Xonas Pitfall

You can. Just be smart about how you will survive. How will you monetize this? Who will feed you? Do you have a roof over your head? What people will be around you, what community will you have if things go wrong? What if you go insane? Homeless? Leo is basically cautioning against going too far into "airy" abstract thinking when you do not have the life support to practically sustain yourself. It is much easier to function and work 9-5 when you are not constantly questioning the metaphysics of your walls, the couch you are sitting on, and Alien God Awakening Intelligence!

Agreed! I suppose I was just a little rebellious Shroom monkey. . . 👽🙈

I think a better frame is that there are people who are more orbit-like (more dependent, people-pleasing, other-focused) and some people who are more orbit-line (more independent, immovable, self-focused). Some people can endlessly pursue with no issues, and some people hate the feeling of chasing because they need extra security and clarity in confidence that the other person is genuinely interested in them. This is more a personality trait or preference than a gender thing, to be honest. There are also people who like to “reach beyond” what they think they can get, so they don’t mind pushing further and assuming they have to work for it, and in the end, they feel satisfied when they get what they wanted. That’s where you get common tropes like a man seeing a woman as a muse or a siren, a symbol of beauty, and perfection to admire. And will do anything in his power to keep and protect her. In a more toxic form, you see this in the “simp” meme. Then you also get the opposite trope: a woman who adores her man, wants to please him, and deeply admires him. In a more toxic form, this can resemble BPD-meme patterns of obsession, drama, etc. I actually think kink communities sometimes understand this a bit better, ironically, haha, because they don’t frame it strictly as man-woman dynamics, but more as dominance and submission, attachment roles, and psychological preferences. I’ve met men who genuinely enjoy adoring their partner, and women who genuinely enjoy being adored. In those cases, the relationship can work very well. I’ve also seen the opposite, and more “equal” dynamics, too. But I also think that once the initial phase passes, if neither person is able to shift out of being only the adorer or only the adored, the relationship can struggle long-term. For a successful long-term partnership, these roles will naturally switch back and forth. Plus, if you are a spiritual person, this should excite you because you get to experience both yourself making someone else feel like God/Love, and also someone making you feel that way in return. I feel like people often treat dating like politics, as if it’s a team sport, like “does red win or does blue win?” It becomes competitive in a way that misses the point. Gender and dating are often treated similarly, which is unfortunate. "Should the woman or the man submit? Who should love whom more? Who is the actual sucker here?" The ego has and needs both sides. It’s a fundamental principle of holism. Just like everything is a holon, the ego is one too. The ego has two sides: the admirer and the admired. It wants someone to admire so it can feel love, humility, and connection. When you have someone as an “other,” they can become almost mesmerizing in a way that makes you feel expanded or stunned by their beauty, whatever form that takes. So you get both the ego humbling itself enough to experience real love and a sense of expansion. But the ego also wants to be admired so it can feel safe, valued, and appreciated. So it can also be touched by someone’s love and gentleness, and actually let go of its defenses, allowing it to expand more toward ego dissolution and love. Both men and women have this ego structure, and if neither side is being met in a relationship, it becomes very hard to maintain anything stable or long-term. But again, I never really know if we are talking about hookup culture and dating strategies, or actual long-term spiritual relationships. If you mean the initial stage, then yes, you probably do not care that much about the person themselves, but more about what you can get from them. So to maximize results, you need to be receptive to people who are easier “wins” (who like you way more, that is.) That applies to both genders. If women don’t choose men who genuinely like them a lot or even more, they also tend to suffer. If we are talking about actual relationships, these concepts are quite meaningless. You need to deeply understand your partner’s preferences and not assume you already know what they want.

I personally started at 18. I’m not sure I would recommend it, but I’m glad I did for myself. The trick is that, after a few trips, I eventually realized the “burning through karma” concept. You just feel during the trip that there are so many things your ego is still clinging to and worrying about, mostly survival or ego-related, that prevent you from having a more open and flowing mind. I would think about things beyond myself, but then my mind kept asking, “But how do you know? You haven’t experienced this or that. Absolutely none of it. Who do you think you are?” I had a lot of self-doubt. I feel like if you are too young, you just don’t have enough life confidence to even ground yourself properly, especially if you can’t yet feed and shelter yourself independently. So for me, if anything, it helped because I kept feeling blocked, and it motivated me to get my survival in order. But it’s tricky to know whether you would have the same response, because it’s very subjective. I feel like there’s no clear answer. It’s too case-dependent.

Ideally, when you are a youngster, you try it a couple of times to get a glimpse of what is possible. This can hopefully give you more hope, direction, and ambition for your life. You realize you need to get your survival sorted out first, so you can later fully enjoy the richness of consciousness properly. But obviously, no one can guarantee what will happen once you “get a glimpse” of it . . . Oopsies, now we are all addicts!

What would you think of your daughter? What do you think of little girls (children)? You can try starting from there. Just as you are a boy in a man's body. She is a girl in a woman's body. Just as you are a child in a man's body. She is a child in a woman's body. P.S. Don't anyone dare turn this into anything pedo . . .

Shortest answer: Ego!

🤣🤣🤣

Pseudovirtue, Sanctegoism – sanctity + egoism → ego pretending to be holy, Virtuception – virtue + deception → believing your own moral lie, Halo-corruption When the ego disguises itself as moral or divine truth, leading someone to justify harmful or corrupt actions while genuinely believing they are good. The key here is that you genuinely believe you are doing it for a higher value; your ego has successfully deceived you. I’m controlling you because I care about you and know what’s best. We’re going to war to defend the purity of our people / sacred values. ”I’m just being honest” (while being unnecessarily cruel) “We must silence them to protect truth and goodness.” “I’m condemning / excluding these people because God demands it. Not me.”

This. These tools are getting so deeply integrated into major companies that at this point, it almost feels like asking whether to use them isn’t even relevant anymore. It's kind of like saying: "I’ve been using social media to promote my business, and it’s working way better than anything I used to do. I don’t need to go door-to-door or chase newspaper headlines anymore; I can just make content and get results." I actually think the smarter move is the opposite of what you’re worried about. If you fully lean into AI and get really good at web dev + using it properly, you’ll be ahead of most people. If you avoid it or don’t learn it deeply, that’s when you fall behind. The future is going to massively favor developers who know how to guide AI, prompt it well, and quickly fix or refine what it gives back.

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.

Record yourself and have someone close and trustworthy record you as well, with and without meds; that'd be the best reference for judgment.

That's too cool! 🥝

And they say Shakespeare is dead... ⸙

ִֶָ𓂃 ࣪˖ ִֶָ˚ʚ🐧😊ɞ˚؛༊་༘࿐ CUTENESS OVERLOAD!!!

Then. . . perhaps don’t say it in such an opinionated and assured way, especially if it sounds like a broad social commentary? But it’s all clear now, so no worries!

All good & clear! I was just pointing out the bias and incorrect things said in some of the statements. . . 😅

Aww, what a cutie. Kororā

Jokes are fine, I just pointed out the bias 😅 Hence why I gave this example (replace joke as the metaphor) You also brought up porn vs. OF comparison comments, no? Hence why I quoted them and responded/talked about both.

At least OF does not exploit its creators. Porn does. Both are extremely bad in their edge cases. In most cases, they’re just porn. Most creators don’t overcharge, and most consumers get what they pay for. In the extreme cases, either men are heavily exploited, or women are heavily exploited. There’s nothing better or worse here, imo. Or at the very least, so disproportionately exaggerated as to call one more acceptable than the other, or to claim that one is worse than heroin, while other not. OF and traditional porn both carry a stigma. It’s being framed as if all creators are scamming men and all attractive women are being influenced by OF propaganda, which simply isn’t true in the slightest, and is backed up by stats, too. For every new "persuaded" OF creator, there are probably many women, historically and currently, being trafficked or pressured into porn under far worse conditions. And for every scammed guy, there’s probably some borderline legal-aged girl being pushed into a highly perverted, degrading scene that goes against her boundaries. The position you have now is more reasonable, but it definitely feels somewhat like backtracking. Still, more okay

Do you see the double standard and bias in how you critique one and the other? Do you acknowledge that? Why such discrepancy? That was my point. Such critiquing sensationalist comments for OF, but with porn, when called out on the bias, its "ha ha, just jokes guys, nothing too serious here. Teehee" 😅😆 It’s similar to when evangelical Christians go hard on theories to try to disprove scientists, hyper commentary, dramatic, but then when those same standards are applied to inconsistencies in the Bible, it suddenly becomes, “Well, the Bible is metaphorical, it doesn’t exactly mean what it says!”

@Leo Gura You are extremely biased on these issues. You’ve seen the darker side of porn: sex trafficking, exploitative contracts that strip performers of ownership over their content, predatory revenue splits, and agencies pushing women past their limits. This especially impacts women with fewer options, who are often sold a dream of success, only to end up barely making money, while their content is permanently owned and distributed by someone else. Not to mention how extreme and degrading porn content can become when agencies have the authority to pressure performers into doing more and more. Your argument that “because it’s safer and easier, it’s therefore worse” doesn’t make sense. That would be like saying you'd rather people do heroin than weed because it’s more immediately destructive and scary, which is obviously absurd. There’s a clear double standard. When large companies, often run by men, profit off women, set the terms, and push content in more extreme directions, it is normalized as “good ol' porn.” But when women take back some control, set their own limits, and profit directly from their work, suddenly it’s "worse than heroin", "This is a SICKNESSSSSS of the HIIIIIGHEST ORDAAAA." What are we even arguing at that point? Exploitation of women with less control is acceptable, "No one is getting scammed with good ol porn." "It's worse than porn." But autonomy with more control over men (buyers) is somehow the real problem? "This is worse than heroin." "This is a SICKNESSSSSS of the HIIIIIGHEST ORDAAAA." You can criticize both systems if you want; that’s fair. But why is a system where more men might potentially be exploited considered worse than heroin and described as something of the highest level of degeneracy, while a system that has been historically exploitative and predatory toward women for ages is dismissed as “good old porn,” and seen as more acceptable? Very biased and double standards.

Do you want your daughter getting addicted to heroin, then selling her own body, losing her youth, health, terrorize her family, and finances in desperate attempts to get the same high again? You want your son encouraging other girls to show their pussies to the world for a small chance of riches? These are all horrible, but I just don’t see the argument for why OnlyFans is worse than all the others mentioned above. It’s a complete misconception that all attractive girls will want to do OnlyFans, just as it would be wrong to say all guys will be attracted to OnlyFans agencies, NFTs, or crypto schemes. These all appeal to certain kinds of people, and only certain types of people get rich doing them. They’re all flawed and deeply problematic, but I don’t understand the biased comparison being made with them. Don’t forget, you originally said this as well: Which would imply: Doing heroin is less bad than weed in my eyes because it has a huge stigma and barrier to entry, which is good. Does that make sense? To clarify, I am not saying this stuff is good or should be encouraged, but I’m trying to point out the bias that happens when we focus only on OnlyFans. I hope I made that clear.

@Leo Gura Very biased statement 😅 Neither is ideal, definitely, but I don’t see a good argument for how it’s “worse.” If you want to say quick money cash schemes are bad, then you have to bite the bullet and say that crypto, NFT, shitcoins, porn recruitment agencies management, gambling, dropshipping, etc., are also equally worse than heroin. We’re pretending here that any attractive girl who does OnlyFans makes this amount of cash. If you make that amount of money, you either have some crazy marketing team behind you, or you’re quiet intuitive about what goes viral, or you got lucky. But this isn’t any different from a typical influencer. Plenty of typical influencers also promote shady, scammy, or sketchy things to children and adults as well. I agree this is very bad, but I don’t understand the particular isolation of OnlyFans. These stats are pretty similar for most online marketing, the digital space, and influencers. The top % makes a lot, the bottom almost to nothing. Very typical. Again, I agree that both are bad, but these comparisons really aren’t fair.