Emerald

It's not about difficulty... it's about value. People don't pay more for something just because it's more difficult for the one doing it to do it. People pay more for something because it provides them more value or solves a bigger problem for them. So, of course a sex worker is going to charge more for sex work than a house-cleaner charges for house-cleaning. First off, the sex worker will charge more because the sex worker is risking more... legally, psychologically, and safety-wise. The juice has to be worth the squeeze form the supply side of the bargain. But also, from the demand side, sex is more in demand and valued than cleaning is... and it's harder to come by for men.

If you don't have women in your social circle, then your social circle is just incomplete. The social circle is ideally meant to be like the village... and that has always been the way we've co-existed throughout the vast majority of human history. Before going through all the approach methods for dating purposes, I recommend interacting with people in general (men and women... ideally a mixture of peers and people of all ages). And just focus on building acquaintance-ships and friendships with men and women... including women that you don't find attractive. When you don't have a particular type of person in your social circle (in this case, women) it will make you feel like that kind of person feel is like an alien "other" to you, and it will feel difficult to relate to them beyond one specific agenda or idea. I see a lot of young guys who don't socialize or only socialize with men having this problem with meeting and interacting with women. You can resolve this issue by building yourself a more complete village-like social circle as your primary social goal. And that will give you a more platonic and detached habit of making connections with people without an agenda. And in that process, you will get better at socializing in general and you will come across as more normal and socially adept to women. Overall, it's kind of like the advice of "Don't go to the grocery store when you're hungry"... only it's "Don't approach women when you're starved for basic social connection (or basic social connection with women in particular)."

I have also always been quite a solitary person myself... since childhood. But one of the major take-aways that I've gotten from my medicine journeys in recent years is that I am less open to socializing because of certain emotional labors and blocks that come up when I socialize... and not because I don't like to connect with people. So, it was clear to me that my lifelong tendency towards solitude has always been more of a coping mechanism than it is something authentic to me. But I always romanticized my solitary ways... as they are something I saw as making me rare and special. And I still like some creative me-time... a little every day. And in that medicine experience I recognized that, deeper down, there is part of me that wants and needs far more connection... but that there is a deep visceral aversion to it. It showed this to me in the "emotional bite" that I felt (and have always unconsciously felt in years prior) when thinking of communal words (like relationship, community, church, etc." And I have recognized in recent years how much community is a fundamental human need for all humans that cannot be forgone without negative emotional and psychological consequences... which are often unconscious but pervasive. And it only makes sense, because human beings have never survived alone. In this way, all solitude is and has always been just an illusion of solitude. So, I do tend to take people who identify with solitude as being like I have been most of my life... mistaken about their solitary nature... and unconscious to the real blocks to belonging and connection that they are afflicted by, which impacts them semi-unconsciously and unconsciously on many levels of their being. And a major culprit from that is an identity of being "the different one"... which is also a commonality of people on this forum because of the attraction to Leo's content and methods of delivery which build on the identity of divergence and specialness that he also subscribes to. One can build quite a positive and efficacious self-identity out of being the rare person who doesn't need to engage in the lowly business of common socialization. It's very enlivening in those regards... and it emboldens people to carve their own path. But on the flip-side, these identities also keep one disconnected from humanity, nature, and the universe at large... feeling like a stranger in a strange land... and coping with that feeling by romanticizing one's rarity and role as the stranger. It is one who never gets to feel "home" here. And this sense of being the "island unto one's self" is common among the ilk of people who seek something greater than the ordinary and mediocre. But I saw for myself that the way to genuinely be greater is to sink deeply into the ordinary... and to allow one's self to be part of the furniture of the world. Plus, let's also be very self-honest about what we're all doing on this forum. We're coming here nearly every single day, just to socialize. That includes Leo. So, while the commonly held belief of those on this forum may be one of seeing solitude as superior to community... that is just a way to signal a kind of intellectual superiority to the communal out-group and a sense of in-group belonging within this higher minded in-group.

I'm very curious. You seem to be suddenly shifting perspectives, and that suddenness makes me question why... as people usually don't have such quick mindset changes. It's not unheard of... but it does make me question if you're going through something or feeling unsure in general and a little unclear about your own values. It would concern me that you're taking too much direction from the outside world and its perspectives. Like you went from being anti-Vegan a month ago... to then making a post a week ago about needing to go Vegan for ethical reasons. And now, you've done a sudden shifts in your perspective away from pick-up. To be clear, I agree with the mindsets you've shifted into. So, I'm not bringing this up because I disagree. It's just a concern when someone suddenly shifts 180 degrees on multiple things.

It's this repeat of the false idea that "All women only want to go for the top 10% of guys". Look around the world and you will recognize that this isn't true. And the hyper-utilitarian lens of this forum doesn't help matters. The reality is that things are harder now-a-days because people aren't socializing enough... and everything happens through a screen. And people don't have a community social circle that they're interacting with daily. It's not a result of "sexual libertinism" or "hypergamy run amok"... nor is it a call for some top-down authoritarian structure to do sexual communism to control women's choices in partners and dole a court-ordered wife out to every man. It's just because people are not socializing as much as they used to. And dating is mostly happening through dating apps, where people don't get a chance to experience real human-to-human chemistry. So... men who are only socializing with women through datings apps... or who are living a solitary life... are OF COURSE not getting into relationships. Instead, go out into the world and meet people (men and women). Build yourself a social circle and cultivate experiences. Then, you will meet plenty of women that way. You just have to do it yourself now since society isn't engineered for face-to-face socialization anymore.

@Xonas Pitfall It seems to me that the perspectives that Leo shares about men and women are just a way for him to feel like he's a member of the superior team... and also because he seems to fear the Feminine and has little respect for and understanding of the Feminine principle. I'd take his perspectives on men and women about as seriously as a white supremacist who waxes poetic about how white people are more aligned to truth than black people. It's clearly not true. You can look around the world and see that people of all genders and racial backgrounds have a variety of different relationships to truth. But the concept of white supremacy it's a feel-good narrative for those who are hyper-identified with the white identity... and belonging with the white supremacist in-group. The same exact thing is true with gender supremacists. It doesn't matter what's true. What matters is that they get to be the superior ones in their own mind. And the vast majority of men are just as muddied as the next person when it comes to perceiving what's true, because men (like everyone else) also have worldviews and identities to cling onto. And it's primarily the preservation of the identity/worldview that muddies the waters to truth in the first place. And when there's an ego to preserve, every human person will unconsciously lie to themselves to blot out the truth that might undermine their ego. And the more attached one is to an identity, the more distortion filters there will be that prevent that person from seeing the truth. It's only when a person is able to look beyond and detach from the identity and worldview that the perception of truth becomes non-threatening... and one can perceive it more easily. And I see zero evidence that men are less attached to their identity and worldview compared to women. So, while many men might speak with less tact than women do when interacting with other people, that's not an indicator of a person being capable of perceiving truth. The real indicator of how well someone can perceive truth is the degree to how much one can surrender to uncomfortable truths about themselves and reality. And let's be real. Hypothetically, if Leo did come across some solid evidence that women were superior truth-seekers compared to men... do you think he would have acknowledged it and make an article about it? Or do you think he would find some way that that evidence doesn't count and rationalize it away? My money is on the latter.

@Psychonaut This relationship seems to have escalated into a dynamic that's very controlling to you where she's controlling every little thing about you. She's even preventing you from food and music that she doesn't approve of... and prevented you from bodily sovereignty (with her prohibition on masturbation). This might not be nice to hear, but I don't think this situation can be salvaged. She is very unlikely to change or even see the fault in her own actions. If you value your freedom and sovereignty as an individual, you will likely need to end this relationship. So, the question is "If nothing ever changed about this relationship, would you be able to feel content about the trajectory of your life?"

I think that Trump knows that the Epstein situation is about the only that could actually lose him some supporters... as he always gets off scot-free in general and in the eyes of his supporters. So, it's only because of the potential consequences that he cares to cover this one up. Otherwise, I'm quite sure that he doesn't care what the plebs think about his character. He probably thinks of himself as uniquely entitled to do whatever he pleases because of his sense of superiority... including but not limited to committing sex crimes on whoever he wants to. He only cares about the opinions of his fans in-so-far as their opinion is practically necessary to preserve his power. And he knows that most of his hardcore fans will be loyal to him with literally everything but pedophilia. And some, of course, would still be loyal to him after that... and engage in all manner of rationalization to preserve their identity of allegiance to him. But he'd likely lose at least a quarter of his hardcore supporters if it were definitively revealed that he committed sex crimes against children... which would be an impediment to his power.

I'm sure that Leo believes what he's saying. I believed what I was saying too when I was valuing and identifying with solitude. But is it truly him loving solitude? Or is a way of rationalizing his own avoidant tendencies to himself by framing them more in the positive? I know from personal experience that it's possible to believe the former... but to have the reality be the latter. And if you didn't notice... he spends a lot of his time socializing on this forum. So, he says "I value solitude" to a group of people who values him and who see value in his pursuits... of whom he interacts with almost every single day. So, he clearly values social interaction. He just doesn't identify himself as someone who values it as valuing social connection is common. A pattern that I've experienced has been a strong identification and enjoyment of solitude... along with an attempt to make myself a rare person who is rare in quality and kind. But there is a pattern of using this to differentiate myself from other people as a way to feel "a cut above" others by "being the rare person" who enjoys solitude and who is aware enough to value things of a higher nature. It's like being a special and extraordinary alien living among the dull and dreary ordinary humans. And there's an ego boost that comes along with that tendency that helps one distinguish themselves from the "contemptibly common" qualities of the masses. But in my medicine journeys, I have recognized that there are deep patterns of disconnection that have come from years and years of differentiating myself from others... and conceptualizing of myself as alien-like in my divergences from the norm (including but not limited to a proclivity for solitude and the valuation of higher achievement and higher states of awareness... as well as an attempt to be a rare person). And this coping strategy has many boons to it. You really can reach to heights that most people aren't so interested in reaching. And so much potential can be realized in this hyper-individuation path. But it is usually borne out of first feeling different and alien in a bad way... such that one eventually embraces this difference and builds an identity of being alien in a good way. And while this coping strategy has many positives to it, it creates a sense of disconnection from other people, from nature, and from the universe at large. And one feels that one cannot belong without proving one's self special and divergent through rarity of identity. I see these same kinds of patterns playing out in Leo's M.O. from the way he speaks about valuing solitude. It reminds me of me. So, I can't simply take his statements around valuing at face value (especially since he spends a lot of his time socializing).

Thank you

Leo isn't any different. He's human just like everyone else.

We've been staying off the radar, for the most part. But of course, because my husband is an immigrant, we have some fears about him being a target. We're also a bit concerned about hurricanes this year because of all the resources that have been gutted. We don't trust DeSantis to handle these situations well, given the fact that he's going to want to serve Trump's agenda as much as possible.

You're mincing paradigms to avoid admitting to yourself the reality of how bad Trump really is. Sure, from the perspective of ourselves as the "video game designer" of this reality (which we can experience in more expanded state of consciousness)... we have all programmed Trump into the game. And the video game designer is operating on such a complex "infinite-D chess" level of understanding of things, that it knows exactly what positive and negative components need to be programmed into reality to serve the highest expressions of mercy and goodness. And if we were operating from that depth of understanding (which we presently aren't), we would understand precisely why Trump has been programmed into this game. It's just like the game designer of the Mario games programmed Bowser into the game, as Bowser is part of the wholeness of the game... as are all positive and negative elements of the game. But as I said, that's not the perspective you're actually operating on right now... as you are the avatar of the game in this realm of awareness. You are not currently operating from the perspective of the game designer... but merely pretending to in order to protect your ideas of Trump from being overturned. And as the avatar of the game, one must honestly engage in the dualistic perspective and be able to discern what is beneficial from that which is detrimental. The video game designer must program in both the negative and positive in the game. But Mario's responsibility is to defeat Bowser. And right now, you (as Mario) are tricking yourself into believing that you are operating from the perspective of the game designer, such that you don't have to admit to yourself how bad Bowser truly is.... and that you can continue admiring Bowser.

It's because, at a fundamental level, he believes that he's special and that it's justified if he has skeletons in the closet because he's superior to everyone else and he has to right to do whatever he pleases, regardless of who it harms. So, he doesn't care if people see the skeletons, as long as he can continue skirting legal responsibility for them... as he sees himself as far superior to anyone who would judge him for those skeletons. And he can always choose to tune out from the judgements and invalidate them... and only tune into people who kiss his ass and validate only those ass-kissing perspectives. You can even hear him do that in his speeches. Consider how most people don't care about what ants think about them. And if they had committed a bunch of crimes against ants and had a bunch of "ant skeletons in their closet", they probably wouldn't care what the ants think of them... as long as there are no tangible consequences. So, while you would feel ashamed to have your skeletons aired to the public... and most people would also... Trump has all sorts of mechanisms for minimizing the validity of the voices of those who criticize him. It like he has an auto-marginalizing mechanism in his mind, where he only lets in perspectives that validate him and convey to him that he's the best and most special person on the planet.

Do you actually crave total isolation? You socialize on this forum every day or nearly every day, quite a bit. And that's not total isolation. It may be that the forum acts as a means of keeping your socialization tank full enough, such that you don't crave it from other sources. Funny enough, I used to identify with being a loner and enjoyer of solitude as a teenager... when I had the most social interaction built right into my environment. (And I still enjoy my alone time as I see moments of solitude as a space for what I refer to as "self-romance"... like I am taking myself on a date) But when I was 20, I truly was alone to the point where if I was killed, no one would notice I was gone for a long time. And I realized then that it was only because I was getting my social support needs met that I could identify myself with solitude and find enjoyment in the solitude. It was because I never truly had lack that I had the luxury to identify as a person who enjoys solitude. It was a very humbling experience that broke down that identity that I had been holding onto as a point of pride.... and as a means of differentiating myself as head and shoulders above there other people who are too shallow to see the value of solitude... and who "operate like sheep." It was quite humbling to realize that I too am a sheep in need of a flock. And it's only in getting totally lost from the flock that the sheep realizes its nature.

That fits with my experiences of who I see as more attractive if I'm only looking at appearance. But even personality-wise, I prefer a man who's not too Feminine and not too Masculine. And I am pretty certain that most women feel the same way.

I thought that maybe she added that context later or something. I missed the joke.

@Talinn I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought that it was people passing out Nazi propaganda pamphlets.

When you are a household name, you don't need play.

You'd take Nazi Germany pamphlets that spread propaganda that brainwashed people in such a way that it led to the deaths of millions of people over a 27-year-old irreverent cartoon comedy show that makes fun of everyone and everything taking a jab at Trump? Methinks you don't understand what true vulgarity is. This is a foolish perspective.

I did mean very attractive 25-year-old women who could be super-models. Jeff Bezos could absolutely have a relationship with a super-model-looking woman of 25 who will love him back. And if that was his priority, he could definitely make that happen because of his extensive network. But it seems that he's chosen this partner to marry because she is his preference... not someone he is settling for because he can't get a hotter woman to love him back.

And my point is that Jeff Bezos isn't dealing with scarcity of attractive women that will love him back. As long as he has been a household name, he has had an abundance of attractive options... both fake and genuine. While there are a bunch of gold-diggers, anyone who is well-known will always have an extreme abundance of attractive options that will love them back mixed in with a bunch of gold-diggers. Jeff Bezos has like 1000 times more access to attractive partners that will love him back compared to the average non-famous guy because he is a household name and millions and millions of people know that he exists. I guarantee that it isn't scarcity that's made him want to propose to his current wife. It's because he preferred this particular partner.... not because he lacked options with other women of equal or greater attractiveness who would also love him back. If he wanted to, he could marry a 25-year old hottie that loves him back. He could find that, if that was his priority to look for it. The sky is the limit with his level of social reach. This notion that men marry because of scarcity of options is just what you believe because you can't relate the idea that many men actually want to marry their specific partner... and aren't just settling out of a sense of scarcity of other attractive women who will love them back. And that is probably reflective of you trying to understand why other men have the desire to marry when you don't have that desire yourself. So, you're trying to understand these men who marry by projecting your own perspective and desires onto them.

Of course, infidelity isn't a good thing. But people rarely have affairs on their partner of 20 years just because they found someone hotter who was willing to sleep with them and be in a relationship with them (if that were the case Bezos would have been having romantic affairs with very attractive women from the beginning, as he has no scarcity of attractive genuine romantic options because of his fame). There's usually deeper seated emotional reasons why someone seeks out an extra-marital relationship to go beyond just the desire for a more attractive partner. So, unless he is some serial cheater, I suspect that he didn't leave his previous wife just because his new wife is male-gaze optimized He and his previous wife probably grew apart... and then he fell in love with his current wife because he felt intimacy with her.

What I find is that most men go through a phase where they're interested in having lots of sex with lots of different women. This is usually up until age 25 or 30. But eventually, most of them want the experience of a wife and children and all the benefits that monogamy has for men specifically. In fact, (as a side note about the benefits of marriage for men) married men are statistically happier and healthier than single men... and even live longer and make more money in their career because of the social status that comes with having a wife. (not that that's why these men choose to marry, these are just side benefits) But most men are interested in having children and a deep loving relationship. They just might not want that until they get the hook-ups and partying out of their system when they're young. The same can be said of women who might want to have a partying and hook-up phase before settling down... but usually to a lesser degree. Like, because of my channel, I meet a fairly broad cross-section of people from all walks of life. And the men who value their romantic relationships a lot, do so because they love their specific partner. And it's not like, "I settled for her because I couldn't get hotter/younger/etc." Most men who propose marriage (specifically the ones who aren't pressured to because of being from a traditional family), are proposing marriage because they really want to be with that specific person.

@RendHeaven His new wife is several months older than his previous wife.