Emerald

I have reasoned that it's a hold-over of an adaptation from an earlier phase in human history where these types of inter-male pressures to conform to certain standards of Masculinity served an important function within a small tribe or a village. Sort of like how there are certain rites of passage where men have to prove their manhood by going through some kind of trial. For example, there is a particular tribe where the rite of passage for a boy to become a man is to stick his arm in a sheath full of large ants. And the ant bites have a particular type of toxin that creates extreme pain and swelling. So, to become men, these boys must endure the intense pain of the ant bites. And this makes sense as an adaptive rite of passage within that context... because if someone's kid lands in a pile of those ants, you're going to need men who are willing stick their hand in the ant pile to fish out the child. These rites of passage also make sense in these small villages and tribes because the men there live with their mothers in the mother-land for their entire lives. So, they have to find a way to separate from the mother when they must live in proximity to their mother. And they do this through the rejection of the Feminine... since between their own mother, the mother-land, and Mother Nature... they must find some way to individuate from these layers of the mother. So, all sorts of social rituals were created to differentiate men from the Feminine. But with industrial and post-industrial society where danger is rarer and we are living separate from our mothers, the mother-land, and Mother Nature... these inter-Masculine pressures to conform to certain standards of Masculinity don't have much of a practical function anymore. But the desire for the respected identity of "the man who has stripped himself of Femininity and earned his manhood" is still romanticized and yearned for by many men who want to use it for the sake of securing social status... despite its limited usefulness in the context of the contemporary post-industrial world. But it's more of an ego/identity thing around proving one's self man enough in our current era... as opposed to something constructive and adaptive towards the outcomes of community building and maintenance like it used to be in more communal eras. It's kind of like if there was a rich tradition of ditch diggers who were really well-respected by society because ditch-digging was REALLY helpful for survival in tribal and agrarian times... such that the echoes of respect given to those ditch-digging identities echoed into modern-day pop culture. And men who have never HAD to dig a ditch in their lives would all start clamoring for the "good old days" before digging machines. They may even start the practice of vanity ditch-digging as a life-style choice and to try to be seen as higher status. And they'd have all sorts of special insults for men who failed to live up to ditch-digger status. And all these ditch-digger fetishists who treat ditch-digging as a religion would start pressuring each other about who would be the better ditch digger if they were in a past fantasy world where they needed to dig ditches. And they'd start trying to destroy society and progress so that the lost glory of ditch diggers could rise again. And they'd beat up other guys who didn't prefer ditch-digging... but instead preferred other activities.

I wasn't meaning you in particular want porn to be banned. I just notice that people who are heavier porn users tend to have very negative views on porn while other people feel more neutral about its existence. So, I was rebutting the claim that coke users would think coke is a net-positive to society... and that regular porn users would be more likely to think porn is a net-positive to society. With coke users, my impression is that they're under no illusion that coke is a societal net positive. And with heavy porn users, they tend to be the most anti-porn crusaders out there.

It's still going to be a turn-off because of the vibe of a man always trying to escalate things sexually. And that's true regardless of how much of a sex fiend the woman is. It's like the vibe of Quagmire from Family Guy when a guy is like this. And an unattractive vibe is just an unattractive vibe... and it will kill her libido dead. Men have a more attractive vibe when they are more in control of their sexual impulses and fairly detached from them. This communicates a sense of stability, maturity, and a lack of desperation. And it also communicates that a man has a higher degree of trustworthiness than a man who's all horn-balled up all the time. But to get even more specific, women don't like it when men are needy. And sex is... a need. So, a man who's always scrounging for sex every chance he gets comes across as a needy desperate man. It's much better to take a detached but willing frame and only escalate like once a week, and leave the rest to her. It's similar to how, if you ask someone if they want to get something to eat but they're not that hungry yet. And so they say, "Sure, I could eat." This would imply that they're well fed enough that they are not needy or desperate for food. To take this analogy into sex, take the detached frame of "Sure, I could fuck."

Thank you

But I do mean as a general trend... in the broadest strokes possible. I'm not talking about any particular person... nor exceptions to the rule that are really into truth seeking, inner work, or personal development. I'm just thinking about your average group of women versus your average group of men. (Of course, with both having major blindspots towards truth) And I just haven't observed any evidence that men are more geared towards truth than women are... nor are they more independent of social pressures towards conformity than women are. In fact, they usually seem more swayed by social pressures and seem more anxious about fitting a Masculine ideal because there's such a high degree of social punishment in many male circles for men who deviate from Masculine expectations... all the way to the extremes of violence in certain social circles. I think that the notion of "being the independent truth-seeking renegade" is a culturally Masculine aspiration that many men try to conform to. But the driver towards "being the brutal independent truth-teller" is usually just for the sake of conforming to Masculine social norms for the sake of social status. It's not real divergence and not real truth seeking... its just cosplaying as such for the sake of conforming. Real divergence and truth seeking are things that will make you unpopular in the eyes of 95% of people. And if one's truth seeking and personal development path is giving them more mass appeal, then chances are that it's just more conformity in disguise as divergence.

I can see why you would believe that at first blush, because women are more pro-social. But I actually haven't observed this to be true, at all. And that's because men seem to be more highly motivated by securing social status and social pressures than women are. If you look around in the world, you'll see that men tend to put a lot of social pressure on each other to perform Masculinity a specific way while women are less likely to police other women in the same way. Many women will shout you down or give you the bird if you try to tell them to conform to Feminine expectations (and rightly so), while most men are actively trying to conform to societal expectations of manliness. So, the pressure that men commonly feel to perform Masculinity for social purposes keeps them cosplaying as the 'strong independent men who doesn't give a hoot what anyone thinks'... because it's the cultural short-hand for what being an admirable man means. But it isn't a true divergence of perspective. Nor is it a reflection of actual truth-telling... as not all truths are blunt, straightforward, or brutal. For example, let's go to the extremes to explore what's common in men. Let's take an Andrew Tate type of guy who is seen by many as an "independent thinker" who is "escaping the matrix" by being a tough balls-to-the-wall Masculine guy. And he has "no tact" and has a "no bullshit" approach and he just tells the "brutal truth"... so just deal with it and stop being a pussy. And honestly, he is what many men aspire to be. It's a great many men's vision of what being a divergent thinking no-bullshit Masculine "truth-teller" is like. But even though our culture understands these types of Masculine behaviors as the short-hand for "brutal truth telling" and "independent thinking" it's just more social conformity in disguise. And it's just competition within a social hierarchy... which behooves all the men to compete in that hierarchy to conform and try to be the best at performing certain Masculinity rules. Or there are social consequences of being called mean Feminine names and losing the respect of other men. Ultimately, most men are too focused on inter-male competition and living up to standards of Masculinity to be truly autonomous with their mind or to be focused on truth in some kind of un-biased way. If you look with your eyes at how the world functions (or even just this forum), you will recognize that men are far more geared towards conforming to set social standards than women are. And most men will sacrifice divergence and truth to avoid looking like a pussy and to be respected by other men... like soldiers taking marching orders. Edit: Also, NO ONE is socially rewarded for breaking form the herd. True divergence ALWAYS comes with a social beat-down and rejection. And if you're getting socially rewarded for something for being divergent, it isn't actually divergent. It's just the cultural shorthand for divergence. It's just Andrew Tate "escaping the Matrix" by conforming to Masculine standards that society set for him the very best... and earning more social capital from within the social matrix.

It's possible that it could be just a correlation thing.... and not a causation thing. Or it could be a variety of factors. So, I don't think there's anything too conclusive to these findings as of yet in terms of the causal link between access to porn and lower risk of sexual assault. But it does make logical sense to me that that would be true. Like, if porn doesn't exist... a relatively small (but not insignificant) percentage of men might resort to being a peeping Tom or assaulting a woman to find a sexual release outlet.

I don't think that's true about most habitual coke users. Probably, most people who are addicted to cocaine or even engage in it recreationally here and there, recognize that it's a societal net negative. They either just feel powerless to it themselves if they're addicted... or for recreational users who only do it occasionally they might feel like, "Sure, it's a net negative. But I only do it once in a while. So, it's fine." But I don't believe that very many coke users would claim that it's a net positive for society, as it's just not the culture around that particular drug. (In contrast, weed culture and psychedelic culture does have this "net positive to society" idea baked into it.) But with cocaine users, the majority would probably recognize that coke use is a net negative but that they still want to do it or feel attached to it. And with porn, it seems to be the "Methinks the lady doth protest too much" kind of situation... where heavy porn users are more likely to think about porn very negatively. It feels like people who don't have a particular problem with porn or just don't watch it or watch it once every blue moon, are just like "Sure, whatever. Porn exists, and it's probably either a net neutral or a slight net positive. Either way, it exists... and that's fine." But people who have a big issue with porn and a huge attachment to it are like, "Porn is the devil!!! We need to ban it all!!! The fabric of civilization is degrading because of pornographic degeneracy!!!! We need to instate an absolute theocracy to eradicate all porn from the face of the Earth!!" As they say... a hit dog'll holler. So, I don't think it's true that regular porn users have a more positive view of porn's impact on society than people who are not regular porn users. If you look in the comment section of this video, you'll see lots of people who are extremely anti-porn. And most of them are likely to be heavy porn users themselves... or women who are married to a man with a porn addiction.

Not necessarily boredom as the primary motivator, per se. That didn't seem evident to me. But in my plant medicine experiences, it did show me that its nature is infinite omniscience... like an infinite mind and infinite heart in combination. So, its nature is to experience and know and be all things at every single level an infinite amount of times over... and to delight in all joys at the deepest level and suffer all sufferings at the deepest level. So, it must be every barnacle in the ocean... just as it must be every human... and must be every lifeform that exists... and every non-lifeform that exists.... just as an extension of its nature. That's at least what seemed evident to me in these experiences.

100% I thought I wanted Truth as well. And when I found it, I realized that I actually just wanted my ordinary life... plain and simple.

One of the realizations that I had was that it was wiser to choose the Emerald path than to choose the God path, BECAUSE of the limitation factor. Limitation is the necessary birthplace of meaning and beauty.... and it is also a conduit for mercy from the burdens of infinity. And one needs illusion to sink into the perspective of limitation. Truth removes all meaningful illusions of limitation and wakes you back up to the meaninglessness of the infinite. And in the experience of Truth, it's when "I" realized that "I" truly preferred to live the illusion of limitation for this lifetime... and chose to live the Emerald story because it was wiser for "me" to do so.

When it comes to relative truth (lowercase t), I see no such evidence that men as a whole group are more perceptive of relative truth than women as a whole group. Though there are angles of relative truth that men and women are more aware of, on average. And this can impact how we communicate truth and the level of nuance with which we experience reality. But one perspective is not more truth-oriented than the other, in the relative sense. For example... and to give a caveat... as Leo said in his post, there is evidence that women tend to be more aware of the emotional lay-lines of social situations and will tend to prioritize delivering things tactfully and maintaining harmony over sharing truth bluntly. And that's because we're (on average) more aware of the social/emotional realities of experience than men are... picking up on vibes, facial expressions, and small gestures that communicate the nuances of a complex social/emotional matrix. So, it's a dimension of relative truth that we tend to pick up on more easily than men do, generally speaking. And it's usually much wiser to share truth tactfully and with awareness of these social-emotional lay-lines... unless you're literally in danger or simply have to do something SUPER fast. And the level of emotional awareness is such, that it's difficult to deliberately go unconscious to the realities of these emotional lay-lines when you're sensitive enough to be aware of the realities of the emotional web that you're stepping on. It's like trying to ignore a really obvious elephant in the middle of the room. So, even though women pick up on truths... we're often navigating the least discordant way to communicate these truths because we're aware of the elephant. And women can develop the ability for blunt truth-speaking by becoming more okay with being seen as cruel and inflicting emotional pain (and the social fall-out that comes with it, from men and women)... while men are usually semi-unconscious to these emotional lay-lines to where the emotional pains/discomforts of others is more of a distant whisper and just doesn't register as much on their radar if they say something bluntly and it creates social discord. It's the same reason why it's easier for men to inflict acts of violence more dispassionately as there is a bluntedness regarding the perception of the emotional truths of a situation. But men don't need to develop the skill of cruelty for kindness-sake to communicate blunt truths, as many men may not even be sensitive enough to perceive that emotional layer of reality all together. So, it's easier to communicate truths in a brutal way, as they don't feel the subtle social fall-out as much. But in this way, the tendency towards greater levels of tact doesn't mean that women are less perceptive of what's true. In fact, it makes us more perceptive of the entire matrix of emotional truths... and the intuitive wisdom needed to traverse such a web, like a spider that knows all the sticky spots so as to not get caught in its web. But men tend to naturally be a little bit more blunted in their awareness of this web of emotional realities. So, they are less aware of these relative truths from this perspective... which has its plusses and minuses, including the ability to communicate truth expediently in a blunted and harsh way (which can be both positive and negative depending on the situation). To give an analogy to describe this general difference between men and women, think of these emotional lay-lines like the scenes in a movie where the characters are trying to escape from some maximum security captivity place. And in these movies, there's often a really complex security system with a bunch of laser beams that shine throughout the room in all directions. And if the characters walk through the laser beams or even so much as touch one, it sets off the security system and they get caught by their captors. And the characters usually have to duck around them skillfully to avoid setting them off. If these laser beams are analogous to the emotional realities of a situation, women tend to be able to see the laser beams better and get lots of practice since childhood of skillfully ducking around them to avoid setting them off. With men (generally speaking) they don't perceive these laser beams quite as easily because they aren't as sensitive to them. So, they tend to just walk right through them without even realizing that they set off an alarm. And it's more expedient... but can sometimes come with unintended consequences that can lead to chaos and social discord. And women usually cut men slack when they traverse social boundaries (aka bump into the laser beams) because we know that men usually aren't aware of where they're stepping on the web and aren't deliberately trying to create social discord on purpose. We recognize that (usually) men are just tuned out form the emotional lay-lines... and not being deliberately cruel. It's similar to how a man might cut a woman some slack if she struggles to carry something heavy. But women don't tolerate it as much if another woman creates social discord because it's more likely that she knows full-well that she's stepping on the wrong part of the web and is doing it on purpose to be subtly cruel (with plausible deniability) and create social discord deliberately. So, women have to be quite careful in how we communicate things because both men and women are very sensitive (for different reasons) to perceptions of female cruelty, which makes social bluntness a very unwise decision as you will attract lots of drama to you as you will be perceived as a bitch (unless you learn how to slow and lower the tone of your voice and communicate like a man, which is a useful code-switching skill for being perceived as more likable even if you are blunt). But mean girls tend to use their keen awareness of the realities of the social/emotional lay-lines to create as much emotional discord as possible with as much plausible deniability as possible. And if you're perceived as a mean girl, you will attract all sorts of other rivalries with other mean girls. So, tactful communication of truth is very important for a variety of reasons. This is what I mean by there being angles of relative truth that men and women are better at. Because women are more aware of the complex matrix of social and emotional truths, it gives us both a strength and a weakness with regard to communicating tactfully. Because men are less aware of the complex matrix of social and emotional truths, it gives you guys a strength and a weakness to communicate truth quickly and bluntly without tact. That's why it's not accurate to say that men are generally more geared towards truth than women. As it is only because of men's lack of awareness of certain types of truths that enable them to communicate other truths more bluntly.

Several years back, I was doing a deep dive into the work of many female dating coaches like Helena Hart, Adrienne Everheart, and Rori Raye. And I found their work to be a huge paradigm shift in terms of how women can operate to sort for the right partner and get the type of relationship she wants with her partner. There's a lot in there about raising your standards, knowing your boundaries, prioritizing yourself over maintaining a relationship that isn't working, and leaning back a bit so that the guy has space to invest. A lot of it is about peeling your energy off the guy and putting it back on yourself and enriching your life. But one thing that I learned in particular is in understanding what men really respond to in terms of deeper bonding. Often times, women are taught that a man's desire for relationship is about being beautiful for him or having sex with him... or doing domestic chores and things like that. And because of this misconception, women can try to use these as "tactics" to try to get a man to value her for a relationship instead of doing them simply because of her own wants. And she ends up going into treating the man like the prize and giving so much to him, which men will enjoy but won't value. All of these tactics are about giving and putting your energy on him as opposed to investing your energy in yourself. But one thing that was really interesting about these perspectives, when it came to understand what men are really drawn to relationship-wise, is that they are attracted to the Feminine tendency towards emotional expression and like to vicariously experience feelings and emotions through connection with the woman. So, anytime you can communicate raw feeling states... either positive/joyful ones or sad/scared vulnerable ones... it will tend to make him want to get closer... that is, if he's the connecting type and he already sees you as a potential candidate for a longterm relationship. With that being said, your post makes sense that men would respond very strongly to women expressing really strong emotions during sex.

Sure, that is the dualism of Yin and Yang at work for the sake of effectiveness. But that is using relative truth and relative illusion to get by within the context of the illusion... and not the realization of Truth in the absolute. Human beings are not wired biologically for the realization of Truth. And very few human beings are interested in waking up to Truth. Most just prefer to have the experience of this immersive VR headset and to live the story.

I answered no. Even though porn is pretty low brow most of the time as the production quality is usually less than stellar, I think society is better because porn exists as it gives a much-needed release valve for the sexual instinct. I also think the existence of porn and the popularity of it, takes human sexuality out of the Shadows a bit more. And it helps us recognize sex and sexual desire as common, mundane, and banal... instead of having the illusion that sex/sexual desire is this big bad thing that needs to be suppressed and repressed at all costs. it helps us let go of our strong polarization between puritanical shame AND utter debauchery where we pendulum swing between the two extremes... and it just enables us to embrace these instincts in a more mundane way where there isn't as much of a binge-and-restrict cycle and shame about the sexual instinct. So overall, I'd say that porn is a net positive... though I think that there's a lot of unrealized potential when it comes to finding more exalted expressions of human sexuality. The current state of porn reflect our nascent forays out of the puritanical shame context... but reflects a relatively immature stage of human sexual development

No, men's biology is not wired for Truth... nor is women's biology. All biology operates in the realm of the Feminine world of matter. So, that operates from within the illusion and serves the illusion. You will recognize this if you observe how human beings actually operate... or simply observe yourself with thorough honesty. Human beings are wired for community, homeostasis, survival, and creating meaning from within the illusion of Maya. And none of those have to do with facing Truth. In fact, we are all wired towards maintaining the illusion... including men. For example, men who go to war with men from another tribe or country have to convince themselves that the imaginary boundary lines on the globe are real in order of them to engage in that war. They have to trick themselves into believing falsehoods for the sake of community, homeostasis, survival and meaning-making. This is just one example of how men collectively trick themselves into an illusion for practical (or often not-so-practical) purposes. But you can see plenty of other instances of this in humans regardless of gender. And generally, God does an excellent job at fooling itself into believing it is human (or some other lifeform) and that the Maya is real. And that's not a mistake or a trap. It's a sovereign choice made by God itself. What seems evident to me from my medicine journeys is, if God TRULY wants to wake up and see through the illusion of a given incarnation/reality Matrix, it will do so. And if most spiritual seekers are honest with themselves, 99.9% of them will realize that they are not interested in waking up from the illusion... even if it sounds like a cool spiritual accomplishment to some of those who are ensnared in the illusion. When I died (ego death) and there was nothing there but empty consciousness and the false story of Emerald blew away like dust in the wind... the empty consciousness eventually chose to re-constellate the illusion of my life and the reality that I inhabit just as it was. And that's because it remembered why it created the illusion of Emerald in the first place.

Personally, I haven't observed this gender difference in real life. People tend to be quite self-deceived all around, regardless of gender. Men are not more truthful (to themselves or others) than women. It's honestly just people who dedicate themselves to the monastic life that are committed to Truth, and there's no guarantee that they'll actually wake up. And I'll grant you most of them are male because that is a Masculine path about the transcendence of the world of matter. But most people (men and women) are on the Feminine path which is the path where God deludes itself into believing the falsehood that it is a limited being. And illusion is necessary for this avatar path to be realized. Truth works in opposition to the avatar path. And waking up from it is just death, plain and simple. And that is why illusion of the finite is valuable to God, as it gives it a valuable contrast from its default which is Truth and Infinity. It tricks itself into believing it is a limited human being... or some other life-form. This is why most people on the "path of Truth" are usually actively engaged in illusory thinking because they see illusion as bad and truth as good... and they see themselves as a human trying to wake up from the illusion... instead of as God deliberately tricking itself into the illusion of humanity. So, they don't realize that it's just more illusion and that they (as God) are doing a great job at tricking themselves with these illusory stories about Truth. And it seems to me that men who claim to care about Truth in the context of this forum are just lying to themselves in order to increase their social status within the spiritual non-dual enlightenment-seeking sub-culture... as a very specific form of Masculine spiritual ego to try to compete with women and prove themselves superior, in order to get away from feelings of inferiority and shame relative to women. They fail to recognize the wisdom of the illusion... even as they are entirely wrapped up in the illusion with their stories about Truth. And the resistance to illusion and valuing Truth over illusion brings their perspective out of alignment with the perspective of God, who does not prefer Truth over illusion... hence solidifying the perspective of duality and therefore the illusion. But I'm unlikely to believe someone's commitment to Truth who doesn't pursue a monastic life. So, lots of guys on this forum are just competing within the illusion to solidify an identity of being "the rare person who values Truth".... or to solidify the collective identity of "men as the Truth-valuing gender". The illusion is tricky in this sense.

A dynamic that can arise between men and women, which will kill intimacy and essentially operant conditions her into avoiding physical contact with you over time is if every bit of affection or physical contact (cuddling, kissing, etc.) leads to sex. Women don't get spontaneously turned on as often as men and tend to need lots of non-sexual physical affection that's given without expectation for the woman's responsive desire to kick in. And if the woman knows that every bit of cuddling is always driving things in the direction of sex, she will feel a sense of pressure to perform... and she will start to associate sex as a chore that she has to do to keep her male partner happy. And the affection will feel like responsibility, burden, and chores instead of like relaxation, safety, and a calming oxytocin bath. (which is what women need to feel turned on and for cuddling to organically escalate into sex) That's what happens when a man operant conditions a woman into avoiding physical contact with him through making all physical contact drive towards sex. And that's because, for women, sex is a chore when we're not turned on. And we need to feel like physical affection isn't just a tactic to get things to escalate into sex but a genuine expression of a desire for closeness. Only then, is it possible for women to get turned on by that physical affection. I once had a relationship where the guy was always wanting for all physical affection to culminate in sex. And I'd tell him that sometimes I'd just like to cuddle or kiss without that expectation attached. And then, he'd get upset and say, "Well sex and cuddling are both valid forms of physical connection. And I'm tired of sex being treated as an invalid form of connection. And I get my affection needs met through sex, while you get your affection needs through cuddling. So, I don't see why we're seeing those things in two categories, as they are both valid forms of connection. Your form of connection is not better than mine. And if you're not open to having sex, why would I be open to cuddling if I'm not getting my needs met? Aren't things supposed to be reciprocal?" And I just couldn't ever get him to listen to the fact that I physiologically needed the affection to feel that desire. He was just thinking too logically about reciprocity that he couldn't understand why I might need non-sexual affection to feel turned on. And his thought seemed to be something like "My chore for her is cuddling and her chore for me is sex. So, why would I do my chore if she's not open to doing her chore." He just thought I was shaming him for getting his affection needs met through sex and expecting some kind of unfair transactional exchange. So, he couldn't hear my needs. And I think on some level he believed that sex is just a chore that women do for men. So, he couldn't understand why I wasn't doing my duty and taking one for the team. And over time, sex went from something that I felt spontaneously turned on by because of the newness of our relationships in the first few months of getting together... and afterward just became a chore that I had to do for him when I didn't feel turned on at all. And all physical affection always led to an attempt at sexual escalation 100% of the time. And so, physical affection became a chore as well. So, I stopped being physically affectionate with him because it was like "Ugh! Chore time." We'd go months and months without sex... or any form of affection at all as I knew any affection would lead to escalation, and I already felt so many negative emotions about that that I just couldn't get there. And my desire for him shriveled up and died as the thought of being affectionate with him just caused this extreme pressure cringe feelings. I still get that feeling when I think about him, actually. But sometimes he'd come up to me and try to get physical with me out of nowhere where he'd just start trying to go directly into sexual acts, and I'd feel that extreme pressure cringe feeling and say no. And then he'd get upset about it and do something immature like smacking my butt or grabbing my breasts childishly and running away. But occasionally I would take one for the team, and I would throw him a bone every few months or so after being badgered about it. And I would just close my eyes and try to pretend he was someone else. Of course, this eventually led to a break-up. I just couldn't feel intimacy with him. And this is an unfortunate dynamic that occurs between men and women, where the man doesn't understand that a woman tends to have more responsive desire... and not spontaneous desire like he has. A man just needs to see her and he's ready to go. But a woman needs a bit more to feel open and enthusiastic about having sex. And affection without expectation or pressure for things to go anywhere tends to be what a woman needs to feel ready to have sex. And roughly, a woman needs an 80/20 ratio of affection to sex in order for her to get turned on by the guy and desire to have sex with him. To give a more simple guideline... for every 5 times you cuddle, only escalate one of those times into sex. Couples that have more non-sexual affection and physical contact have WAY more sex than couples who don't, according to the studies conducted by John and Julie Gottman. If a woman knows that physical affection always leads to sex, every bit of physical affection puts pressure for her to suddenly get in the mood... which further guarantees that she won't because the pressure is there. Then, she'll start feeling anger, disgust, and all sorts of other resistant feelings because she feels like the sex isn't a mutual experience but a transactional extraction of value. Just a cautionary tale of where this dynamic can go if your girlfriend starts feeling like every bit of physical affection is always leading towards sex. I'm not saying you'd do the same as my previous partner. But the whole dynamic can make sex with a given man feel like nails on a chalkboard if the pattern continues over time.

Thank you for the compliment. But it's definitely not 0.00001%. I have my own YouTube channel where I share topics that relate to psychology, spirituality, and conscious-related topics. And my audience is about 60% men and 40% women and spans over all adult age groups. (and some of this gender skew can be accounted for in that YouTube is a platform that has a larger male audience) But I know plenty of highly conscious women and men of all ages who are interested in plumbing the depths of human consciousness... as my channel attracts them in. And I have made hundreds of connections with people over the past decade, since I've had my channel. And I don't like this narrative around women on the forum here being such outliers, such that you believe that we function very differently from other women... especially in terms of dating/relationships/sexuality. Similarly to how a man who's into these topics (like Leo) is going to have similar preferences to other men... we will have similar preferences to other women. The main difference is that women who are interested in deep work might be able to articulate these preferences and feelings in more detail than most, as those that do inner work are usually better at describing their subjective experiences compared to those who don't do inner work. But it would be hard for me to explain what it is to have a female perspective and engaging in these sorts of deeper processes and inquiries in such a short blurb. Much of it is identical to what men who are doing these processes experience as there is just the way that humans function while on the path. But other things diverge pretty significantly with the more Feminine path... as it functions differently. And that's where it becomes difficult to describe, as that path is dark and mysterious. And because the species-wide repression of the Feminine is a very deep human pattern that's gradually unraveling itself in unpredictable ways, doing inner work that pertains to the Masculine and Feminine is a bit like swimming the bottom of a murky salty lake with lots of little infected wounds and cuts all over your body. So, the conscious re-integration of the Feminine as a Feminine being is a raw and sensitive experience... but the cultural tendency is to be constantly throwing jabs and arrows at you because everyone is trying to strip themselves of their Feminine side on some level because of many millennia of Feminine repression.

Certainly it can be both, depending on the perspective. People can operate in shallower and deeper ways depending on the person, in regard to the comparison between their actions, thoughts, and feelings. But to say that "Human beings are shallow" indicates a dismissal of the level of depth that's there... even in the simplest interactions. And it is only to see depth in the realm of high intellect and spiritual insight. For example, I was with my daughter at this Cat Café in town. And she was just saying something simple... probably about cats or school or something. Nothing particularly deep or novel... just a regular conversation. But in that moment, I recognized shining through her the infinite depths... and within that one moment, and I could see that it was all that was happening in the universe. It was a very mundane moment. But I really felt the meaning of the word namaste come through in her in some kind of palpable way for just a second or two. Someone who believes that "human beings are shallow puddles" would not be capable of recognizing and connecting to such depths that shine through in mundane moments of human-to-human connection. Also, it creates a sense of separation and a blocker to intimacy to have such a differentiating judgments that's essentially like, "I'm so deep and people are so shallow." And this judgment will rend a person from the fabric of existence itself such that one feels like a stranger in a strangled in their very own home. And from the perspective of someone who used to make the same mistake, that comes with a lot of collateral damage: shame, isolation, loneliness, unmet needs for intimacy, and a combative relationship with the body and the physical world.

And you believe that you don't fail to recognize the depth?

Are you sure that human beings are shallow? Or is it just that you fail to recognize the depth?

That's SUPER important! It's important to recognize that we can all fall into similar delusions. It's especially important to be mindful when you hold divergent/uncommon narratives and cosmologies (especially if a small niche group of people also share them) to question how grounded those narratives are... and how they will be viewed in the consensus. It's so easy for us humans to end up in a little cosmological bubble that doesn't work in tandem with the rest of reality. Add to that, other people who join you in the same bubble... and now you have social proof that your bubble is reality.

The difference between the Matrix in the movie is that it was created by machines to feed off of humanity. And the Matrix we live in is created by God as a means to serve its own expansion through the conduit of limitation. So, the intention behind the creation of the Matrix is quite opposite... as it exists as an expression of God's love for itself. And seemingly, I (meaning, that which I truly am underneath the illusion of Maya) have gone through some pretty great lengths to create this immersive virtual reality illusion for myself. And I certainly didn't make a mistake when I created this Matrix. The Matrix is my own creation, and it's a really interesting and beautiful piece of work. But the Masculine and Feminine path are two sides to one coin... The Masculine path is one of being a human being who is caught up in the illusion of being a human who is devoting themselves to Truth and trying to escape the Matrix and realize that he is God. The Feminine path is one of being God in its infinite expression... and then deliberately deluding yourself into believing you're human so as to have an excursion into the illusions of limitation. The Masculine path is kind of like the relationship between Bruce Wayne and Batman, where Bruce Wayne goes through great lengths to embody the Batman persona. The Feminine path is like Superman. Where God is like Superman... but he disguises himself as mild-mannered Clark Kent. (Only God even tricks itself into believing that he is Clark Kent) The vast majority of human incarnations (men and women) prefer that latter game. Hence why we're here having this experience in the first place. But a small percentage of people (like monks) genuinely prefer the "escape from the illusion" game.... where God takes the Feminine path to delude itself into being a human. But then, that human devotes themselves to monastic life and decides to use the delusion as a contrast through which waking up can happen. Like, God cannot wake up to itself in its infinite form as it is already infinitely knowledgable. But God can delude itself into being human... and then wake itself up from within the delusion. And it's only through contrast with the delusion that God can get an "outside perspective" of its nature as Truth. Sometimes God wants to simply immerse itself in the delusion, and that's the Feminine path. And sometimes God wants to use the delusion as a launching pad to wake up to its own nature, and that's the Masculine path.

Number one, she's actually one of the nicer people on this forum. Number two, I don't see anything remotely offensive (nor even technically incorrect) about what she said in that quote that you've written above. If the perspective you subscribe to is that intellectual women should just suppress their intellectual nature and just be cute, so as to maintain the polarity, that is an oppressive perspective by definition. (The same is also true for the "treat women like children" bit.) To give an imperfect analogy, it's like a white person saying, "Black people should just stop sharing intellectual ideas because white people don't enjoy it as much." Oppression has a lot to do with marginalization of perspectives and the subjective truth of a group of people.... and saying "women should give that (intellectual) shit up" is 100% an attempt to silence and marginalize women's perspectives. It's like, "Shut up. Stand there, and look pretty." But that's not how any real human being operates and lives a fulfilling life. Plus, holding that perspective will just scare women away from you. I can't imagine that you've seen much success with women in operating this way. Have you?