Emerald

Yes. Since the feminine is all about substance without movement, where the masculine is all about movement without substance, the feminine is about matter, nature, being, going with the flow, and stillness. It is all about a raw relationship to nature and going along with nature's cycles without transforming or changing them in any way. And this is good for nature, but not too awesome for humanity which is very vulnerable to the elements and forces of nature without our tools, innovations, and frameworks of the thinking. We are always risking being devoured by the destructive feminine forces. My thought on this is that, these potentials were always there but had not been unlocked in collective consciousness. Similar to how inventing the computer was always a latent potential for humanity to realize even in the earliest of human societies. But inventing the computer requires a very specific social structure with very specific innovations that already exist having already been unlocked, in order for that potential to come to a head and actually be invented by someone. So, in the days of old, people were likely too focused on pure survival to really care about the types of things that we now care about. And in Red, women were really just seen as the property of powerful men. And this was just the common understanding of the day. So, women likely saw their purpose as being a literal object and slave to the powerful men, as the indoctrination was just that way. It was baseline because the society wasn't conducive to those potentials of autonomy coming to fruition. And even if a woman in that society were living more in alignment with purple or blue, these still necessitated a lot of unpaid labor for the bearing of many many children and upkeep of the homes. So, this was still in the range of time where women's lot in life was to work 16 hour days keeping everyone fed, clothed, clean, and satisfied as the technology wasn't there yet to let women off the hook for this degree of time occupation. So, the rise of industrialization is really what's necessary to give women the space to becoming conscious of the latent desires for autonomy that were not possible in the earlier intonations of humanity. This is one of the ways that the esoteric masculine deviates from manhood's natural way. So, esoterically speaking the masculine is about the non-material and the feminine is about the material. So, the feminine is all about the Earth. But polarly masculine religions with a distant and judging father God, are all about a renunciation of the Earthly, where they see the Earthly as inherently dirty and sinful and just a test to see if one is worthy of airy Heaven or fiery Hell. As I had mentioned before, the feminine elements are Earth and water, and the masculine elements are air and fire... so feminine is substance without movement (Earth and water) and masculine is movement without substance (air and fire). So, sexuality and sensuality and anything else that indulges in Earthly pleasure are in the realm of the feminine principle... which is seen as dirty and sinful in polarly patriarchal religions and societies. Now, the idea that men are more sexual than women is actually a reversal that happened fairly recently in western society... in the 1800s sometime, if memory serves. Before it was women who were seen as more sexual, which was given as a reason that women needed to be controlled by men who were naturally less sexual and had more control over their Earthly sexual instincts. There was an idea that women would become temptresses if not controlled by the superior reasoning of men. This is also why a lot of men in great art were depicted with small penises to represent the control they had over their sexual instincts, where large penises were seen as an indication of barbarianism and unsophistication where a man is controlled by Earthly animalistic cravings like lust. So, large penises were the mark of an effeminate man. But in fairly recent history, there was a reversal with the rise of puritanical churches. Where women were able to seize a bit more social respect by painting themselves in the light of being the more chaste and pure gender. But the times painted it also as "Pure women need to be controlled and protected by men to preserve their chastity and save them from barbaric men (namely the dark skinned and Jewish ones)." And men took on the label of being more sexual, which was then given as the reason why men should be in control because their sexual instincts were a driving force behind their leadership.

You keep giving me advice by it's not necessary, and it shows me that you still don't really understand what I'm trying to explain to you. You keep bringing it back to issues of gender and my personal anxieties about aging without regard to the broader Yin/Yang relationship, which is currently imbalanced and suppresses Yin. Then, recommending personal development when I've been doing that for about the past 13 years and have objectively done quite well, especially with regard to perception and awareness. And exploring these feelings and patterns is 100% necessary for personal development as a woman. You won't make it very far if you don't face with these things. You will not be able to truly embody true feminine power without becoming conscious of the patterns that hold you back simply because of these issues that deal with the psychosexual realm and the collective unconscious. So, what I share with you now are the fruits of those labors relative to the feminine on a personal and transpersonal level. And you keep reading it as a victim's narrative when it's a really a dark and gritty journey that I've been undergoing for years and hope to share with others as a way to shine light upon something now shrouded in many layers of unconsciousness. Like I said, I've been on this journey for a long time, and my goal is awareness that I can communicate to others to make things more clear as there is a big shift happening on the macro level. You keep thinking that I'm in victim's mentality when I'm merely getting my finger on the pulse fo what's going on in the zeitgeist and using my experiences and emotions as a map to get there. So, when I speak about these things, they're not me playing a tiny violin for myself. My goal is not to find ways to get better at maximizing my looks or utilizing my reproductive fitness to get some swell guy. I'm already married with children and have been for quite a while. So, while most of this kind of stuff crosses over the sexual instinct, it's much more of an existential concern and a concern about actually integrating the feminine more as opposed to cleaving to societal notions about femininity which are very stripped down of all their substance. So, maybe I can be an elegant old lady, but this fundamentally doesn't change the identity concerns and internalized sense of objectification that are experienced by me and all women, as well as in the feminine side of men. Also, on a personal level, when I get old I prefer to look like an old witch in a fairy tale. I have no desire to be an elegant old woman when I can be a whimsical old crone.

No. That's not why I said whoosh. I said whoosh because it went over your head, and you didn't really understand what I was saying because you gave me a long list seemingly attempting to debunk my experiences and interpretations from a long time exploring my experiences and emotions instead of listening. Now, I'm not saying you should just swallow what I say fully. But when it comes to correcting me on these things and interjecting your ideas when you've not stepped foot into this experience before, it feels quite naive. Plus, in your statement about not wanting to live as an ugly woman, this is emblematic of you not really wanting the genuine female experience that I was referring to in my previous reply to you. Like I said before, this is why it's very unlikely for a man to really dive deep into this topic because it's just too comfortable and they're not willing to die all the deaths that are needed for true understanding. Many men begin this journey because it feels sexy to them, but they stop because they get comfortable very early in the journey and remain unconscious. All women lose their beauty eventually. So, if you were truly living as an attractive 25 year old woman and really wanting to understand that experience existentially in a genuine way, you must live it and know that your beauty will leave you one day. And to have gone through a female childhood and adolescence and to anticipate middle age and eventually old age. Also, all of the other experiences beyond this singular topic. You just want the parts of the process of womanhood that you appreciate as a man. So, it shows that you are not really wanting what you think you want. Plus, do you really think that your mom and sister are going to speak openly and freely about these things with you (or even one-another)? Also, much of this remains unconscious to women because there is just a sense of discontentment and perhaps self-loathing that has no named cause. That's how it was for me for many years until I started exploring and engaging in the processing of reintegrating my feminine side. You want to experience the life of a woman who is the ideal woman in your mind, which is an archetype and figment of the imagination. You don't want the experience of being an actual woman and to get actual understanding. You just want to embody the image that you worship for a while to feel the same kind of admiration toward yourself. But this is not what it is like to be a woman as that is just an image of womanhood that you have in your mind. And even if you were living as the most beautiful young woman on the planet, you would bail because you wouldn't be getting the experience that you assume and want because of your assumption.

Whoosh!

Yeah. The internalzation of the identity of object-hood can put a real damper on self-esteem and feelings of loneliness and invalidity. So, many women feel this sense of desperation, and they always end up in situations where men will treat them as an object and mirror that internalized pattern back to them. And they will feel like they are nothing without a boyfriend making them extra clingy and desperate because they look to men to solidify their sense of worthiness to exist. And this makes them even more susceptible to poor treatment that solidifies this sense of insignificance and worthlessness. And then, since they feel insignificant and worthless, they go searching for men to get rid of that feeling but those men mirror the same pattern back to them. And it becomes a viscous cycle. The cure to which, is to integrate the Animus... aka the masculine side in themselves. This will enable a woman with issues like this to become whole and not need to validation of a man to define her worth. So, it's great that you showed her a positive example of masculinity. She really needs that to own her own masculine side if she can see your example as something to look up to and emulate. I've experienced a lot of personal growth from having male mentors (usually teachers and professors, as well as my dad) to emulate and own my masculine side through that emulation.

Well, it's very mixed feelings. So, it's wanting sexual attention and not wanting sexual attention simultaneously, because of the dual meaning and reaction to female sexuality in general. That coupled with being conditioned into understanding your value as the viewed and not the viewer and the object and the not the subject. So, there is a natural desire for sexual attention. Then there is a desire to want sexual attention for the sake of societal appreciation. Then, there is a desire to avoid sexual attention for fear of being reduced to that and to be painted into the box of both a consumer item and a devilish temptress. And for me, the latter wins out in most situations... simply because I feel very platonically toward most men. So, being the projection screen for many societal shadows is difficult to do. And then, when you get past an age where that is possible to receive that projection from others it doesn't liberate you from it. It doesn't subjectify you to age. You are still objectified but seen as a lower quality and more disposable object. And if you continue to hold sexual feelings and desires, people will react with disgust. So, the way we view the feminine is to hyper-focus on the archetypes of the maiden and the temptress at the expense of the mother, the crone, and the wise-woman. So, if you really want to know the experience you have to know it at every age. And you have to not just know it as someone who is beautiful and sexy and young. It's easy to be interested in springtime femininity as a man because it is the most socially appreciated for its utility to men. But you must also know what it is to move past springtime and summertime femininity and to deal with the death of beauty and the stripping away of perceived societal value from your objectified self. It is not just to be Snow White but to be the resentful aging queen who transforms into the hag wielding the death apple. There are many deaths in womanhood. If you really want to know... do you really want to die to yourself that many times? It's hard to do. I know that if I were a man, that I never would have looked into this topic so deeply. I would have gotten comfortable with a simplified answer. And this is why few men will do the work, despite the interest. You don't have the inner conflict to spur you onward toward deeper levels of awareness. Chances are, that you'll find a comfortable understanding for you and will stop long before you reach the bottom with your awareness. If a woman embarks upon this journey of understanding, ( and she may not begin for existential discomfort at the whole thing as it's very emotional and nauseating) but if she continues there is no place for her to get comfortable until she reaches the bottom where there is transformation to be had. All the pleasures of the psychosexual realm are spiked with pain and suffering for women. So, if she can continue to feel into her personal discomfort and existential crisis, she can reach the bottom eventually. Not as to say a man couldn't do this. But it's just so easy to find a comfortable spot or to become fixated upon things of a sexual nature that feel good because they have no clear downside from the male perspective. In the psychosexual realm of the psyche, there is mostly pleasure there for men with little pain because of the ingrained patterns into our collective consciousness and our archetypal memory. So, when a man goes to explore the feminine, he usually only gets so deep before he is distracted by his sexual drives and loses consciousness. But contra-positively suffering necessitates increased consciousness, otherwise the suffering becomes unbearable. And this is why it's both harder and easier for women to explore this issue. Men are more likely to be interested in this journey because it seems exciting and sexy, but they are unlikely to complete it because they get distracted. Women are less likely to be interested in this journey because it's scary and uncomfortable and you have to face with many monsters. But if a woman embarks upon this journey, she is more likely to complete it because there is no way out once you begin, and the only relief comes at the very end of the road. So, again, I ask... do you really want to die that many times?

With Beige and Purple, there was both a reverence and a fear toward that feminine in general since we had such a love/hate relationship with nature. And with feminine religions like various forms of paganism, religions found in Native American Tribes, and religions found in African tribes, there was always various spirits that resided in nature itself. The essence of the feminine religiosity is to see the divine as Earthly, and to respect the Earth as goddess. This is also reflected in that the feminine elements through various cultures are Earth and water while the masculine elements are air and fire. So, in feminine religions of early humans, there were a lot of sacrifices given to capricious gods and goddesses as well as the bi-polar great mother, who would bless you with a great crop one year and follow it up by two months of draught and flooding. So, because we were so intimately connected to the feminine, there was a great respect toward the feminine as well as a great hatred. And even though men likely ran those societies too, human beings were not so much in a vacuum away from various predators and the elements of nature. So, the hierarchy of man over woman was not as solidified because men and women when faced off against lions, tigers, bears, diseases, floods, and all sorts of other things that go bump in the night essentially stand about the same chance... which is next to 0. So, until the Blue phase, patriarchy wasn't really in its strongest form. It was still coming up in power. Though Red was really where it started to gain traction and likely had the most rapid growth due to the raw aggression and leadership of the warlords of the time. But the foundation wasn't really properly set until Blue with the rise of institutions to uphold masculine principled values and to teach masculine principled religions that have a distant father figure God image that is perfect and immaculate and not Earthly, where the Earth is something to be transcended and is really just a test to see if you deserve the lofty airiness of Heaven or the firey suffering of Hell. Then, once the Blue phase is transcended, we have set a foundation of hyper-masculinity which eventually gives way to a kind of secularity and neutrality so that we may not even recognize it in the current form that it takes on. Masculinity isn't recognized as masculinity because we sloughed off the religious language of the past. So, we have a lot of people who think they're being neutral when they're really adding to the imbalance of the masculine over the feminine. But this is designed to build and build and build until we realize that something is wrong, and then there will be a lot of action in a short period of time to remedy the imbalance and integrate the masculine and feminine before something catastrophic happens. And this will invite many of our collective shadows onto the scene for the aware to face with them and the unaware to resist them and fight to maintain the status quo. And it seems to me that whichever side wins over will determine the fate of our species. But it could not be the case that society remained attached to the mother, as all birds must be pushed from the nest to test their wings. This is true ont he individual human level as well. Esoteric matriarchy is humanity's childhood and is primary to us as the feminine is always primary like the mother. Esoteric patriarchy is humanity's teenhood and is secondary and is when we learn to have an identity that is separate from the mother. Then, if we can make the leap from humanity's teenhood to humanity's adulthood, we can marry the esoteric masculine and esoteric feminine to one another and it will give birth to ever more exalted versions of humanity throughout the ages. And this integration has been going on for about the past 100 years with many hiccups and resistances along the way of people wanting to keep the old esoterically patriarchal order. The archetypal defenders of the patriarchy unconsciously rise up whenever there is a time of great change to defend the status quo. And it is through them that those who are more aware can see a mirror to humanity's shadow and become even more aware, allowing us to integrate more. So, unfortunately, the repression and mother wound of the rejection of the feminine is necessary for human growth and evolution in the earlier phases of humanity. And this pits us in an adversarial way toward nature, women, and femininity in general. And that is why women have been oppressed across cultures until very recently. It is unfortunate, but nature doesn't care about gender equality... only human beings do. The male black widow spider definitely gets the shittier end of the stick, and nature is absolutely fine with that. And it is the same story for women in Purple, Red, Blue, and Orange societies... but especially in Red and Blue. So, the suppression of the feminine is a function of the human system and not a dysfunction of the human system in earlier stages. But the same can be said, that gender equality and reintegration of the feminine is also a function of the human system at later stages in development. And once we are highly developed in a masculine way with regard to technological advancement, we cannot continue in a polarly patriarchal direction that suppresses the feminine and oppresses women without literally destroying the mother that feeds us.

It could certainly be argued that the school setting is worse for elementary schools boys, since little boys tend to be very active and need a lot more physical activity than girls. That said, on an esoteric level, the school system is still patriarchal because it runs off of masculine principled values at the expense of feminine principled values such as... - Valuing the mind over the body - Intellectual frameworks over pure perception - Staying in man-made structures and keeping order, over the natural tendencies kids have to want to color outside the lines and play in mother nature (especially effects boys negatively) - Wrote memorization over hands-on experiential learning Also, the school system is very masculine because it prizes utility over beauty, and it quantifies performance and has very rigid standards to be taught. The intuiton, creativity, emotional intelligence, socialization, and relationships are not taught in school where obedience toward authority, hierarchical thinking, meritocracy, and excellence are prized. So, this is really the perfect example of how the esoteric masculine/feminine imbalance doesn't always have a one-to-one correlation to gender and can hurt men and boys as well as women and girls. This is why I recommend understanding the esoteric qualities ascribed to masculinity and femininity and to think of it more in the sense of Yin and Yang which informs but supercedes human gender, to get a clearer picture of why humanity is functioning the way that it is.

Thank you. I do think slut shaming will mostly go away as we evolve as it stems not from something wired-in but as something adapted to. Patriarchal societies throughout the ages on an esoteric level have a slant that pits the masculine against the feminine, and this translates to gender inequality as well as many other things that have little to do with gender relationships. And slut shaming and control of female sexuality and women's autonomy is part of the glue that helps those earlier types of societies together. The feminine is too subversive to be able to maintain the order in those earlier societies, as those times called for hyper masculine hardness from men and women alike and a direct antagonism toward the feminine principle to stay afloat. And if we look at the issue in the broader esoteric sense of the masculine and feminine principle, then we can get a better idea of what's going on than to localize our focus toward issues of gender, which is just one outgrowth of that imbalance. So, it's important to understand that human societies evolve through various stages of development. One such model that you're probably familiar with is Spiral Dynamics. So, the human system has predictable latent qualities as we "unlock" certain stages and bring them onto the landscape of collective consciousness. And you can see that society is generally going in a direction that explores these imbalances, which will continue on more and more subtle levels until it hits the roots of the issue. Currently society is still in the branches and not the roots but it's a start. Now, patriarchy is quite natural for human beings up until we start transitioning out of small agrarian societies and into industrial and eventually post-industrial societies. It is during this transitions that patriarchal structures that were previously positive for us as a species and reach a point of diminishing returns, and they start being negative for us as a species. This is also why Feminism came about when it did. As soon as the constraints loosened in our transition toward industrial living as opposed to agrarian living, this freed up space in collective consciousness for women to start owning some autonomy. To understand this, you have to understand that up until very recently in human history (and this still is happening in many parts of the world) humanity's main struggle was man against nature. So, esoterically speaking there was a constant challenge for society to apply its masculine technology and innovations (limited as they were) to try to dominate feminine nature and shape it to our needs. So, this was always the challenge because nature (feminine) was so powerful and unpredictable that we had to strive and fight with all our energy and human innovations to survive. And it happened quite often that people would succumb to the feminine devouring Mother Nature. The feminine disaster is to succumb to the forces of nature in the form of natural disasters, diseases, famine, and the like. The destructive feminine devours. So, this naturally created an antagonistic relationship between humanity and nature. But as we grew and evolved, our masculine skills and technologies became more and more powerful with every coming patriarchal society. The nature of patriarchy is technological and ideological growth and hierarchical human order. But something has happened since we unlocked industrialization and moved away from agrarian societies. And that is that our masculine power now is an existential threat to the feminine planet. We have dominated Mother Nature so much, that we could blow it all away in one day with our nuclear power alone. And with all the CO2 in the atmosphere, we have pushed things so far to the masculine pole that we risk a total return to the feminine where Mother Nature simply devours our entire species. So, this has never happened before in the history of the planet. We have gotten to a point where the patriarchal growth that has served us so well in past societies, has now become a cancerous kind of growth. The destructive masculine is cancerous, which is the opposite pole relative to destruction to the devouring feminine I mentioned earlier. So, there is dire need to integrate the feminine and bring the current masculine system into harmony with it, otherwise we may not make it as a species. One such way to do this would be to bring masculine human technology into harmony with nature, so that our technology works with nature instead of against it. So, we have to change the patriarchal 'man against nature' idea to 'man in cooperation with and in service to nature'. But there is also a need on the human level to integrate the esoteric feminine more into its value structure, which we see a lot of political issues that ultimately center around this. Like I said, it looks like a battle of left and right but it's actually a battle between those that want to keep the current polarly esoterically masculine-oriented society and those that want to integrate the feminine principle. So, you'll notice that the current group of people who are pro-integration of the feminine principle are very focused toward body positivity and ending the stigma around the free expression of female sexuality as well as allowing for a more fluid view of sexuality and gender identity as well. All of these things would really need to be in place to end slut shaming. And as far as your concern about paternity, humanity has long invented paternity tests, and this is also part of our nature progression. Masculine human innovation helps carve the path for the integration of the feminine in just this way. Since dishwashers, washing machines, store-bought clothes, pre-packaged and pre-made food, plumbing, and automatic faucets that bring water directly into your home now exist, housework no longer has to occupy a woman's life 16 hours out of a 24 hour day. So, this is masculine technology freeing up more space for the feminine. Now that birth control and paternity tests exist, this frees up more space for freer expression of feminine sexuality without the need to worry about it undermining social order. Since we have created a lot of ways to make life less difficult and less single-pointedly focused on survival, masculine technology has freed up more space for feminine creativity, feminine emotional intelligence, and feminine stillness. So, technology allows us to unlock these feminine potentials. But technology also necessitates that we integrate these feminine potential or we won't make it. So, if we make it through this integration of masculine human social order and technology with feminine nature, then a marriage will happen between the two and we flourish as a species and nature will flourish as well. But if we don't, we will push things ever more masculine until eventually the feminine reclaims us all.

Thank you.

You know what they say... You catch more cult members with Koolaid than with vinegar.

Unfortunately, the phenomenon of slut-shaming and invalidation of female sexual desire and sexual subjecthood is not so easy to transcend as making a conscious decision to do so, since it's rooted deeply in the very structure of the current paradigm that we've all been indoctrinated into... which is also the glue of meaning that keeps our social structures running. So, if you think of deconstructing a paradigm individually or collectively, it's a lot like playing Jenga. The blocks have to be in a very particular formation for certain other blocks to be removed without collapsing the entire tower. And the way the tower has been structured thus far, it has maintained suppression of female sexuality as being necessary for that tower to remain in tact and not topple over. But I think that will change soon and we'll be able to remove that block without disturbing order. Female sexuality and female sexual subjectification is subversive to the status quo by its very nature, as it allows a direct channel of feminine libidinal energy (which is lateral and diffuse) to have an effect on society which softens the iron-clad constraints of the hierarchical structures of present day which are constructed through masculine libidinal energy in a very polar and mutually exclusive way. So, given the fact that I still struggle with these limitations despite nearly a decade of inner work on these issues (and the fact that it would profoundly benefit me as a woman to get rid of these limitations), it's very clear to me that this issue is complex and not so simply solved as to just make the decision. This is a HUGE scale issue... as it stems off of an issue of Yin and Yang imbalance in general which has more to do with the collective consciousness than the personal conscious. That is why so much Feminism, Anti-Feminism, gender questions, and all kinds of other things masculine/feminine are brandishing themselves as the zeitgeist of our current time. Even the current battles between left and right are really just battles between people who are pro-integration of the Divine Feminine and anti-integration of the Divine Feminine... though few of them realize it because of the left/right dichotomy that they employ as a framework for understanding. And this belief in the validity of partisan thinking creates many blind-spots and distortions by making us think these sides are just chance opinions floating around in the ether when there is a really clear order emerging in both perspectives. The intention to transcend slut shaming and all the dynamics that it grows from is however, very important and it is a great start. But I've been in it long enough to know that these issues have no simple solutions since they cross over so many psycho-sexual instincts, gender dynamics, politics, the fodder of the esoteric masculine/feminine relationship, and so many other things. So, understand that you may not consciously slut shame or judge, which is better than deciding to do the opposite. But if you think about slut shaming as a plant, you could say deciding not to slut shame would be like cutting the plant whenever you start to see it sprout above ground. The seeds are still there and the soil is still conducive to it and the root systems are still there and connect to so many other plants that you may not even have considered. So, to focus only on the plant poking above ground is to lack the systemic thinking necessary to actually get rid of that problem. But we're all collectively in the process of transcending the soil and seeds that these ingrained patterns create. It's just a matter of becoming more conscious and aware and helping that process along.

Quite simply, because it's the best way to live in a functional way that is conducive to your personal health and well-being as a human. And it also works to the benefit of human society in general. There need be no other explanation, for the primary goal in all of this thinking is to go toward your own personal fulfillment... it's just that this desire has become unconscious to you under so many ideas, beliefs, assumptions, shoulds, and should nots. To put it in the simplest terms, it's good for things to be good and bad for things to be bad. It's something that all children know in their innocence. But adults (particularly intellectual adults) tend to lose sight of as their intellectual frameworks and projections get more complicated.

Well, most of my issues are issues of identity and extend far beyond the realm of romance and dating, which is something that I don't feel like a lot of men grasp because it's such a uniquely female issue. Most men tend to think of these sexual issues as being only sexual. But these are not just bedroom worries. These are feelings that I carry with me everywhere and they pepper my relationship to myself and where I believe my personal value lies and what my purpose is. And it becomes all the clearer as I get further and further removed from my maiden's phase. It's a feeling like I exist only for the pleasure of another and if I can't be that then I'm nothing. So, I've internalized this idea that I'm only entitled to desire and existence itself if I am even more desired back. But in regard to a situation where I really like a guy, I choose not to ask him out because the stakes are too high. I only like one guy at a time and those attractions tend to last about 6 months or more and they're really intense. So, if I ask him out and get a "no", then I (number one) will feel like I'm no longer entitled to my feelings of attraction because they aren't reciprocated, and (number two) I'd have to wait six months or more before I stumble into another attraction. So, men are not interchangeable for me in the way that women are interchangeable for men in the initial stages of attraction. So, I don't approach for fear of rejection and the implications of that. Also, there are a lot of situations that I've gotten into when I was very new to dating and romance that I really got hurt in sharing my feelings or being "too forward" which is a consideration that women always have to contend with... or face the unsavory consequences. A lot of men will hate you for everything they love you for. They want you to be easy and sexual, but they'll hate you when they're done with you. Once, when I was in the eighth grade, I really liked this kid named Nathan and we were always flirting in class and I thought he liked me back. And at the time, I thought men and women got attractions in the same way. So, I thought his feelings toward me were mutual. And he asked me if I wanted to ask at around the same time to get a hall pass from the teacher and meet him somewhere to make out for a few minutes. And I excitedly agreed as it seemed like a confirmation that he really liked me like I liked him... because why else would he want to kiss me if he didn't. But it turned out that it was just a joke, and he then used that as an opportunity to make fun of me and slut shame me. And he involved several of his friends in on the joke that was intended only to embarrass me. Also, the same year, I was asked out by a boy named Robert, and I was so happy to be going out with him and that he liked me back. But my friend Joe, overheard him in class talking about how gross and slutty I am and that he actually hates me but wanted to get with me because I was easy. Now, I poured chocolate milk on Joe's head in the lunchroom when he told me because I didn't believe him because I didn't want to believe him. So, I definitely shot the messenger on that one. And when I was in the ninth grade, I was no longer so eager to get a boyfriend because I'd kind of learned my lesson about that. But I was still very flirtatious in demeanor as this is (was) my natural way. So, a lot of guys in my friend group would take that as an invitation to touch me inappropriately and go over my boundaries. We were a bunch of weird alternative kids and we always celebrated Wednesdays as "hump" day, where we'd just go up to eachother in the spirit of good fun and start humping one another and we also hugged a lot. But quite a few guys would violate the etiquette of hump day and make it genuinely sexual when it was not actually meant to be. And one guy in particular would violate the etiquette of the hugs and would make the hug with me in particular, too long and would caress my back with his fingers, so that ever time I hugged him I would feel very violated. And then a lot of girls would be very mean to me and slut shame me because I hung out with a lot of guys despite the fact that I was actually quite reserved in terms of actually dating anyone. And this is not even to mention, the type of attention I would get from full grown adult men... which was very uncomfortable. The fact of the matter is that being a woman, your sexuality from puberty onward has been commodified and appraised. Your sexuality is a high dollar item. And much of society sees that it is merely a commodity to be used up by men, who are the assumed subjects of the transaction where you are the thing being transacted. So, there is a lot of wounding a baggage around owning your own sexuality as a woman. It's like taking a swim in lemon juice when you have a bunch of wounds on you. So, the experience of being a woman is quite schizophrenic relative to your own sexuality, as there is no space for you to really hold your sexual feelings and be accepted... except perhaps in more progressive circles. Men want you to be forward, and then hate you for being forward. Other women will be jealous as well and hate you for simply being women. The media sends all kinds of messages (especially back when I was coming up) that the world loves an openly sexy and sexual woman, and as a child dreaming of growing up and growing breasts and being appreciated in the same way. And then, when getting to that age, realizing that society loves you for that and wants you to be only that... but also, if you become that, you become a laughing stock and the butt of a joke. So, I learned around age 15, to put on a facade of non-sexuality and the facade works well to keep out unwanted attention. And I still keep it, because I don't want anyone over my boundaries. And it's kept in place by the memory of many traumas incurred along the way. But it keeps away what is genuine and open, and impedes my ability to feel like it's okay to have my own desires as I've internalized since birth the idea that I am object and not subject. And that if I take my sexuality as a subject and go toward what I would want more freely, there is punishment awaiting. So, it is not as simple as that. Men can freely be sexual and own their sexuality. There is no shame in having sexual feelings as a man because hyper sexuality is expected and even desired. But a woman will be judged harshly for her sexuality and slut shamed if she is perceived as too forward. And it can lead to a lot of unsavory experiences. So, most women learn to suppress and to just be a lady in waiting and do our best to work around the invisible barriers that men don't see. But what I love is when I'm attracted to a man who doesn't have any of this baggage and doesn't project onto my images of succubi when I like him. And in these cases, things flow naturally and I can actually let go of those cares. And I get a really clear sense for who is afflicted and who is unafflicted.

I have a bit of an issue with Pop Feminism because it's really just selling their product and using the Feminist narratives of the day to do so... and usually in a transparent way. So, I'm sure that Gillette doesn't genuinely care about these issues as a whole company. A bunch of people just sat around at a board meeting and went, "How can we sell more sh*t to people." Then someone on the board was like... "How about a Feminist angle..." It's the same with the Ghostbusters movie that came out a few years ago. I'm sure they were all sitting around a board meeting like... "Okay. The script is mediocre and sequels are usually bad, so not a lot of people see them. Plus, you're going to have long time fans that will be hyper critical about the movie no matter what. So... how do we suck the most money out of people when we damn sure don't have a good enough movie to get the advertisement of word of mouth. HOLD THE PHONE! I know. I know. I found the gimmick... It's Ghostbusters... only with women. Female Ghostbusters are the perfect gimmick to get people focused on our movie. Anyone remotely Feminist will feel obligated to see and report favorably on our movie. Then, anyone who's a misogynist will be so busy complaining about the movie that they won't notice the TONS of free publicity they'll be giving us. And since there are so many normies who don't want to seem misogynistic, we'll get people coming into the theatre to avoid looking like those complaining internet misogynists." That said, if you want to change some societal structures and question commonly accepted and ingrained ideas about manhood, you have to water it down to get to the masses. So, I do see that Pop Feminism has its place in popular culture. I prefer it to be there rather than it not to be there. And I'm glad these issues are in the limelight, since there are many stones still unturned. But it is also pretty cringey, and it gets on my nerves to. Especially since it doesn't really give anything revelatory to anyone which is where the real growth is at.

On the existential level, there is no such thing as "owing". It's not actually real... it's just thoughts. "Owing" is a human concept that was made up for the practical purposes of value exchange within a human society. Similarly, there is no such thing as value, as this is also just a human concept created for the practical purpose of value exchange and decision making within a human society. But even though "owing" is just a concept, it is an integral tool to the workings of certain human systems to be able to function properly. And there is a difference between functionality and dysfunctionality as well as healthy and unhealthy. Just like a car needs certain parts and components relating together in very specific ways to function and drive from a to be, a human society also needs certain parts and components relating together in very specific ways to function well in a way that's healthy for the inhabitants and is conducive to the harmonious workings within that society. So, if you want a society to function well and you want to be part of a well-functioning society that runs harmoniously and smoothly (which by nature, you do), then ideas like "I don't owe anyone anything." is a very dangerous idea if taken on by the majority of people. This would lead to a society where everyone struggles on their own, no one helps anyone, and everyones only in it for themselves. So, it is inherently healthy on the practical level of human societies for people to live in a harmonious and functional way, where there is a sense of community and everyone having everyone's best interests at heart and receiving the same in exchange. And this is a kind of value exchange. The more you give, the more you receive. The less you give, the less you receive. So, if a society collectively takes on the idea that "the world doesn't owe you anything." and takes that idea very seriously and buys heavily into the illusion of owing being real, then it will be a very hard, cold, and cruel society to live in that is not conducive to human health and well-being. So, it becomes a less functional society that's cut-throat and hostile, where no one is getting their needs met. And social decay and human suffering will abound. But on the ultimate level, there is nothing invalid about social decay or human suffering. There is no value or lack-thereof, so you can't say that it's ultimately wrong that it exists. But if you are a human being who values health, well-being, and harmony (which you instinctually do), then you're going to want to be engaged in a society that has a social contract of mutual value exchange being freely given in at least the most basic of human decencies. So, always ask yourself whenever you want to adopt a new belief or M.O.... "If everyone believed this and behaved in this way, would this society still be functional, harmonious, and conducive to health and well-being?" And from there it becomes very simple to know which ways of thinking are harmful to societal functionality and well-being.

No. You misinterpreted the entire thing.

I was a really romantically precocious kid before any of my male peers were. So, from the age of three onward, I would have a lot of attractions that were never reciprocated. And I thought it was because I was ugly and that no guy would ever like me in my entire life. And I had this idea looming in the background until I turned 12 and started to get male attention. But prior to that, I was so desperate for male attention that I wished that I would be looked upon sexually as my topmost desire. And it would have been the greatest fantasy for me if I had a lot of guys seeing me as attractive and focusing toward me in a sexual way. That was the material of fantasy as I thought that I would never have a boyfriend. Then, when I was 12 I got my wish. And it was the gift that kept on giving and giving and giving and giving. I got a lot of male attention from that point onward... from peers and sometimes full grown men. To give an analogy, it was like being starved for the first 12 years of my life, and then finally being fed. And I felt a great relief that I was finally not starving anymore. But then the food kept coming and coming and coming to the point of forcefeeding: forcefeeding by peers and adults alike. And I was fed so much that I would puke everywhere but then still have more food being shoved in my mouth. And there were times. And I just wanted it to stop. But then sometimes I'd get genuinely hungry but wouldn't want to eat because of the trauma of forcefeeding. And then everything shouted at me... "Don't run from it, your purpose in life is to be fed. That's your value in this world." And this, of course, would give a person a really complicated relationship to their own natural hunger because they now relate it only to forcefeeding and the discomforts of being lambasted with food wherever they go. So, understand that you feel this way because you're lacking in sexual attention. You can't understand why sexual objectification is harmful because, to you, the idea of being sexually objectified is desirable. And that's because it's just an abstract idea for you. It's pure fantasy to you. But the reality of the matter is much darker, insidious, and more complicated. And it cuts you off from your natural sexual desires because you being to feel like an object and that your sexuality belongs to others and not to yourself. You, the object, are not meant to receive pleasure... only to be a means to pleasure for the other person who is the subject of the sex act. You have no idea what it is to be sexually objectified to your core, and have that idea so deeply driven into you that it puts you in this antagonistic relationship with your sexual instincts. You can still go full force toward your sexual desires in an a to b fashion, because there is a barrier there other than space. You're allowed to have them because your view of yourself is as a subject. But if I did that, then I would end up in a lot of unsavory/pleasant (can't discern which because I'm conflicted) situations that would draw up feelings of objectification and worthlessness in me. There feels literally like there's no outlet to own your sexual desires when you've had your status as object driven into you. So, this is why objectification is harmful and why you don't see it as such because of your innocence to it.

When I first started my channel, I got a lot more antagonistic people on there. Even more troubling, my 29th subscriber (I know because I celebrated every time I got a new one) that I ever got became obsessed with me for a few weeks and was creating all these disturbing videos where he would use like a weird voice and take a screenshot of my picture and would say all these creepy things. And that was when I had my channel running for less than a month. So, it was trial by fire and I felt very vulnerable about putting myself out there because I was opening myself up to other's baggage and projections. But once I got up past 1000 subs, things really shifted around. Now, at nearly 20k subs, I have mostly pleasant interactions with only a few trolls sprinkled in here and there. And they create a more pleasant culture on my comments sections that becomes difficult for negativity to get real traction within. And since I have a lot of viewers that enjoy me as a person sharing the content that I do, there's a clear slant in my favor. So, if someone comes around being negative, then it's the exception not the rule, and they have to contend with being in the minority and getting criticism coming at them from my subscribers. So, that probably discourages most trolls, and the ones who try are usually the easiest to spot and either ignore or shut down. So, I recommend continuing to press on and eventually things will shift in your favor. And mostly just don't respond to the trolls. Not responding will be best in 99% of situations, because you won't be giving them what they want... which is to see that they're having an effect on you. If they realize that they can't get to you, they'll move on. That said, if you see an easy opportunity to make them look foolish by using their own shenanigans against them, then you can do that too. For example, I remember one time (before I started my channel), that I was commenting on a YouTube video, and someone came along criticizing what I had said and making fun of a spelling or grammar error that I had made. So, I just owned it. Like, "Yeah. I did make that error. I'm a human being and I make mistakes sometimes. Why do you care so much about my typos? If you have an issue with the substance of what I said, address that and we can discuss it. But going for a grammar error just makes it seem that you don't have ground to stand on with your viewpoints, so it seems you're grasping at straws and looking for any way to paint me in a negative light to disprove me. Now if you have a critique on the substance of what I said, we can have a reasonable debate, but if not, don't waste my time." And afterward, he really changed his tune. And if you do this the right way, your viewers will recognize that you have boundaries and the trolls know that they'll get put in their place if they try you. So, you can check 'em from time to time if you have a way to do it where you still seem unafflicted and in the favorable position. Another example, of when I thought it was appropriate to check someone was a few weeks ago on comment made on my Anima/Animus video. And it's a 30 minute long video where I'm talking a lot about masculinity and femininity and the psychological integration of the feminine Anima in a man and/or the masculine Animus in a woman. It's a theory in Jungian psychology. So, for about 45 seconds of the video, I mentioned that this may work differently for members of the LGBT community or gender non-conforming people, so that if someone like that comes to the video, they can still benefit from knowing about the theory and how it benefits them. And I didn't mention this again in the video and just went into the theory after a short blurb about that. But this guy comes on, and he's all like "OMG! (barfing emoji) All this is is leftist propaganda and everything in the video is politicized and cliché. This is disgusting how she's trying to indoctrinate everyone with "Post-modern NeoMarxism. Do yourselves a favor and don't even watch this bullshit." So, I just explained to him that that information wasn't propaganda. And that it was actually for LGBT/gender non-conforming people who come to the video and want to know how this theory applies to them, as my videos aren't just for straight and gender conforming people because gay people exist too. And I also told him that I'm bi-sexual and if I wanted to make an accurate video to my experience and not just regurgitate dead theory, then I have to add in my experiences. And I finished it off by telling him to stop 'clutching pearls about everything and getting so offended over nothing. And I specifically added in the last part because I know those types tend to like to call other people snowflakes and stuff. So, it gets in the way of his ability to think of me as the easily offended one because I've just called him out on being easily offended and did so in a way where most people coming to the video would see that I'm being very reasonable, considerate, and not coming in with a "political" agenda but personal experience and empathy. Anyway, long post. I hope this is encouraging and gives you some ideas of how to eek past this initial phase of starting a channel. By they way, what is your channel URL?

Because Red Pill is a community of pain created out of a sense of lack, low self-esteem, demonization of women/femininity, and victim's mentality. And all of these hang ups don't jibe with self-actualization, which is Leo's goal for this forum and his channel. So, allowing Red Pill threads is inviting validation and perpetuation of men's belief in their own powerlessness into a forum that is focused toward empowerment. This can distract many men from personal growth and keep them in a victim mentality loop. So, the goals of the Red Pill and the goal of self-actualization are diametrically opposed, and Leo wants to remove these pitfalls from his platform.

TJ has only a few hundred subscribers and he's had his channel for many years. So, he's very small as a YouTuber and not very effective at getting subscribers. His view count would indicate that he should have over 1200 subs by now, but he's still in the three hundred to four hundred range. But he used to come on here, so many people on this forum are familiar with him. And that's probably why there's such a stir. I was personally surprised that so many people were either so taken in by him or so against him and calling him on cultish behavior. He must be really trying some kinda stuff that's really pied piper-ish to have that kind of effect on people. I know that when he was here, he was pretty nice and seemingly just another forum goer. I wouldn't have guessed him to go that route. But I guess that his ego has taken hold because he made some videos about how he's gotten to stage Coral or Teal in Spiral Dynamics, to which I don't even know the implications of that or if the framework really holds up past turquoise. But I've noticed quite a few younger people on here really singing his praises in an idol-worship-like kind of fashion. So, I'm guessing he must be really employing some manipulative techniques.

First rule of the Shin cult is you don't talk about Shin cult! Second rule of the Shin cult is...

Purpose is not an aspect of reality beyond what the human mind labels. Reality is empty of purpose and purposelessness. So, if a person constructs a life purpose, they will have one. If they do not construct one, they will not. But there is nothing existentially more valid about deciding on a life purpose or not deciding on a life purpose. Both are perfectly valid. And circumstances are circumstances, some of them are less favorable on the individual human level, but none of them mean anything about a person's worth.

Well, at least we already know what the audition process will be...

One thing to keep in mind is that you'll probably have to have an audition process for your school and the parents would probably have to pay a lot of money for their kid to attend in order to fund such a school. So, you're going to have to be in the market to attract the wealthiest and most gifted students. That's especially true if you want to keep the school size as low as 100 students. There are also certain acts and statutes that must be adhered to, such as EAHCA which guarantees an education to all children regardless of disability. So, private schools also have to adhere to this to get federal and state funding. So, if you have an audition-based school for high performers, then you'd likely not qualify for that funding (or at least not as much) and would rely on high tuition rates and funding from wealthy donors. Also, you'd want to consult a lot of literature about child psychology. It sounds like a nice idea to have an actualization-based curriculum taught from kindergarten onward, but you have to be really clear about what actualization looks like at each age. Actualization at age 4 just looks like interactive playtime. Chances are that the elementary schoolers would need an education similar to what they're getting now, as this is highly tailored to their unique needs. I think the self-actualization stuff would be nice to begin weaving in a little bit in middle school, and focused more heavily on once a student reaches about 10th grade. Kids have to crawl before they can walk and walk before they can run. --- Also, you want to consider the intelligence factor. What I've learned from being a teacher is that my needs as a high functioning and ambitious student are not the needs of everyone. There is a huge range of aptitudes and levels of intelligence relative to academic pursuits. It's just like athletic ability. You can develop it quite a bit. But there are naturally gifted athletes, and there are people (like me) who will never be gifted athletes no matter how hard they work at it. In school, I always viewed education as a path toward self-betterment and learning. And I was often upset by the degree everything was watered down. I had assumed everyone was able to function like me... if they would just put in the effort. So, I had a very libertarian-esque view of education in general. Like, "If they work hard, they'll get good grades. If they have bad grades, then they deserve them." So, to me, education was a competition and a means toward self-actualization... to which I thought public education did a piss-poor job. But being on the other side of the desk made it very clear that I was seeing education through the distorted lens of privilege that me and maybe the top 10% of learners think that the education was for people like us (which we assumed was everyone) and that it served us poorly. And that everyone who wasn't able to compete were just slackers who weren't competing well in the game I had assumed we all were playing. But as a teacher, I was able to see that students who get Fs often get them because they just don't get the work, no matter how hard they try. And there are kids with borderline IQs of 75-80 who are also taking this classes and having similar expectations put upon them because they don't quite qualify as mentally challenged. And you'd never guess that about these students because they just seem like another kid in class. There are kids in the 12th grade with 1st grade reading levels, who try their hardest. And then a bunch of politicians who haven't been in a classroom since they were a student 30 years ago and try to hold teachers more accountable to fix that problem. This is probably because they were likely high functioning students and still have the same naive ideas that I had as a high functioning student since they never had reality check them on those ideas. Sometimes there are kids that just aren't good at understanding high concepts, just like some kids will never be able to slam dunk a basketball. It's just that cerebral academic performance is an expectation and playing basketball is not an expectation. And if I think about the idea of putting a rigorous actualization-based curriculum out to general public, for this very reason, I know this just won't work when the rubber meets the road. The concepts that Leo goes over aren't going to be grasped by over 50% of the student population, AT ALL. And then, only the top 10% will get a really good understanding of it. So, this is why you'd have to make it a school that the brightest students can audition for. And this also leads to needing to have high tuition rates as well as money from wealthy donors, since you probably won't be able to get any kind of federal funding. So, if your goal is to influence a handful of students who are already likely to thrive, then your school will be a great enrichment for them before they go off to some Ivy League college. But if your goal is to really make huge changes on the societal level, you'll have to tweak your vision so that it can have a greater impact on the masses. And you would have to interject self-actualization concepts at the correct developmental times and be sure that it's put in a way that's simple and understandable to most people. Not everyone can be a Jedi. And if you don't know this, you'll screw over 80% of the student body and their needs if you invite the general populace in.