Emerald

That's about my ratio too. Though in recent months I have been getting a bit more female viewership. Apparently, almost exactly the same as Leo's. For the first year or so, my audience was like 80% male. But after it went to about 2/3 male and 1/3 female, and it was that way for like 2 years. Now, in the past few months, my ratio bounces between 35/65 and 40/60. But my audience has always been mostly male. This is probably because YouTube is a very male-heavy platform to begin with, and the way that I convey topics is very intellectual sounding which tends to appeal to people who are a bit allergic to the new age and woo woo spirituality... which describes a lot of men who are closet-interested in spirituality but don't like the idea of engaging in fanciful/magical thinking. I think this is one of the major appeals that Leo has as well.

She might have slept late... Like, there's nothing about her text that really seems to even indicate clearly that she was put off. And even if she were, it's probably not because of some kind of neediness. Nothing about his text seemed needy. She was talking about how she slept because she didn't set an alarm. This doesn't seem like a code to me. That said, if it's true what the OP said that she's been distant since the RSD thing, then this means she probably felt disposable because of the nature of that event. Most women would probably feel that way. The reason why I'm saying that you don't know anything about women, is that you're looking at this through the lens of neediness, which isn't even relevant... instead of looking at it from a woman's perspective. The fact of the matter is that women are always having to sort and filter out players. So, after being taken to an RSD event, the OP probably pinged on her radar as a potential player who's just interested in sex. So, you're not really putting yourself in the woman's shoes and seeing the most obvious answer. Imagine there was an RSD for women talking about how to approach and seduce men... how would you feel if you FWB took you to that. You'd probably assumed that they were just really into sex and not really interested in an exclusive relationship.

That's one thing if he frames the RSD stuff like that. But it's a totally different thing how he frames his feelings toward the woman. So, he can tell her all about what he gets from RSD, but if he doesn't make it clear to her that he's interested in more than just sex... she's going to think he's only into sex. And the RSD stuff will seem to be more confirmation of that. Women have to filter guys out for that all the time. No. I'm suggesting that he communicates his feelings for her and also communicates why he does RSD. And if she still doesn't feel comfortable with it and decides she doesn't want to be with him, then he should accept that. So, I'm suggesting an abundance of communication and honesty, not the opposite. But it appears the OP wasn't honest about his feelings for her and was trying to not seem too needy... which is a classic mistake that so many guys make. And so, even if he was open and honest about the RSD event and what it gives him, she will naturally read a certain subtext into it in lieu of him expressing his genuine feelings for her. And she will probably put him in the fuck boy category and think he sees her essentially as someone to sleep with and not be with longterm.

No I understand that people go to RSD guys to help with social skills and things like that. I think it's fine for guys to go and partake in it. But if I were FWB with a guy and he took me to one, it would give me a very clear signal that he's not interested in being exclusive and is probably looking for sex. That is, unless he communicates to me very clearly that he cares for me in particular and wants a deeper relationship... which the OP didn't. That said, most women are not going to risk it with a guy who might be a player. And that's how women would see anything related to PUA/RSD stuff. I know RSD stuff isn't as toxic. But most women certainly would generally read that message that way. Like it or not, it's true.

I read his message and his post, and I didn't pick up on any excessive neediness. In fact, I know his behavior would probably register to me as disinterest and not the opposite. If a man is my FWB and he's taking me to a PUA/RSD tour, I would get the impression that he's not really interested in anything serious. And if I had feelings for him, it would make me feel really awkward and unwanted. So, if she's no longer interested in him, it's because she's gone into auto-reject mode where she feels like he's already rejected her and just wants to keep her around to have sex with. Now, clearly this isn't the case. But it's certainly what the OP's behavior is suggesting from a woman's POV. So, neediness isn't even part of the equation here. In fact, she probably doesn't want to get too attached to him because she's afraid that he's too likely to be a player. Women want a man who is emotionally invested in equal measure to their own level of emotional investment. They don't want some aloof guy who can't hold space for them emotionally and would leave them as soon as some hotter woman comes along. What they don't want is a guy who's more emotionally invested than they are and is clingy. But the OP doesn't seem clingy to me at all. He seems like a guy who has a very normal level of emotional investment in the woman, but that maybe did a foolish thing by bringing his fuckbuddy (that he has real feelings for) to a "fuck lots of girls" tour. Women don't typically like either of those things. So, the main mistake he made here is not communicating his feelings honestly... and his behavior seeming to suggest aloofness and that she's just another girl to him. So, his feelings and behavior don't match. This will throw a woman off and make her uncomfortable because women can usually sense that intuitively. Edit: Another possibility is that she never wanted anything serious to begin with and just wanted a FWB situation. In which case, it's nothing the OP did to cause that. That said, I suspect that it's more akin to what I'd written about before. Usually, if a woman wants to have sex with a guy on a repeated basis on a FWB level, it's because she's not really looking for a FWB and really wants to be with him. But there are exceptions.

You really have no idea how women function.

I'm just telling you how a woman would react to it. Women don't tend to be fond of the idea behind RSD/PUA, and would likely see it as the equivalent of a "Fuck a bunch of guys" tour.

I can't recall. I don't see why he wouldn't. It's an easy extra $2k. But perhaps he doesn't. He's successful enough with his other things to not really need it, given that he's sold over 3,500 life purpose courses.

He gets about a million views per month... which is roughly $2,000 per month in ad money. Then, if he sells 10 life-purpose courses in one month (which he probably sells more than that), then that is another $2k-$2.5k And he also has a booklist for sale for about $40... so probably selling at least one of those a day. So, we're already up around $4k minimum. But he may be even more successful than that if he sells more booklist and life-purpose courses. His website said that he'd already sold over 1,000 of them... and that was like a year ago when I looked. Edit: I just checked and now it says he's sold over 3,500 life purpose courses. So, he's probably selling multiple of those per day @ $250 a pop.

It's a really foolish decision to close your eyes to what's going on in politics. And likewise, it's very foolish not to be involved. The corruption that happens in the political sphere is largely dependent on having a populace that's too distracted and too uneducated about politics to know that the system is rigged against the average person and in favor of the mega-wealthy and big corporations that essentially buy the government and the media and always get what they want. So, by being politically lazy and unengaged, it perpetuates this cycle because you're comfortable enough with the status quo... until it's you on the chopping block. You will certainly care about politics if you or a loved one are diagnosed with a disease that requires you to pay thousands of dollars a month just to stay alive. People who need Insulin right now, don't get he privilege to be apolitical. (Also, 10s of thousands of Americans die from not being able to afford healthcare every year. Like, "Hmm... I am having a pain in my left arm that might be a warning sign for a heart attack... but I don't want to go bankrupt for a false alarm... So, I'll just wait a while and see what happens.") You will certainly care about politics if you're a woman from Georgia who just had a miscarriage who has to worry about being investigated and sent to prison for 30 years because there was a suspicion that she might be responsible for the miscarriage. You will certainly care about politics if you're a civilian that lives in a country that America has staged a regime change war in. You will certainly care about politics if the economy tanks and you lose everything because greedy banks have caused another housing bubble. Meanwhile it's corporate socialism and big bailouts in the trillions for them, but for the average person it's "Oh well." That is, if you're aware enough to even know you got fucked and that it wasn't just an unlucky break. You will certainly wish you'd had the forsight to care about politics when climate change's effects makes the area you live in unlivable causing mass migrations and food shortages. The point I'm stressing here is that you think politics is some abstract game that you can either play or don't play. The fact of the matter is that you are playing, and there are stakes. You can lose everything because of political decisions being made. And the more people who take your attitude on politics, the more likely their perspective is to be overlooked and not played to. So, your concerns as an average person will get trampled on by big pharma, the military industrial complex, the billionaire class, wallstreet, and other moneyed interests. But if we actually pay attention and register how unfairly we're all being treated and fight against it with the natural and justified anger that comes with that awareness, then we have a lot of power. There is power in numbers, and we can see our influence on things reflected much more clearly now with the grassroots nature of internet culture. But only if we're educated and engaged. To say, "I'm not really into politics." is to wear a big target on your ass and bend over and make it as easy as possible to be screwed.

I'm curious as to what motivates you at such a young age to take the course. I think I probably would have been into it at that age... but I don't know if I would have been able to really get the benefit that the course is intended for. I know that's the last thing a 12-14 year old wants to hear. So, I don't want to take the wind out of your sails. It would definitely be an adventure in self exploration. But what do you hope to get out of the course? And why do you say you need serious help? As far as money goes, you can make that amount of money online fairly easy if you have some skills or services you can offer... or things you can sell. Or do you draw well? Or do you know about some very specific thing like coin collecting or gaming? Basically, look at your skillsets that you already have and see if there's any way to make money with them. Or you can do something more in your local community like dog walking, car washes, lemonade stands, etc. But you'd pretty much have to do something entrepreneurial because you might be too young to work for someone where you live because of child labor laws.

Maybe you sense an incongruence in interest. I hate it when a guy likes me and I don't like him back, then you have to let him down gently. And then, if they don't take no for an answer, it's also uncomfortable. So, maybe you just don't like the women who have chased you very much and don't have feelings for them. Or, if you think it would happen with anyone, even if you did have feelings for them, it could be a sign of avoidant attachment. Or you have a belief in your mind that "high quality women" are unattainable to you, so if one shows interest in you then you automatically go to the conclusion, "If they like me, then they must not be a "high quality woman"."

So, the most basic advice initial attraction advice is to look your best and be personable and available. Also, be fun, easy-going, and open. But this won't keep a guy around as there are many many women that can provide these same benefits. So, this is important for the initial attraction phase and will generally help during the relationship on the easy-going/openminded/personable level. But the looks and fun and flash don't keep a man around. What you need is to develop your personality and be an awesome person to be around. Be your very best. Don't look for "the one", be "the one." And men who resonate with you and are mature enough to desire a deep connection, who value depth over excitement, will find you and will want to hold onto you. But you have to give them something that they can't get anywhere else... and relying on looks is a losing battle in this regard. You have to develop your personality. So, exalt yourself. Become a queen of your wheelhouse, and the right men will fight for you. But when you exalt yourself, do it for the joy of growing yourself and expressing your creative energy. It's this energy that will attract the right men. But the expression of that energy is not for the sake of that. Just be refreshing. Be the light and the moths will come to you.

Flat Earthers (and most conspiracy theorists) are basically people who are iconoclasts and rebels against the status quo, who want to rebel for the sake of rebellion. And there is this idea of, "I know better. I'm not a sheeple." So, I would put them as unhealthy expressions of Orange/Green, who are in deep resistance to the Blue aspects of society. They don't want to be engaged in the group-think of Blue so much that they resist any kind of mainstream interpretation of things. So, they go, "What if the world is actually flat?" and "All you (Blue) sheeple are being manipulated by the man and taking their word for granted... but if the world is round then why doesn't the water flow off of it... huh? Stupid sheeple. Open your eyes!!!"

A person is an infinite well of potential for exploration. Right now, you're likely interacting in the same patterns that you're used to interacting in. So, in order to awaken the passion, you need to break new ground exploration-wise relative to yourself and your partner. So, the idea is to make a deep connection on the level of soul and grow together. That's what keeps things from getting stale. Now, the limerance phase is over. So, you're unlikely to feel that crushy and hot feeling in the beginning in the relationship again. But the feelings of love and the ability to explore your partner happen on a different level. I also recommend tantra, especially for deepening the sexual connection.

With a dream, there is no aspect or character in the dream that isn't yourself. So, if you aren't nice to people in the dream then you're choosing not to be nice to yourself. Would that really make any sense when you likely desire others to be nice to you? And do you really have such complete clarity to identify the mean things done to you as coming from yourself just messing around?

It gives you access to a supportive community of vulnerable men with low self esteem to obsess about women with, and a toxic ideology that couples with it to feel a sense of bittersweet empowerment. So, that instead of facing one's own self-hatred and taking personal responsibility, they can transmute all that self-hatred into the form anger and hatred toward women as a whole group. And it gives you a circular track to go around and around and around with those feelings again and again, never feeling relief from the self-hatred but feeling a temporary scratching of that itch through scapegoating and demonizing women. And doing that over and over and over again until you wise up. I'd say it's best to seek a higher quality support group... if you can find one. That's really the reason why MGTOW exists. Because a lot of men feel the way you do, but don't have a healthy outlet to get support or help for it. So, they find shadowy groups like MGTOW and Incels and all the Red Pill jazz. But do detach yourself from women for a while. Not in the door-slamming, melodramatic teenager style of saying "I'm never talking to you again!" to their parents and then checking back in a moment to see who noticed and how they're reacting in hopes that they'll beg them to come out, kind of way. But in just an 'I'm working on myself' kind of way. And seek to develop yourself and work on your shadow.

One thing to do is to look toward the body to show if you're attracted to women in a genuine way. If you are you will feel physically aroused by women in a sexual way and you will get that crushy feeling toward particular women. But if it's just something happening on the level of the mind, like thinking you'll have safe companionship if you date a woman in the future, then it may be just as a protection mechanism to stay safe while staying safe. So, does this attraction occur through fantasy about what could be or is it something that's more in the moment on the level of the body.

Be careful not to take the societal script around masculinity and femininity as being what they actually are. Masculinity and femininity are subtle energies that imbue all people but are also expressionless in and of themselves. It's just that they inform many expressions, and people collectively notice these energies at play and make thereabout judgment calls about how the energy is being expressed in a given activity. So, let's take make-up for example, we relate makeup in our society to women and we can perhaps sense a feminine energy around the activity of wearing makeup. But in a different society makeup may be considered masculine by people picking up masculine energy around the activity. So, don't feel limited in your actions about what's masculine or feminine. And don't try to be masculine... simply try to be as you are and your natural energies will come out more as opposed to being stunted by the ideas of what masculinity entails. And you need to look no further than what you naturally gravitate toward, to find your authentic masculine/feminine signature.

@Shin Thank you for recommending out my video. This may be the one you were thinking of...

Let's get more at the core of why you're asking as opposed to what you're asking because that's a lot more important. I feel the reason why you ask is because you are insecure about some possibility relative to your inquiry. So, you're looking for confirmation of a certain outcome, and to avoid another outcome that you're afraid of. And this can be sliced in several directions. So, ask yourself these questions... What would it mean to you if you empirically discovered that men were definitively better leaders than women, in an undisputed way? How would that make you feel? What would it mean to you if you empirically discovered that women were definitively better leaders than men, in an undisputed way? How would that make you feel? What would it mean to you if there were a 50/50 split in leadership potential between men and women? How would that make you feel? What would it mean to you if there were no definitive answer to that questions? How would it make you feel? Look for the which of these possibilities above that temporarily relieve your anxiety/insecurity, and look for the possibilities above that cause you anxiety and amplify insecurities you have. Some potential feelings that I could imagine from a male standpoint are these... You feel anxiety at the idea that men being inherently better leaders than women because you've had a modern/feminist viewpoint and this if option number one were true, it would call those ideas into question causing you a lot of cognitive dissonance. It would also potentially make you feel like you need to conform more to the traditional masculine role to be accepted, which may or may not resonate with you. You have taken for granted your entire life that option number one is true and that men are indeed better leaders. But you are beginning to question and get insecure about that sense of male supremacy. So, any other option than option number one makes you question male surpremacy and your own value and position in the pecking order that you have in your mind relative to the value of men compared to women. Option number two is especially scary because it makes you feel like you're in the one-down position that you've assumed women were in. You want to be a leader yourself, and you'd like to fall back on your maleness as confirmation of your own capacity to lead to feel more self assured based in the folk wisdom that men are leaders. But your doubts about male supremacy relative to leadership is making you doubt your own capacity to lead, because your maleness is the only thing that makes you feel like you could/should lead others. So, this is fundamentally a feeling like you don't have anything to offer and maleness being the only asset you have toward leadership and being afraid of having that bargaining chip taken away because that's all you feel that you have. You are swallowing all the internet manly man culture and trying to be more masculine to attract women and to feel more worthwhile and are trying to empower yourself through a fetishization of masculinity. And part of that fetishization of masculinity is to frame it as the ability to lead and dominate. And your doubts about your own masculinity and leadership potential are making you question what's actually true. Like do I have hidden leadership potential because I'm male that I just haven't realized yet? Or is this idea that men have more leadership potential actually false, and I don't actually have leadership potential? Am I just not a leader and I'm in the lower ranks of men? Or maybe women and men are equal and I don't have any advantage... You don't want to be a leader. But you've heard that men who are worthwhile are inherent leaders. So, you feel a bit like you have to be a leader even though you don't really want to be or believe that you can be. So, you're looking for information about women being equal in leadership to men to debunk the idea that valuable men are leaders, so you don't have to potentially see confirmation as to your own lack of worth because you are not really a leader but you are male and feel the need to prove your worth in relation to these ideas of maleness that come from places like the manosphere and general folk ideas about what makes a man a man. These are just a few potentials that came to my mind in seeing your question and feeling the nervous energy of it. If you want clarity and to resolve your insecurity, you must be brutally honest with yourself about how you feel about yourself, about leadership, about men, about women, about your beliefs about gender, etc. When you're doing shadow work (which is what you need), you must not be politically correct with your own view of your internal landscape. You must look at what you actually believe and assume, even if it paints you in a light that you don't like to be seen in. And only then, can you unravel your insecurity about your maleness/masculinity and your ability to lead. And ultimately, the point here is to eventually discover what you really want and why you want it?

It depends on what you want and what you're capable of in terms of connection and receptivity. I would say that if you're in a position where you're not ready to make a soul-deep connection with someone, a LTR will probably be more work than what it's worth. But if you and a partner are both attuned to one-another and are on the same page and trying to grow consciously together, then a LTR is really excellent for that. You can't get that depth of connection over the short term. But the problem is that people don't see that they're just trying to get their partner to behave in a certain way they project them to or think they should. So, they only ever interact with their projection onto that person. So, there is no connection to be had. And this gets felt more and more as the relationship matures. Also, women's libido dropping comes more from not knowing how to get a woman in the mood and there not being a very deep connection. So, basically a lack of communication, intimacy, and emotional variety in sex and the time leading up to sex. This integral after the first few months of a relationship... or the girl won't be aroused. The newness of the connection will be enough at first, but afterward the intimacy needs to push much deeper.

This is just more mental gymnastics to blind yourself to what would otherwise be obvious. Just start to notice who he's "tough" on and who he's "easy" on. And it will be really clear that there are no parallels in this analogy between Trump and a Nazi protester.

Again. You are straw manning me. I said that I support common sense immigration policy, yet you act as though I'm all pie in the sky and advocating for open borders with no regulations. At this juncture in history, we still need these delineations for practical purposes. The problem is when people dehumanize others simply because they come from a place on the opposite side of those imaginary lines. Instead of simply thinking of the border as a practical delineation for immigration regulation, they think of it as some existential line carved by God himself that delineates the desirables from the undesirables. And this attitude is clearly reflected in the Trump administration's treatment of immigration policy, including but not limited to the policy of separating children from their families at the border. But yes. Leading with love and compassion is going to be the best solution in any case. And I say so, not from a place of naivete but from a place of having experienced struggle. It's often easiest to judge what we don't understand from the outside. But if we've been down and out, we can start to relate to others who are also struggling as opposed to judging and demonizing them and superimposing the image of the criminal onto an entire group of men, women, and children. Now, there will always be criminals in every group. There is no getting around that. But the good news is that, among the immigrant population, they are statistically less likely to commit crimes than native born citizens. And this is specifically because they want to stay here and lay low. The last thing they want is the attention of police. So, all the "they're bringing crime" talk is just using a falsehood and fear-mongering to justify shooting flies with a cannon and perpetuating cruel and dehumanizing treatment against immigrants. And it's also meant to make people react with fear and disgust and think of immigrants coming into the country like they're a bunch of criminals that are going to infest our country and ruin everything... And it appears that that rhetoric has worked on you.

Consider perhaps that murdering you might be for the greater good. Are you going to accept the workings of the universe and be as calm as you are and accept your fate with the level of detachment you have now if you're the one on the chopping block? My guess is, probably not. You would probably kick and beg and scream for mercy... as would I. You have a vested interest emotionally in keeping yourself alive and free from pain and suffering just as all other beings do. And if you were really aware, you would also have a vested interest in reducing suffering for others as an extension of yourself without engaging in mental gymnastics by guessing at the long-term effects of a good deed versus a bad deed and engaging in apologism relative to corrupt and unethical behavior. With this logic, you might as well Greenlight genocide or cutting every 10th person's head off, because perhaps (maybe could be kind of) it eventually leads to a better future some time down the line. Now, recognize that all the people who would suffer under this thought process are also yourself (because they are). Does it makes sense to you from that perspective to intellectually and spiritually bypass your natural human compassion and the obviousness of certain actions being harmonious and others more discordant. And to refrain from advocating for things that are obviously more conducive to well-being and against things that obviously cause sufferign. So, we can apologize for all those that don't care and behave in Machiavellian ways and create suffering all we want on the basis that "perhaps they're contributing to the greater good in ways we don't recognize." And while this may be true, it's not a very good bet to make relative to our own behavior. And it's also not a good bet to make relative to what we should and shouldn't stand for in our society, as this has real consequences that effect primarily people who are more vulnerable than you are. And if you end up on the chopping block, all that intellectual/spiritual bypassing you're engaged in won't mean diddly squat as you call out for mercy and some random person on the forum muses and armchair philosophizes about it being the best thing perhaps not to fight against it because maybe your death would save so many others. It's very unwise to always reach for top shelf spiritual truths when approaching a situation on the relative level. So, we can't use the top-shelf spiritual truths like "Everything is perfect" and "We never actually know what's good or bad in the long run" and "There's no such thing as good and bad", to invalidate relative and practical truths like "Bad things are bad." and "Good things are good".