Emerald

Yes and Yes. The idea is that you find someone cut from the same cloth as you, through feeling into their energy. And there are many that are cut from the same cloth. And tons of great points here. This is what I've found in my experiences. Also, this is how relationship helps you remove falsehood. You find someone who is naturally magnetic to you, and then you find you have similar but inverse distortions and delusions as well. And through relating deeper and deeper with one another, those distortions and delusions can be broken up through conflict and exploration. And that helps you grow deeper with that person... where you then uncover similar inverse distortions and delusions with one another through conflict and exploration. And in that way, it is also a way to merge with all. So, relationship can run so deep that it's a way to transcend duality. And this is why we tend to attract parters with the same issues all the time. We sense that person is the mirror to our own issues, and we know that relationship can help resolve. However, this hardly ever works because people aren't aware of this. So, we end up getting stuck on issues and never working through them to grow deeper. So, relationships end up shallow and unsatisfying because the deeper growth can't happen. But relationship can be used this way.

My position is biased because I'm trying to illuminate the situation from the female perspective to push back on common misconceptions about female sexuality. I show you my biases to illuminate your biases. Just because something works for you, doesn't mean that that's women's preferred way. I'm telling you my preferred way... which I suspect is akin to most women's preferred way. So, I am biased in that I'm showing you how men are received when doing pick-up and game. I understand that men have different agendas. And that's fine. But if you have these agendas and you get some success by your biased definition of it... it doesn't mean that you actually know what the receiver of that success's definition of the experience is. Success for a man might ring in as a failure to a woman. So, if you want to have pairings that are mutually successful, then you'll need to consider that what works for you might make a woman feel unsatisfied, regretful, and underfucked... and make you the joke of the next girls' night and not the stud you have come to see yourself as. But if you only care about getting laid, and you don't care about leaving a woman unsatisfied, you don't really have to consider her perspective at all. You're not required to give the woman a good time to have a good time yourself. But if you consider a woman's biases, you could actually be strategic so you both have a good time.

That's fine. And that's also why most women who are in touch with their femininity and intuition will screen you out and see you as a low quality man. And if you're playing a numbers game, it really doesn't matter if most women do screen you out. You'll get some success if you define success as getting laid. There are plenty of women out there who will settle for you. But don't imagine that they really enjoy themselves, is all that I'm saying. It likely is experienced as a mistake or regret by them later because your way of approaching women will leave them feeling unsatisfied and unfucked. Or worse... you'll awaken love in them and they'll experience deep anxiety in that you're incapable of meeting them in that feeling. All I'm saying, is not to think that just because something will work for you in a pinch is actually indicative of what the actual inner mechanisms of women's sexuality crave. It's the same thing with Tinder statistics. That's not a clear indicator of women's sexuality either. It works that way only through the medium of internet dating, where a woman is completely unable to use her intuition which can only happen in person. Women's sexuality isn't like men's. It's very in-person and particular. You have to get the rhythm of the man's personality to feel the match. Internet dating is a piss-poor way for women to meet men because you get none of the right information, and it leaves you to only use logic and the weighing of objective traits to pick a partner. And that's not a good indicator. So, again, your definition of a successful pairing is not the same as a woman's. And I think it unwise for a man to only focus on what works, as opposed to why something works. But keep doing what you're doing. Just don't imagine that women are having as good a time as you are.

I understand what you're saying. And I get why guys might fair better doing pick up and batch screening of women. And it truly isn't a judgment against that. The numbers game is sometimes necessary for men. And I have no issue with sex. The thing I was pushing back on is the misrepresentation of women's sexuality. And thinking that because they've gotten some success in the form of getting laid, that this is an indicator of what women like and what women want. And Leo was making it a solid rule and even said 100% of heterosexual women work this way, which is not true. And since Leo has a huge platform and lots of influence, it's so important to push up against misinformation. What may work for men in the external is not the way that it works for women on the internal. I find too many men who have a false notion of female sexuality to the detriment of themselves and women, as this false knowing is a wedge to intimacy. As important as it is to find something that works, it's even more important to know WHY it works. And guys who practice game tend to get mired in the notion that they know. Also, I wouldn't be interested in a man if he isn't interested in me in particular and I suspect I'm not alone. But yet again, I've never been one for seeking a partner or dating, myself. I like solitude and relationship equally in many respects. So, I just end up intuitively liking someone and it either works or doesn't.

That's right on the money. Too many men try to wear masculinity as opposed to finding their own natural masculine essence that is ever present with them.

I don't think you really gleaned the main aspect of what I was saying. I'm saying that the thing that makes a man attractive is not contingent upon "game". In fact, in my 17 years of experience of being approached, learning game is usually a disruptor to the natural personality and has a fake flavor to it. Women who are attuned to their intuition can sense it in men. Mind you it's better than being totally anti-social and sexual repression, so do whatever works. But don't think that just because it works for you, that it's what women actually like. It really is a disruptor to a man's natural energy, as they get so attached to the techniques and knowledge that they forget to be a person... which is what women are actually attracted to. And I can sense a lot of insecurity underneath both "game" and even personal development in general . So, I find game and approach to be off-putting. If I sense it's too easy to get a man (and most men are incredibly easy to get), then I know it's not special for him and that he approaches everyone and that I'm interchangeable to him. And thus, it is a sign of instability and often worse. Also, because I view sex as a form of communication, I want a man who actually specifically wants to communicate something specific to me... not just someone who has nothing to say to me but just wants to speak. And just hearing someone speak with nothing to say is a turn off. So, I automatically (like most women who are in touch with their emotional and sexual needs) screen it out, and focus toward men I'm familiar with that I am around frequently. And that's the most ideal scenario from a woman's perspective. Approach and game is very lukewarm in terms of pleasure and emotional enjoyment. It takes at least a few weeks (usually months) of platonic interaction to develop an attraction intense enough to make me want to pair bond with someone. And that's the only way to get the heat up that high. It's a slow brew and needs time to ferment. Now, if you broadly define game as general social skills that apply for everyone, then I would say that's not really game. But these are necessary to make friends easily and form relationships more easily. So, yes, a man will have to develop basic social skills to attract more women. But learning to be confident and cool and all those other things will attract simply the most average woman who is also unaware of her intuition. A woman who screens for objective qualities instead of connecting to her emotional center. And as a numbers game, if women are interchangeable to you, that's fine. But I doubt you'll find very many who you can really be understood by and be intimate with. It would just be a stage to perform your sexuality on and have some brief enjoyable experiences. But it sounds like a lonely experience. But game specifically refers to behaviors adopted by men to roll the dice at finding a mate. And 99.999% of the time I find these mating dances to be counter-productive and off-putting. And I know I'm not an odd bird in this. And truly I believe game, in its best aspect, to be a placebo that just gives an otherwise insecure guy the courage to approach a woman in the first place... which would have yielded them results even without learning game. It's like you give someone a cape and tell them they're a hero, and they believe it, so they're able to do heroic things. But the person actually had that in them all the time and didn't actually need the cape. The problem only comes from when the guy never realizes the cape isn't real. And there are tons of "gurus" touting the efficacy of the cape. And "Don't believe women when they tell you the capes don't work. Women just don't realize the capes work." It really creates an airtight vacuum of misinformation about the female sexual experience. And you have an entire generation of guys who are totally lost, insisting that your sexuality works other than how it does just because they've gotten results in getting laid... which would have happened anyway. On a personal level, it's frustrating. But on a collective level, it silences the voices of women actually communicating their needs and wants... just because some women will settle for game. So, it drives an intimacy barrier between men and women in their experience of sex and love, because the guy fundamentally doesn't understand but is certain in his own ignorance that he does because he heard it from some equally clueless "guru". So, that potential to attract a lot of women would have been there before any "game" was learned at all. And the reason why is simple. It's because most women are attracted to men. There is no need to filter oneself through all of these ideas and techniques. Just have your life in order, get some basic social skills, don't suppress your masculinity, make connections with people, open your heart, and be yourself. From my perspective, I'm almost never attracted to the guys that would be deemed universally attractive. And it almost never happens when a guy has romantic intent of any kind on his sleeves. I'm mostly attracted to guys who just have a very particular way about them that resonates with me. And as long as they're being themselves, I'm going to feel that. But game, as I've noticed, is usually the opposite. It cuts men off from their natural masculine essence and teaches masculinity on the external level. And the counter-productivity of it is very palpable and obvious from the outside looking in.

Actually, you're not correct. The connection comes from something much deeper and more elemental than that. Women, when connected to their intuition, they can sense who they have chemistry with. And in that way they find a match. And this is very particular. I could see a guy that most women would label him a 10 and he'd be a 5 to me, because I can sense he is not a match. But a guy that most women might label a 5 would be off the charts to me because I can sense a match in my bones and in my heart. And that's not from some pick-up skill the guy has learned. It comes from feeling the natural essence of his personality and an intuitive sensing of congruency between him and I. And pick-up has a special way of interrupting and corrupting the male essence and filtering it through the "shoulds". I can really smell it on them. And as with any form of personal development, it tends to come from a sense of lack or insecurity. Also, my matches tend not to fit into many of the things you mentioned. They're usually not bold, charming, smooth, or cool. That energy doesn't go with mine. I am naturally attracted to men of a more reserved and introverted kind of nature... a man who doesn't wear his sexuality on his sleeve. A man who would likely find my specific attention special and not just another thing. Once a guy gets to a point where he no longer sees sex as special and meaningful, it pretty much guarantees that I can't really get much emotionally out of the experience because sex is much more about the communication of care and desire than anything else. And I've been getting attractions to those of the male persuasion since I was 4 years old. Are you telling me that those 4 year old boys of yesteryear somehow learned game? The answer is no. And even as a child, I was always attracted to loner types that were not very gregarious. But I suppose you'd have to be a woman to truly know what it is that women are attracted to in guys. So, continue to do what works for you. But don't be so ignorant as to assume that you know that insides of the mechanism. It's very different from the inside. And while your methods will get you some success if you do the fishing. As I said, pick up and game works on 25% of women... which is a sizable minority. But you likely won't be attracting women who specifically seek you.

My experience of my sexuality differs from this. Though I could see how it would work on women who don't have a very strong intuition or boundaries or who are just lonely... which probably describes like 25% of women. So, it's a sizable enough minority to find a sexual partner as a man. But I don't think this is typical. It's certainly not logical. But usually the guy is someone I have either a platonic friendship with or an acquaintance relationship to. And it isn't based on looks or any other specific trait. But the draw is curiosity about his energy at a distance. It's always the question of whether or not the guy is interested and the wondering of what's happening in his mind. So, it is introversion and nonchalance and lack of clear interest that attracts me along with his general energy. If I'm sure a guy is interested, it kills the entire attraction before it can set in because there is no mystery and nothing for my mind to get curious about. So, game and clear sexual intent is the anti-aphrodisiac. I hate to see men trying to perform their sexuality at me. It's very obvious and it has a saccharine kind of energy about it. I have a very sensitive intuition about when men are interested in me. And I only want the one that seems he's not because then tension gets to build and I get to discover that he does. This is an analogy for how it sets in... Imagine that I'm alone in the middle of a very shallow and calm lake with nothing around me. And then, when I'm alone, I start to think about a guy who happens into my mind, and suddenly something floats to the surface of that lake. And it's my feelings and deepening curiosity. And eventually, over the course of time, I grow to become more curious and more entranced. And these feelings usually last a year or more... and are usually unreciprocated. But a couple times they have been.

I didn't even think about language barriers and technology. That's a really great point. I can see this come up in a big way in the coming years.

I've only seen a Blue person do that so far, with the argument that we should go back to more traditional social orders. People who are in Green would probably take issue more-so with the objectification factor of pick-up, which is a fair point. It almost always is. That said, thinking that society should put the cat back in the bag is the wrong idea. We need a society that is both sex positive, and engages in subjectification of women instead of objectification of women... which Blue Traditionalists and Orange Pick-Up artists are both woefully horrible at.

It's a good thing that the birth rate is shrinking. It means that we will pose less of a burden to the Earth. We're over-populated to begin with and humanity's over-expansion (particularly industrial and post-industrial societies) are creating an enormous strain on the planet... especially in regard ot climate change. Also, communities only become so insular and absolutist through disintegration with the whole of humanity. That makes them believe that their society is the best and that everyone else's society is ridden with degeneracy. Similar to the mindset you have now. But once a society has access to the internet, international travel, and collective media, the values of the most powerful countries will eventually take hold... for better and for worse. On one hand, cultural norms in less powerful societies will not hold up very well, which creates some issues with power structures for them as collective identity is one way to fight against inequality. But on the more positive side, it will also make us more integrated as a species and on the same wavelength. Extreme conservative values in any culture... whether it be hyper-traditionalists, reactionaries, theocrats, or absolutists of any kind have a hard time surviving integration and the presence of more knowledge. Which is why many conservative minded people become reactionary. They fear living in a society that they no longer understand. But they also are too afraid to let go of old and dead social orders. So, they thrash against the changes and fear-monger to other people that other cultures are going to take over or that everything's going to shit now. And they desperately cry to bring it all back. So, they will resist it. But their grand-children will see the limitations of the old orders. And if they don't their children certainly will. And that's how change happens. Hardly anyone old ever changes their minds. But they all die eventually. And they leave behind children whose natural set-point tends toward the cutting edge of new social orders. All places evolve with integration. If you see corruption in other societies that we don't have, that's because of lack of integration on their part. Now, you may not see the corruption in our society because... lack of integration on our part. So, save the fear-mongering and actually have the vision to notice the beautiful seeds that are sprouting from the chaos.

The process of human evolution bends toward integration. So, that's very unlikely that the order that will emerge is that of an Islamic Theocracy, as that's an older form of social structure that doesn't work very well in a world that's rational/post-rational. Theocracies grow out of agrarian patriarchal society... not industrial patriarchal societies, and not post-industrial semi-patriarchal societies like all the first world nations of today are. Western society as we know it will dissolve... but it's already so far away from Western society as its historically described. The fact of the matter is the Western values have yielded us lots of growth and lots of degeneration. But it has reached a point of diminishing returns, which is why there are so many structures dissolving. So it will and is and always has been evolving the whole time. It's not as though you can look at Western society 100 years ago and Western society now and see the same society. Things are different. So, Western society has already dissolved and regrown and dissolved and regrown many times. And it will continue to do so because everything in this world is in constant flux. And those that are unable to evolve will thrash against these natural changes and cling feverishly and desperately to the dead orders of the past. But if your battle is against nature, you will lose and just waste a ton of energy in the process. The wave is coming. You can surf it or be swept up and drown in it. Those are the two options.

@Dumuzzi "It is most demonstrably not a better situation. Society as a whole is collapsing before our eyes, not least through crashing birth rates and the current situation does not benefit anyone, except, ironically, pick-up artists. You really have to live in and experience different cultures, with very different social and sexual mores to understand why this is. I have lived in many different cultures throughout my life, such as Poland, Hungary, Ireland, the UK, Singapore, India and Thailand as well as travelled extensively, which gives me a unique insight into what works and what doesn't and what the differences actually do to people and society in practice. It would take several books to explain." Currently, there is a lot of dissolution of old social norms and mores. And though this can create issues, it's actually a sign of positive change. You have to break some eggs to make an omelette. And right now, the right eggs are being broken for us to create a fabulous omelette that more people prefer. Raw eggs are not good for most people. It is the nature of the relationship between order and chaos. Order emerges from chaos which is the primordial soup. And then, once that order no longer works, it dissolves yet again into chaos... the same chaos from which more expansive order will emerge. So, we're always in flux between order and chaos. This is why the dissolution of old social norms and structures is wonderful news, even if its uncomfortable for those that the old order has worked for in the past. So, it will be more difficult for those who liked the old order. So, reactionary views that seek to resurrect old and dead structures... are trying to put the goldfish back into a bowl that it's already outgrown. I liken the way that order and chaos works together as being like the life-cycle of a butterfly. First they start out with a simpler order as a caterpillar. Then, once the caterpillar has reached its point of maximum expansion and enters the cocoon, that's where the chaos begins. Inside the cocoon, the caterpillar is dissolved into primordial soup. And then, from that primordial soup, new order constellates and a butterfly begins to grow from the soup. And it eventually emerges from the cocoon an entirely different being. The same thing is happening now on the societal level. And so many people, especially those that the old order (caterpillar phase), worked for are urging everyone to go back to being a caterpillar. But it won't work... because it is against nature to resist the evolving social order of humanity. It is time for us to be a butterfly. So, old sexual mores have to go out the window. And we can create new mores that are more conscious and make more sense. Allow entropy to do its work, so that new things can grow.

@Baotrader Clearly this young woman has some really huge issues. She has been used as an object of beauty, giving full grown men sexual favors since she was a kid. So, it's not a wonder that she comes to use men for their money. That's all she knows. She knows that men use you for you beauty and sex, so why not use them for their money. And she probably fundamentally doubts that men have the capacity to fully care about her because she's never experienced it. She is in a position of powerlessness, and she has come to grasp power in whatever limited way she can. So, she uses her sexuality to retaliate toward "evil" men who see her as nothing but a place to put their dicks. Maybe don't call victims of human trafficking evil... unless you're willing to look at why and consider what you're contributing to that pattern.

I have contemplated quite a lot on the topic actually since I was a little kid. The human mind creates a lot of false dichotomies, which includes the masculine and feminine dichotomy in terms of label and even firsthand perception. So, if you take a Yin and Yang sign for what it stands for metaphorically. You can basically keep zooming in and and in and in and out and out and out. And if, for example, you Zoom into the Yin of the the Yin and Yang sign (or vice versa)... you will find still more Yin and Yang signs. And you can keep zooming in (and out) forever. So, there is a broad strokes layer to which you can say some things are masculine and some things are feminine. But if you zoom in, you realize that there's ever more of those polar energies. So, you could say that everything is infinitely masculine and infinitely feminine OR infinitely Yang and infinitely Yin. Or you could say that because of this, there is not true Yin and Yang at all. The mind can't get it right because the mind doesn't work that way. It is similar to the concepts of Big and Small. Once you zoom in and continue zooming in, you pick up on different levels of bigness and smallness... until you realize that the idea is just a relative truth of the human perspective. And it's not that everything is infinitely big or everything is infinitely small. But that bigness and smallness is a false dichotomy that only exists for practical purposes to be used by the limited human mind. Big and small is only a lens for describing the practical human experience of the relative phenomena that that some objects are 'bigger' than others. But in the absolute no such distinction exists. It is the same way with any false dichotomy... masculine/feminine, big/small, up/down, internal/external, beginning/end, finite/infinite, free will/determinism, etc. etc. There are a zillion of these false dichotomies. Now, false dichotomies exist for a reason. And that's that it makes thing comprehensible to the human mind... which is inherently limited. And this is why paradox happens... because false dichotomies are false. But damn if they aren't useful in the practical arena. It's useful in the sense that you literally can't go through life in a functional way without adopting the perspective that big/small, up/down... and even masculine/feminine are relatively true. Life won't function well without the ability to adopt the lenses of certain false dichotomies. Reality become an abstraction and a wash without these relative truths but absolute falsehoods. And my primary goal in communicating with people is to meet them where they are, and give them new tools in their arsenal to deal with the challenges of life... specifically challenges of the psyche. Edit: Also, relative to the differences between a Kangaroo and a BMW... that exists on the relative level in terms of practical differences. But there are many other relative perspectives (and the absolute perspective) where there is no such distinction. So, in terms of raw perception of the visuals that are interpreted as Kangaroo and BMW... from the more scientific and materialistic level of truth, it's all just different frequencies that the eye picks up on because of light reflecting upon form. So, it's all just pixels on a screen. There is no separation or true distinction. If you take the absolute perspective, and you remove the assumption that there are eyeballs and brains and perceptions from sensory organs. And you remove the assumption that there is light and form and a phenomenal world that is separate from the individual you think of yourself as... it's all just experience. Experience playing out within consciousness. Just like everything within a dream is just dream-stuff. Everything within our reality is just God-stuff. If you could experience the Kangaroo and BMW in terms of sensation only and we had no inherent capacity for sight or sound, then we would recognize that within the sensory field the experience of the Kangaroo and BMW are just pure sensation. So, as somatic experience everything is the prima materia.

I do understand what you're saying. Mostly, what I've been doing in terms of practice has to do with experiencing the sensory field and the emotions that play out upon it in their full depth and breadth. So, I don't use the labels then, I just feel into my emotions and other bodily sensations. Just like, when I'm going to draw something realistically I detach from labels in order to see what's actually going on in front of me. Otherwise my depiction will be distorted by the ideas within the mind. So, my personal practice is about allowing and observation. Mind you, I'm no longer looking for the absolute because the attachment to that will keep me from it. Perhaps it will or won't happen in this lifetime, and that's okay. I am just seeking to cultivate deeper and more subtle levels of awareness, nothing more. Also, I figured that from the perspective of 'that which is', everything is perfect. So, accepting that permanent awakening may not be in the cards and seeing it as equally valid, puts me more into alignment with how 'that which is' orients toward everything. But in terms of how I teach, I try to give people the next right thing that they need to get out of certain traps or mindsets. And most people's next right thing is related to Masculine and Feminine integration as society is really at a crossroads in relation to these energies. Just like you might use the framework of Spiral Dynamics to give people the next right thing, I do the same with these insights. Basically, what I share in this moment is not necessarily what I'm focused on in particular as my form of inner work.

Have you ever had an experience of Divine Masculine or Divine Feminine? Years ago, I experienced the latter from the standpoint of being someone who was adamant that gender was a social construct. And the only word that felt anywhere near correct was to describe it as feminine. I understand that this is a metaphor. But the experience is empirically observable and it's a damn good metaphor. You'd know it if you experienced it. So, while you may be correct on the absolute. I'm not really talking about the absolute perspective. I'm talking about an empirical experience based in the phenomenal world. These subtle energies can be experienced with enough sensitivity. And it has just the same amount to do with mind as experiencing the wind blowing on a cold day or the burning sensation of putting your hand on a hot stovetop. So, your admonition to me sounds like you're saying something akin to, "There is no sun or ocean... only God. And if you're labelling something as sun and ocean, it is you (as God) who put that there." And while that's true on the absolute, that top shelf paradigm is woefully unhelpful to those who I was replying to. In fact, there's little to no efficacy about talking about the absolute at all. It just confuses and misleads those that aren't anywhere close to it. So, understand that I express this relative truth (based in empirical experience) in order to help those who resist their Feminine sides... as it is very common (especially among young men). And it puts them in a world of psychological hurt... as well as the women who experience the aftermath. So, the absolute paradigm isn't really helpful in this case. I recommend trying to get in touch with the Divine Feminine. It was beautiful, and I felt very connected to nature. I'm sure the Divine Masculine is amazing too. So, be careful not to invalidate relative truths, using your memory of experiencing absolute Truth in the past. The absolute Truth crystalized into an insight can cover over many important relative truths... as I'm sure you've experienced with your platform being what it is.

@Leo Gura This will explain what I'm referring to.

On the absolute level nothing has gender. But it is so, on the relative, that there are two subtle polar energies that imbue all things. And this is experienceable with enough sensitivity. So, you definitely didn't put it there either way. On the absolute level it isn't there and neither are you. So, you didn't put it there. On the relative level it is an empirically observable energetic phenomenon for those sensitive enough to pick up on the subtle energies. So, you didn't put it there. Now, the words masculine and feminine are metaphors (and the most accurate human metaphors) for the nature of those polar energies. But that label is you putting it there. So, in terms of semantics and labels you are correct. But you can also use Yin and Yang. Have you ever had an experience of Divine Feminine or Divine Masculine?

You mean the Hermetic Principle of gender... which states that everything has gender. That means that the masculine and feminine exist in everything... including rocks and stars and popsicles. So, this is why everyone is psychologically and energetically androgynous and has both masculine and feminine within themselves. And to be an integrated and highly developed person, we must accept both of our polarities. Thus, harkening to the Hermetic Principle of Gender within All actually goes against your interpretation of 100% binary gender and not for it. Integrate your Feminine side or face some serious psychological consequences.

It's a nice sentiment. But it concerns me. Be careful not to sacralize women. Women are human beings, capable of both positive and negative things, just as men are. My fear is that you may be projecting the idealized form of your Anima onto women... which also means that you'd be (at times) projecting the demonized form of the Anima onto women because that is just the natural outgrowth of sacralization. And this can be happening in the Shadow as well. So, you wouldn't necessarily be conscious of it. But it's the natural rubber band effect of female sacralization. And from there stems many of the problems that women face in society, as there are always men trying to compete with women and drag the sacralized female down off of some imaginary pedestal that they perceive... but it actually isn't there. It will also be very bad for your psychological well-being because it would make you susceptible to Anima disintegration and possession. Women in all their facets, are rendered invisible in society because of these positive and negative filters. And your compliment has my spidey senses tingling... thought I'm not 100% sure. A good litmus test to see if this message is integrative is to question whether you're referring to only the women you find attractive... as they resemble your image of the idealized/sacralized female. Are you also referring to octogenarians? Are you also referring to women you don't find attractive? Are you also referring to women that the collective would deem as "ugly"? If not, your compliment is just an outgrowth of female sacralization, and it points to some deep issues.

I've always been uncomfortable with the abortion debate because it's all very difficult to reconcile. I think both sides really suck, and there is no part of the issue that doesn't. That said, I'm very pro-choice. And I always had this intuition that it would be really dystopian and oppressive if the government came in and banned abortion. You'd see a rise in back-alley abortions, suicide, infanticide, and child abuse to force women to carry a child and give birth. And it would also lead to lots of abandoned children and children given up for adoption, which would add further weight to the foster care system which is already packed with unadopted kids. So, even though I agree that a fetus is a life in the general sense of the word, I think it's a much better solution to let women make their own decisions with their bodies. And that's because death really isn't the worst thing in the world. Suffering is. So, I think banning abortion would lead to more suffering... and likely just as many, if not more, deaths.

I'm a life-coach and I would say that one of the most helpful skills to have is the ability to intuitively come up with probing questions that leads the client down further into the obstacles to their goals. You should also understand a lot about human nature, be able to listen deeply (receptivity), and have the ability to read small cues from the other person intuitively. Now, generally, the ICF frowns upon advice giving and it's against their code of ethics. I personally think this simply exists for fear of being misconstrued as some other profession... as opposed to having to do with genuinely helping a client. Also, they probably expect that, since life-coaching is so broad, that the coach's advice wouldn't be based in expertise. That said, if you have an intuitive knowing about people through cultivating self-awareness and empathy, I think it can be helpful to share certain insights to show the client new platforms to look from that they probably wouldn't have considered on their own. But the most important thing in coaching is the ability to intuitively respond to clients' answers. So, it's something like this... Coach: So, what would you like to focus on in this session? Client: I've been having some trouble at work recently with my boss. Coach: What's the issue? Client: I feel like my boss isn't noticing my contributions. Coach: What makes you feel that way? Client: He never really acknowledges when I've done well? Coach: Is it your perception that he acknowledges others when they do well? Client: Yes. Coach: And how does that make you feel? Client: It makes me feel uneasy and like he doesn't want me working there. I'm afraid of getting fired. Coach: Do you think your assessment is accurate? Or do you think this fear arises for other reasons? Client: I'm not sure. Sometimes I think it's accurate and sometimes I think it might be my insecurities. Coach: Can you name for me another time in your life when you experienced similar insecurities? etc. Then, once the client has found some new conclusion that they weren't previously aware of, you and the client create an appropriate action step to address the obstacle or goal.

@Patrick Lynam Sexual energy can be experienced in any part of the body... the heart included. And with an open heart, it feels like bliss and love... usually directed to one's partner, as it is an expression of love instead of just pleasure. For men in general, there is a particular challenge because their sexual energy goes from the bottom up. So, it starts in the loins and then travels upward, where women's sexual energy begins in the head and travels downward. But the loins have the most gravity. So, a woman's sexuality begins in her mind travels to the heart and then to the loins. For a man, his sexual energy has the opposite path... starting in the loins, traveling to the heart, and then to the head. So, the energy works against "gravity" to reach the heart and head. What it may be is that your sexual energy is trying to move to the heart, but that there is either too much density to your energy... so "gravity" brings it down. Or the sexual energy could be beginning to reach your heart, and the discomfort you feel is a symptom of the heart opening... and the experiencing residual traumas from past events.

Firm disagree with Eckhart Tolle on this one. We are still very much Yang dominated.... which is why climate change as well as many inqualities still exist. The sixties saw an uprising of Yin in its negative form in terms of hedonism, and then those same people snapped back and retreated back into Yang. Also, the Feminist movement and other movements like that are still very much Yang. They have to be to actually make room for the rise of the divine feminine. Otherwise, we have an excess of corrupt Yang order that leads to an excess of Yin dissolution and chaos. But the current chaos exists for a very good reason, and that's so that new order can emerge. So, Eckhart is way off base in terms of his view on this particular subject. He's focused too narrowly to see the big picture of what's happening.