [ Mirror ] ───▶ ( Me ) "That's me!" LEVEL 3 — HIGHER METACOGNITION / ENLIGHTENED HUMAN O /|\ / \ Human ───▶ [ Mirror ] ───▶ ( God ) "That's God!" LEVEL 4 — GOD ∞ ───▶ [ God / Self / Mirror ] ───▶ ∞ ◀──────── God ────────▶ "I am God. The mirror is God. God is looking through God." "I am Self, and the mirror is Self. Self is looking at itself, aware of itself through itself." Meditation, psychedelics, ego dissolution, and other spiritual practices aim to move consciousness beyond that limited identification and toward that unified state. self, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, God, God, Godself, self, God, God, Godself, self, God, God, God

No teacher is ever enough. You still need to do the work yourself.

Hmm . . . 💭🤔 I don’t think that when most people talk about miracles, they are thinking about whether they are free, karmic, ethical, or long-term in nature. In traditional or layman’s terms, a miracle usually means a strange, sudden, and inexplicable event, especially one that would normally require a long time or enormous effort, or that appears impossible within the current understanding of reality. For example, if a patient needs eight years of intensive chemotherapy to recover from cancer, but instead goes to a mystical healer who snaps their fingers and the cancer disappears, most people would call that a miracle. Now, I agree that such a healer, or possibly their genetic bloodline, may have invested enormous effort over many years to develop that ability. In that sense, the act still has a consequential cause, even though the observer experiences it as sudden and inexplicable. Ultimately, this seems to come down to how you define the word “miracle.” If a miracle is defined as something with no causal explanation whatsoever, then in a universe governed by cause and consequence, miracles do not exist by definition. If a miracle is defined as something that has no explanation within our current observable or accepted framework, yet remains coherent within a still-unknown system of causes, then miracles do exist. And if a miracle is defined as complex systems gradually harmonizing over time to produce beauty, health, love, or support, then nearly everything in life could be considered a miracle, and many more will continue to emerge. Basically, whether something is called a miracle is highly dependent on the observer, and on that observer’s assumptions about what is normal, expected, or possible. The same is true for labels like abnormal, alien, or unfamiliar. Even the official Oxford definition points in this direction: “an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency,” for example, “the miracle of rising from the grave.” The key phrase here is “not explicable by natural or scientific laws.” Whatever a culture or observer accepts as natural, scientific, common, or usual will determine whether an event is classified as a miracle at all. Change the assumed framework, and the miracle either disappears or becomes ordinary.

Or better said...! Dualities. Always here. Evil and good. Dark and light. Chaos and order. Bias and neutrality.

That's it. The hot witch girlfriend seductress needs to come back with her love potions to Leo’s lap (the TO-BE exemplar of Truth on Earth for mankind) ASAP.

Exactly! I see this in myself as well, and I’m actively trying to break down and properly deconstruct my own biases. I think this is also why it can be disappointing to see Leo make such overt, unprompted, and poorly reasoned arguments in this area of masculinity and femininity. He has a very intelligent open mind, but you can clearly see the influence of a “masculine aesthetic” bias. I have no issue if the “masculine” perspective is, so to speak, more truthful, but the arguments presented are, frankly, quite shallow and not well thought through or logically persuasive to take as truth. 😓. . .

Hey, I’m sorry, but I’ve never seen or heard this idea before. Do you have any reputable sources or historical references for this? It seems incorrect. Most religious practices used gender segregation because they believed it reduced distraction and upheld modesty in prayer, not to create a male retreat away from women’s speech or presence as a form of personal escape. There is also a long history of beliefs that women were not capable of logical thought or philosophy, which led religion to separate them. This belief was a social construct of the time, similar to slavery, not a God-given truth. In general: Religion emerges in early societies as a way to explain nature, enforce norms, create group cohesion, and legitimize power. Gender segregation in religion is better explained by patriarchy, inheritance systems, modesty norms, and control of reproduction, not male burnout from women. Most religious spaces were actually labor-intensive and communal, not quiet retreats. To be honest, most of the things you said in that post seem heavily unsupported scientifically and historically. Please be careful before believing such claims. Just as a fun remark (not saying this is grounded in truth at all): women probably wanted their own religious spaces too, to “babble” all day with their girlfriends, but men called them witches, heretics, eldritch spawns of evil, and then burned them at the stake, so, oh well… LOL. Jokes aside, I find comments like this really childish. Why are you in a marriage with someone you cannot even bear to listen to? There is nothing cool or masculine about marrying someone while refusing to indulge their excitement about things that matter to them. That is not stoic masculinity. That is just being an inconsiderate asshole. It sounds less like love and more like marrying someone to do house labor, raise children, and maintain a “status, picture-perfect family,” all on her effort, while you go off to “practice religion with the homies.” What kind of love is that supposed to be? Why are you even in this marriage to begin with? Marriage is a two-way choice and a two-way responsibility. If you cannot engage with your partner as a full human being, the real question is why you chose to be in this marriage at all.