eos_nyxia

Is this something you have experience with personally, or are you close with people who have had this experience personally? Or is this part of some pickup community doctrine? Otherwise, where is your bias coming from? That's what isn't clear to me and what I'm asking about. Hey. Reading biases which I don't have into what I said isn't a great look. This wasn't a statement of blame, which is to say that I wasn't endorsing people getting kicked out, or saying that they deserved to be kicked out. Straight up, there are lots of people who deserve to be ostracized who are not being ostracized. Like actual predators. How many social groups have you been a part of, both growing up and otherwise? I'm not that social with either larger groups of people or strangers at the moment, but seriously... I've been part of friend groups where mostly everyone dated or messed around with everyone else at some point or another, because everyone is more sexually and emotionally open, they have liberal values, and they're pretty creative and impulsive people, etc. (Though I would not partake because it's wayyyy too messy for me.) And I've been friends with groups of people who would never do this, ever. How do you know what's actually possible with people if you just don't deal with them for extended periods of time? All you have is other people's hearsay and a bunch of things that you've already decided has to be true. Does telling yourself that this is definitely, absolutely true make you feel more secure in this world? Haha. Lots of women are disappointed by their fake-ass non-friends, or being "fuckzoned". So I've heard, anyway. A "friend" whose primary basis for being your friend is wanting and needing "something more" isn't much of a friend. Personally, this used to not bother me so much (knowing that a male "friend" was attracted to me), but I find this energy to be a huge drag to be around these days because feels cloying and underhanded. Because it is, if you are obscuring your intentions on purpose and are waiting patiently and like such a good boy for your sex ATM cashouts from women. I guess... don't waste time being friends with women if it doesn't actually interest you for its own sake, even if nothing goes any further? It's not like you're doing anyone any favours anyway.

I think the term you might also be looking for is "homosocial". As in, you're primarily attracted to the emotional and mental qualities that are typically associated with and have been bound to "masculinity", and you exclude "femininity". You want be around that sort of energy, you're obsessed with "masculine values". "Femininity" exists primarily to validate your masculinity, and you don't want to feel or to live within "feminine" energy. Not really. Not too much, not for too long, not in any way that makes you feel uncontrolled, lest you be overwhelmed and subsumed... and transformed into something more feminine yourself. Maybe it's a bit physical too sometimes though, I also get that vibe sometimes (but not always). It makes me think of all these dudes who look up to GI Joe caricatures of "hyper-masculine" men, yet very few women would pick these men for themselves and they actually lack charming qualities. The admiration does feel almost queer, lol.

People who look at women as human beings already have a leg up over people who don't. When all people can think about is what they want or need from someone, including what's in it for them (especially if only in the short term because you're so thirsty), it hampers your ability to be a functional human being around other human beings. Unless you are very good at acting and have some classically narcissistic qualities, then I guess you're stuck having to fake giving a shit. This is probably where you're going to run into antagonism from women once your agenda becomes clear. BTW, this isn't a recipe for happiness and fulfillment either (narcissistic qualities and faking it).... These people are thirsty too, just in a different way. Though I guess it doesn't make much difference to the super-thirsty. The immediacy of your thirstiness controls you and so it ends up defining your whole entire personality and values in its way. This is sad to me, because this type of suffering of being utterly at the mercy of external circumstances beyond your immediate control, it's at least theoretically avoidable. IMO one reason why natural, confident extroverts are pleasing to talk to, even if it's obvious enough that they also want something from you, is that it's obvious that they enjoy being social. They get something out of it intrinsically, so you could say that they're intrinsically motivated almost on an impulsive or gut level. Emotionally present and receptive human beings tend to notice this at the gut level too, even if not always consciously. It's contagious. You could say this is all just "being a natural" as a result of practice. Sure. Just like anything else, really. You have to pay good $$$$$ for GFE because emotional labour is still labour, unless you convince someone to give it to (""game"") you or else they feel inspired to give it freely for whatever reason. That's the thing though. Sex is never enough, and it never was for the most part, was it? Y'all crave emotional validation or some suitable facsimile of it. You want to be affirmed that you are a fundamentally worthwhile human being, that you matter and your existence has a purpose, and it's not all that fun to do so much of that affirmation for ourselves. Perhaps in some cases with some people, it is practically impossible. That really is, truly, honestly sad. No irony or sarcasm here. This is a sex ATM mindset though. Do you give money to every person who asks for it or who you know would like it, or benefit from it in some way?(I didn't think so.) Some people can make it worthwhile for those who approach them, I guess. At least at the moment, anyway. I will say as a woman though, being selected by a stranger based on my physical attributes for sex and emotional validation offers a very poor ROI, even (and especially) from a purely logical perspective. If all I cared about was getting off, anyway. Orgasm gap, etc. This doesn't even take into account the emotional and physical risks. Things like sexual assault, STDs, pregnancy, etc.

Since when did "developed character" become "career" anyway? Thanks capitalism.

This is true for everyone, is it not? People generally like to be around people who enjoy being themselves openly around others, who are expressive, warm, light and who are effortlessly confident (or at least appear to be). At the very least, this is the easiest thing, and perhaps the most instinctive thing. People in general tend to be quite picky about what are acceptable displays of vulnerability, and what are not. (I mean, broody charm is a thing too, lol.) Perhaps moreso if you are a man, you will be rejected and get an immediate negative reaction if you don't have "the vibe". You may be socially ostracized from specific groups of people and society at large if you really just can't get it. Perhaps moreso if you are a woman, people may think you're unfriendly and difficult ("bitchy"). You may be less likely to be completely ostracized, but you invite use and abuse into your life when coming from a "compensation" vibe, period, because active predators and people who can't or won't consider a basic sense of human well-being are everywhere. This is an extremely high price to pay for the simple human desire to be recognized and wanted IMO. Also, if you're not deemed sufficiently attractive to be of use, there are lots of people who will treat you like you're subhuman or like you don't even exist. At least if you're a man, society is more apt to tell you that you are allowed to have fundamental self-worth for something beyond whether your physical appearance is pleasing enough. It's a human thing, not just a woman thing.

Yes, but you have to put effort into it, unless your only friends are the people you grew up around and your mutual extended social circle. You have to go out of your way to be in circumstances where making connections is possible, and also where there are actual women. Ideally, ones who are not perpetually unavailable. It's not like this magically happens without effort for other people as well. I guess I don't understand why this is less effort/ less worthwhile than what is basically the dating version of cold calling, where it's understandable that you'd have to put hundreds, if not thousands (?) of hours into being "good enough", because people's barriers towards total strangers tend to be much higher, especially if you're not in a social environment that is conducive towards being open toward strangers. (For example: when all or most people are new to a specific place, and you're all explicitly there because you're open to meeting new people and doing -new people things- with them. For example, a meetup group of any kind, especially based on a shared interest or goal.) Is keeping and forming human connections, especially if it's not funnelled explicitly toward one specific goal (sex and relationships) but rather another (friendship, acquaintances)...is that alien of a concept? Does it have so little value in and of itself? Honestly, this is probably part of the issue of why men are so emotionally impoverished. It's really not that surprising if you have trouble relating and empathizing with women (or any other group of people, really), especially if you just don't actually enjoy it and you have no real interest in it and it's purely a means toward an end, where there is no appreciation for the journey of "experiencing" and "becoming", particularly WITH people... let alone with men who actively resent everything that feels like "hoop jumping" in order to get to the human sex ATM women. You mean like getting kicked out of your friend groups? This makes me wonder what's being done for people to get kicked out, and what type of people are doing the kicking.

Why are people here so stubbornly resistant to this? I don't get it.

There are a lot of positive qualities and values that don't have to be placed in intrinsic contradiction to each other, even if they seem to appear spontaneously in the wild that way. (Let's say by "positive", I mean that it creates win-win outcomes for both people.) There is no divine immovable law which makes it so. People generally want some balance of stability (a factor in creating trust) and novelty (a factor in creating excitement), but people's preferences and what they'll tolerate are variable. What makes you think that you can't find someone with a similar or compatible appetite for stability vs. novelty? To me, there seem to be many people of all genders who highly prioritize these qualities which people sometimes think of as "square", at least if they show up on their own, and would like a nice quiet, stable life with a loving partner (assuming that there are not serious problems which extend from emotional illiteracy).

Someone give me a TL;DR summary of this video; I'm not quite "1 1/2 hours" curious.

"The Fool" is the first tarot card in the major arcana for a reason, thematically speaking.

@bebotalk Many people never get to this point you described at all, which is a sort of cognitive empathy. (Which may or may not be accompanied by the classic "feeler" empathy!) People are people are people. Sometimes hardship and adversity become an opportunity to expand one's perspective and build character and fortitude, no matter what the hardship is. Sometimes people instead succumb to bitterness and cling to their dogma and all their preconceptions and "truths" for dear life. Some people have so little empathy of any sort that it is inconceivable that any experience could or would be worse than their experience, or experience which is categorically enough like their own experience. Like what do you even say to a bunch of dudes who think that being rejected or ignored by women (whether imaginary or actual rejection) is on par with being SA'd by your family members, or think that any of the issues you mentioned are nonexistent because apparently being "hot" magically fixes everything?? Their world is tiny, constrictive, and goes about as far as their imagination reaches. And yet, the suffering is real enough. I would not mock or pity people simply for suffering, but everyone makes at least some choices in response to truly uncontrollable factors and unfavourable odds. For loud and proud (?) self-identified incels: it's hard to help people who aren't willing to accept help, or do not recognize the "help" as being such. People will defend their right to be stubborn, etc. They certainly don't want my "help" as a woman, unless by "help" they mean "engaging in their self-hating echo chamber".

You could just be grateful that there are women who are not as superficial as you might be in their situation, haha.

I used to be pretty nice to people who approached me to talk to me randomly, even if I had no interest in them and their motives were transparent enough. I consider this to be an act of grace and openness since: 1) attention is not owed just because you think it is, and modern "first world" societies tend to be emotionally closed to strangers and insular. Is it emotionally healthy for human beings overall? Probably not. 2) I don't want anything in that way from people who approach me, especially now more than ever. But I'm also "old" whether I look it or not, so I think I deserve a break, lol.... But surely, it's not that hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes and to see why having a rando treat you as a sex ATM, "nice" or not, is not of great interest to many people. Especially if these people are just going about their business in their day-to-day lives. Sorry that you're not getting your needs and desires met.

There are often a lot of undersides to porn use, in the same way that there are undersides to sexuality in general. We humans tend to have a lot of undigested baggage about it, both directly inherited and self-perpetuated. If you look at porn, and you have unprocessed feelings about it that you aren't cognisant of and are not being processed, you'll experience blowback. If it's been used as an automatic substitute for human "love", attention, and affirmation as a human being, then there will be negative results. Maybe there is something that doesn't quite sit right about whatever you're watching where it doesn't completely pass the vibe check, so in reality, you're of split mind with what you're watching. Like you have separate "selves" which are clashing. Maybe what you're watching is too violent, too acted... and too unaesthetic. I suspect this is actually quite common with men. Not everyone feels good about watching brutal naked theatre, especially if you're telling yourself that it's Real somehow. Inherited morality (which is often Pavlovian and runs on shame/ guilt and the idea of "control") tends to create this split by default, but maybe what you're watching is not what you want to define your values, ethics, and experience as a human being on some level anyway. Or maybe it just doesn't mesh with your other values. There is where you have to be really, really honest with yourself to see the truth clearly. At the very least, you're using your sexual energy and the power of your focus to inadvertently reaffirm that of which you are not wholly aware. If there are unintended consequences that you didn't originally plan for or anticipate, that is the proof. If you simply see it for what it is, no more and no less, it's either not likely to negatively affect you or else it will be in plain view. You can simply take it and then leave it there afterward. On top of that, lots of people are apparently growing up using porn as sex education starting from a very young age. I've heard that this has had some deranged results in heterosexual relationships and messes with people's expectations. I really do not envy what younger women have to deal with. Real, mutually fulfilling sexuality runs on things such as openness (of the senses, and being open emotionally) and the willingness to listen and be fully present with who you're with. Think of yourself as a blank but eager slate. Another person is not, first and foremost, an extension of your fantasy narratives inside your head which has been fed by porn (and possibly even previous partners), and tons of people are just negligent sexually, emotionally, and otherwise, which in the long run is NOT a recipe for fulfillment. Pornography, at least how it presents itself presently in this culture; it's not a great value system. It's not even much of a substitute for a value system though it often seems to function as one. If you look to it for meaning and to nurture the human spirit.... well, take a look around and see what that does. You have to put "good spirit" into sex and sexual depictions or else there is really not much emotional sustenance there by default.

This whole thread is perplexing. What's the payoff for starting it, and what purpose was it supposed to serve? Haha.

I used to answer this question one of three ways, but I haven't been asked this in a while anyway. If I'm feeling neutral and open to having a conversation, or I'm talking to a certain kind of open-minded person from a 1st world country, I'd say: "I'm spiritual but not religious". If I'm not feeling like conversation or opening a can of worms and potentially dealing with conflict or other draining and time consuming things, I'll say: "..... I'm nothing." (And if asked: you mean like, you're atheist or agnostic?" ME: "no... literally. I'm just nothing." (I believe that all beliefs and perspectives are generative rather than intrinsic, and are as flexible and rigid as you can make them to be.) If I'm feeling like defining myself by descriptive -isms, I'll probably say that I'm a secular occultist (describes the practical and ritualistic aspect) and pantheist (describes my worldview, perspective, and attitude).

I’ve been observing this thread for a while. For these conversations, it would be convenient if there was a sidebar or some indicator of people’s backgrounds which makes their skin in the game obvious. For example: Are your spouse, children, and friends Israeli or Palestinian? Are you Israeli or Palestinian, or more aligned with one side or the other due to shared cultural or religious reasons? Did you have formative experiences with either group which intrinsically predisposes you toward taking one side or the other? What sort of educational system and values were you exposed to as a minor, or even in higher education? Where did your set of geopolitical biases come from, and as a result of what formative factors? Who are you most loyal to, basically, and who and what will you bend for? (As one way or another, people tend to wrap their logic around their feels first in order to dress up their convictions, and not the other way around. “Logic” or “facts” is not much of a frame or skeleton for anything.) It would save other people some time and energy figuring out if people are dropping “facts” while also actually being able to have a good-faith conversation, if it is somehow not already obvious from the way people speak. (Mostly it is obvious, IMO.) It would also make it easier for people to have meta-conversations about what all of this means.

This is a fun challenge! I'll bite. (I think there are online travel trackers you can use too, though I haven't found a good one yet.)

@Julian gabriel Everything gets easier when you don't take on the collective zeitgeist of a space, even if it's a limited aspect of that space. Of course, not being here as frequently makes things easier too.

Hey now. What's the point of being extremely efficient and effective with your time and energy if you don't have at least a little extra of it to piss away somewhere?

I don't think they need people (or countries, or institutions) against them to dig a hole for themselves at this point. Even if many are helping them and justify their actions near-unconditionally. They'll do it themselves. Their cultural psyche will be their downfall. So I guess I'm going to just sit around here and watch it happen.

Well, it looks like the gloves and pretense of civility have finally come off. It's in these moments of crises where people feel threatened that you see an essential aspect of what people are truly made of and what they value. Or at the very least, what they're willing to excuse, and what they really call truth -- their bottom line.

If people read more history or talked to more people who had suffered brutal serious systematic trauma at a macro level (as opposed to just as an individual), would they still react and feel in this way? Like... "innocence lost"? Sometimes I guess I don't understand. Some of us know that the world has always been this way. Not just "knowing" on an intellectual level, but felt it too on an intuitive level. It's just a part of the truth of who we are as humanity, right here and right now.

Excuse my ignorance, I wasn't following the Palestine-Israel situation before recently too closely or participating in these types of dialogues. Do you mean that the state of Israel exists at all as a settler colonialist state? What can feasibly be done about what's already been done at this point? Someone's going to have to give up some claim to land somewhere. It's just a matter of scale and degree. On an emotional and psychological level, perhaps at some point, we can all prioritize stopping the playing of zero-sum games when it comes to physical things, whether it involves our survival or not. If you can choose to do this at your weakest, most emotional, most vulnerable moment, even if it's simply to decide on some level: I've had enough of the way this makes me feel and how it defines my experience.... you are extremely powerful and you have an immense amount of self-restraint. People apparently think of this as superhuman or something, I guess. Realistically speaking, and not just in worldwide conflicts that involve large groups of people, but also on the individual level: perpetrators and invaders end up getting more, and people who get invaded and violated lose more. Even long after the original violation has occurred. That's how systemic oppression tends to work. Perps and invadors tend to be blind by default to the opposite side. And realistically speaking, often the invaded person (or people) have to give up the right to conflict and ownership (at least temporarily, at least in some way) without somehow being completely and utterly disempowered and defeated in the process. Disempowered people unfortunately tend to get stepped on by default. Privileged people COULD give it up, but rarely will unless you convince them that somehow something is fundamentally in it for them. You have to sell them sugar rather than offering acid and spice, etc. Such is humanity. On a purely personal level: I both empathize and find it understandable, but I also think the attachment, self-identification, and entitlement to specific bits of land is a bit mindboggling. Which is why I sometimes feel like monoethnic/ monoculturally identifying people are going to be death of all of us, lol. You don't own land and you don't own the Earth, at least no more than it also "owns" you. It doesn't intrinsically belong to you. Not in that tight-fisted way. It's not your God-given right as a human being, not from some "God" or from some religious or cultural prerogative or doctrine. It is a space on a planet that is so graciously hosting your body and human experience right now for a rather short period of time. You may identify with it and you may live in wholly, but it does not strictly belong to you and whoever you designate as being "enough like you".

Maybe she's just talking about vocal people on social media rather than the actions of the Israeli government? I have seen Israelis on social media doing what basically amounts to this, in their state of hurt, anger, and fear. Their mind is only for their own (which is understandable) and convincing others to side with them in an extremely polarizing way: you're either with us and agree with everything we say, or you're pro-terrorism. I don't think that they particularly give a shit about any Palestinians at this point. Perhaps they once truly did, perhaps not, but clearly not anymore. The opposite has been true too for the other side though....