Emerald

Everything in life is based on self-interest. It cannot be otherwise. This is why, to truly be loving, one must see through the illusions of self and other. When you realize that all is self, you will behave in the best interests of the greater good. But this is neither here nor there in relation to the topic at hand.

Do you know how many women die at the hands of an abusive partner? Ruthless men are NOT good for female survival. Period. That’s why women without self-esteem issues don’t find them attractive. But my point in making this post is to show the men on this post what they look like from the woman’s view. Imagine the majority of women get together on forums theorizing about how to be more bitchy and unpleasant to attract more men. And there were women who were selling coaching and courses and seminars to teach women the “How to be a shitty partner to keep a man” method. Then, when you go “Hey. That’s not really true... just for some men.” They all respond, “Never listen to a man about what he’s attracted to. He doesn’t know himself. All men respond to the ‘Be a big bitch method.’ It’s good for survival because it’s a sign of being a protective mother.” That’s what women are dealing with.

Therein lies the reason I made this post. I’m holding up a mirror to you guys. Now, I’m not going to call a woman who gets with a ruthless man a loser. But women who are attracted to that kind of guy who is bad for their survival are usually dealing with traumas and low self esteem... just like the “losers” you mention. So, it’s frustrating when men base their ideology of dating around the behaviors of a certain subset of women who tend to have boundary issues anyway. That’s why these women respond to cold approach and stuff that many other women wouldn’t respond to at all. What’s happening here is the equivalent of me making the claim that all men are attracted to bitchy women... just because I’ve had success with the subset of men that fall into this “loser” category by being bitchy.

And that’s why you’ll never understand.

No, it’s masculine nature. Never listen to a man about what attracts them. They’ll say, “I don’t like bitchy women. I want a nice submissive woman.” And then, lo and behold... who do they pick? I mean, look around and see how many men are with bitchy women... the majority probably. (This is what so many men on here sound like. Cherry picking instances where a girl has picked an asshole and then being like, “Female sexuality solved! They just like assholes. So, I need to be one!”)

What you know is what works for your purposes. And I’m not saying don’t use those techniques. There are plenty of women who will respond to them. But what you do not know is what is true, and you’re not even curious. Consider why these beliefs about female sexuality are so important for you to hold onto to the point where you refuse to see any other perspective. My assumption is that you have created a tough armor with these beliefs where you can say, “Got female sexuality figured out. All done with that”. And that way, you can feel more in control and thus avoid being hurt. And you’ve experienced enough evidence for you to justify closing the book on the whole matter. Keep in mind, I’m not telling you that what you perceive is not there. I’m telling you your view is incomplete. And you refuse to get a more holistic perspective. Edit: “I think Leo is afraid of feminine love. ??‍♀️“ @Etherial Cat I just saw this. That’s what I’m referring to in this post.

I do know very well what I’m attracted to. I’ve contemplated on that probably more than anything else I ever have. And I also can generally tell you about why people get attracted to who they get attracted to. I keep telling you what I’ve learned, but you never listen. It doesn’t matter to you how much of my own Shadow I’ve crawled through to get these insights and how many rabbit holes I’ve been down. If you only knew how many disturbing truths about myself that I’ve faced with, you’d know I was being honest. It’s a shame that you can’t pour wisdom into a cup already filled to the brim with cherished misconceptions. You’re not in the least bit open-minded about this matter. You prefer comforting and useful non-truth to truth that feels irrelevant to your agenda. But I’ll continue to call you out on your misconceptions. I always thought that, if I were a man, I’d probably get stuck in a comfort zone a few layers down into my exploration of human sexuality where it touches what I call “the tepid place”. For women, this “place” in the psycho-sexual realm is a mixed bag of intense pleasure and intense discomfort. But for men, the discomfort of that place is more subtle and the pleasure is seductive. So, though (due to the discomfort) fewer women are likely to get to that place and face with their more animalistic desires, women who do venture there are more likely to move deeper as there is no comfort zone for in human sexuality for women... except at the very top and the very bottom. And I don’t get the sense that you’ve ever ventured past the tepid place. Your perspective betrays a lack of depth with regard to this matter.

That’s incorrect. There are plenty of men that you can look at their resting demeanor and see that he has the capacity for violence and aggression. But you can also see that a significant number of them are very emotionally intelligent with tons of self-control, and hearts of gold. They’re a mixed bag of Mufasas and Scars. And you can also see men who lack the capacity for violence and aggression in a significant way who are total narcissistic assholes. The capacity for violence and aggression (just like most masculine traits) is very subtle. It’s not something a man needs to display... in fact, that’s a red flag if he does. It’s more of a subtle quality that glimmers through his entire personality when a man has developed grace. So, you don’t really know what it’s like to appreciate this quality. It’s much more of a background element of his energy than anything to do with his overt behavior. I’ll say again what I’ve said many times... men have no idea what makes them attractive.

Haha! I guess I let the cat out of the bag. Every woman is all about Genghis Kahn. ? But it’s usually based around something contextual for me if it’s a more heart-centered fantasy. Like, I have a crush on a guy. And then I imagine some scenario where things start off platonic and then there’s a sexual shift, where the context flips in a moment. These fantasies are all about the guy and the exchange of passionate feelings through the medium of sex. But the there are more loins-centered fantasies that are like the categories on a porn site. It’s not personal... just about the sexual urge. This one’s a bit more draining... like having a male orgasm is said to be.

The ‘racism-capacity for racism’ and ‘barbarism-capacity for barbarism’ parallel doesn’t track. That’s a false equivalency. The reason why is because the ‘capacity for barbarism’ is an expression of masculinity in both its healthy and unhealthy forms. And it is very useful in its healthy expression. And racism (along with having no pro-social use in modern society) is just an expression of Shadow Masculinity. There’s no Divine Masculine racism. The unhealthy masculine is the untamed barbarism and the lack of self-control and narcissism that comes with it. It’s indiscriminate barbarism. Where a man in his healthy masculine will have a lot of discipline and will be in control of his capacity for barbarism... and will use that capacity for the greater good. But don’t take my use of the word barbarism as referring directly to Barbarians. Protecting your family at all costs is important if you have attackers from the outside. That’s Divine Masculine... which necessitates the capacity for barbarism. This is why that capacity is so attractive. But a man who is indiscriminately barbaric is a liability. And it’s the exact opposite of an aphrodisiac. It lacks the Divine Masculine capacities of responsibility, strength of character, strong will, discipline, stability, etc. There’s a lot more to being an attractive man than being a ravenous beast. The beast without the tamer is gross at best and genuinely dangerous at worst.

If you want to take the Vegan logic and ideology to its extremes, sure. That’s what PETA does. They run animal shelters and kill like 80% of the animals. And there are quotes that suggest the founder is against pet ownership... and thus believes it’s more ethical to euthanize than rehome. Luckily, my reason for Veganism has nothing to do with logic at all. I have no investment in following the Vegan ideology to its extremes. I just listen to what feels viscerally wrong to me... and then I don’t do those things that evoke that reaction. Have you watched Earthlings yet like I recommended?

I did say “apparently”. I heard that mentioned somewhere a long time ago that humans and dolphins are the only species that have sex for pleasure. Not sure if it’s true. Now, perhaps I add on a human taboo that doesn’t exist there for animals. But (and call me crazy with this zany opinion) I’m just not cool with bestiality. I don’t think you should do anything sexual to anyone without very clear consent. And since animals can’t verbally consent... probably don’t jack off your dog or cat. And on the Vegan side of things... probably don’t kill them and eat them either.

Only humans and dolphins have sex for pleasure apparently. So, there is no need to set up that experience for your pet. Also, this should go without saying... don't give your pet an orgasm.

I had my first sexual experience at age 6, and I also enjoyed it. I had a big crush on the boy (6 years older than me) who did it. But I realized years later, that even though I consented to it and enjoyed it, it doesn't make it untraumatic. It's too much for a child to handle. It's really integral to healing to realize the mark that situation has left.

I remember as a little girl, I used to imagine I was a beautiful princess locked away in a tower awaiting my savior. And in the end it was alway Genghis Kahn and his barbarian hordes coming to put my captor’s head on a pike and forcibly steal my maiden hood from me. Sigh!

Yes, it is true. And again, consider the mindset a person has to have about themselves, relationships, and the world to idolize such a person.

And think about what kind of understanding those women have about relationships and themselves to idolize such a person.

Nah! He got all his followers to do his dirty work. I prefer Jeffrey Dahmer because he had the balls to eat his victims... That’s what you call big dick energy.

Yes, it’s very difficult to get most men to understand what ACTUALLY makes them attractive for this very reason. A man without his feminine side integrated will get it distorted every time. Most men prefer their user-friendly narratives to the actual truth.

Women are attracted to signals of strength and the CAPACITY for barbarism if the situation calls for it. If a woman is attracted to actual unfettered barbarism in a man, then there are issues because she is attracted to men who aren’t displaying pro-social behavior and who fundamentally aren’t good for her survival. Actual barbarism denotes weakness of character, lack of discipline, and a litany of other issues.

Yes, that’s my point. Too many men hold the misconception that it’s a feminine instinct to be attracted to men who are barbaric. And they think this because there are so many women dealing with trauma and as a result are prone to attracting/ being attracted to these barbaric kind of guys. My point is to encourage men to parse the difference between nature and nurture. And to parse the difference between what will give them success with traumatized women and what’s genuinely a reflection of the Divine Masculine... which is the real aphrodisiac.

It's mostly because the image most people have in their mind about an authentically spiritual person is that they live a meager life. There is the image in collective consciousness of the ascetic yogi that lives on the street and wears rags. And anything that's more affluent feels to most people like it's not authentic. Or there's a thought that spiritual people SHOULD be above human needs, and if they aren't then they're not that spiritual. But of course, human beings all have the need for food, water, shelter, etc. Money currently is the means to get these things.

I know my channel is quite a bit smaller than yours as I only have 49k subs at this point. But I'd love to do a collaboration with you. Let me know if you'd be interested.