Emerald

There are already desires in you that are pure and stem from love. You never lose your innocence. It simply gets distorted through many lenses as you move through life and experience traumas and develop a worldview. But the source of the light of innocence always remains the same and the substance of which is love. With deeper awareness, you will see that all of your desires stem from love at their core, even if they have taken thousands of detours that make it seem to be motivated by something else. Even the most nefarious of desires stem from love at their core. It's just in our ignorance that our actions become so complex that we forget why we're doing them in the first place. So, my advice is to do these things: 1. Continue to do consciousness work so that you notice more and more about your personal motivations. 2. Express to God/Source/Universe you inability to love purely and ask it to show you how to love again and to help you get back in touch with your innocence. Also, continue to act in loving ways, even if you aren't truly capable of experiencing un-distorted loving action yet. Do your best but maintain awareness that you still have ulterior motives. Also, realize that love is completely equalizing. So, if you feel like you should exclude yourself from receiving this love, then it is simply ego making you an exception and setting you apart from everything else. Unconditional love is truly that. It's 100% unconditional. But also be aware that the human motivational system works through desire for positive emotions and aversion to negative emotions. So, even someone who is motivated by love in a pure and un-distorted way, still experiences this system of motivation.

There was a study done where they had women and men from different levels of wealth and different societies rate the attractiveness of the opposite sex. They found that societies where there was a high degree of scarcity, men with very masculine traits (small eyes, huge muscles, barreled chest) were seen as more attractive, and women with a greater body mass (especially the breasts) were seen as more attractive. But in first-world nations where there is not a lot of scarcity, men with more feminine traits (large eyes, lean builds) were found more attractive and women with less body mass were found more attractive. So, many women in first world nations aren't looking for hyper-masculine guys. I've never been into that and many of my female friends share similar tastes. So, hyper-masculinity becomes less valued in women's taste in men, the more developed a society is and the less scarce resources are. So, my advice in attracting women is to not attempt to be hyper-masculine. Just own whatever is actually there and make it great and be a stable kind of person. Personally, I'm not attracted to the typical alpha male types. I never have been. Even in elementary and middle school, I never liked the popular boys. It was usually some shy kid or some weird kid who would draw pictures or liked dinosaurs something. The typical alpha type of guy is usually very outgoing and concerned with social competition, which I tend not to be intrigued by. My attractions usually happen toward men who are very reserved and have something interesting and mysterious about them. So, it's important to me that a man have a passion, strong work ethic, and a zone of competence in an area that generally interests me. We need to be compatible in that way, plus I just really like these things. I like to be with a guy who I feel like I can explore him deeply and learn new things from. I also like a man who can make me feel physically relaxed around because he has a calm and warmhearted demeanor. And I like a playful kind of guy who doesn't take himself too seriously. Basically, a guy who can stimulate my mind but relax me in all other ways and make me feel comfortable with myself around him. And his masculinity must be authentic and subtly woven into his personality. I call it "subtle unpretended masculinity." Masculinity is like perfume... if a man is trying to hard to be masculine, it's like putting on too much perfume. I've noticed a large number of men do this. I believe it is because they have a resistance to their feminine side, which is the connection to this part of a man's self that gives him clues as to what women actually find attractive in a man. For example, you'll find this in guys who want muscles that are ridiculously large or men who pretend towards extreme aggression. It's like the male version of the woman who gets breast implants the size of watermelons and thinks that it's attractive. But most women don't really find these things desirable in a man and some find these things quite repulsive. But there is a natural masculine essence that is authentic to most men, and when a man is really in touch with that part of himself and doesn't pretend, it's really magnetic. However, that's not as to say that a lot of women don't like alpha male types. But there is still no need to shove yourself in the masculine box and become resistant to what's actually real and authentic to you. There is no need to break your back to be a man. You are already a man. Simply sharpen the tool that you already have, and you will attract a number of members of the opposite sex. You don't have to get into the weeds about social hierarchy and competition with other guys. It's not necessary anymore. We don't live in tribes or small farming villages. There are over 3.5 billion women on the planet. There's bound to be a large number of them who find you appealing. If you're not physically attractive (I didn't look at your picture... I'm just saying 'if'), you'll probably have slightly more trouble finding someone than a super handsome guy or an average looking guy. But if you're interesting and real, you will be magnetic. For example, I find Louis CK attractive and he's a not handsome. But I find him attractive because I really like his charisma and personality. So, I think of this social competition between guys as an obsolete thing. Before it had the function of toughening up a guy for battle and killing large animals. Also for social belonging in the hierarchy of males which gave more choice in marriage and better treatment for your family within the social structure. But now this type of tribal mentality is just obsolete and pointless to engage in. It's best to simply create whatever you want to create with your life without regard to competing for some limited social status or resources. We live in a global society. These are tribal solutions applied to a global society. They just keep you small and pre-occupied with smallness. And if a guy can give that up, it will be a step forward.

It's a mix of things I've learned from Jungian Psychology, Taoism, Alchemy, esoteric information from various cultures, and modern outlooks on gender studies. All of this processed through the lens of my own experience as a human being and my personal experiences and struggles with authenticity as well as dealing with both feminine and masculine repression at various points in my life.

Great questions. That was very synchronistic.

Small children don't quite have this yet. So, it has to do with the more rigid and high stakes nature of adult social interaction and the particular social standards that our society sets up. We craft our method of socializing to learn to navigate around social taboos such as caring too much. We live in a society that sees apathy and jadedness as a sign of normalcy and even intelligence. So, saying something like, "I want to have a conversation with you guys." is interpreted as try-hard or creepy because we have learned to fake nonchalance to such a high degree that anything less than nonchalance in social interactions with strangers will be interpreted as weirdness and un-trustworthiness. So, because passion is a taboo in our culture and apathy is a sign of normalcy, we tend to confine our social interactions to the standards of "Whatever man... either way, it's cool with me. I don't care." And this makes us feel more comfortable because we've internalized these attitudes. And we are also aware of many dark things now due to the televisions and internet, so we are always on high alert for threatening people to protect ourselves and our family from. So, if you ever meet a person who is super enthusiastic about talking to you right away, it is unusual and therefore interpreted as abnormal and as a potential threat. But this is just in our society that values a loose, passionless attitude toward the vast majority of human interactions. So, we often have to resort to dishonesty and manipulation tactics to uphold this social norm but still be able to make human connections, which is a basic need that's wired into us.

This is geared more towards guys but could be helpful to women as well. I will be speaking using generalizations about gender and behavior... so just a little trigger warning . There are a billion exceptions to every rule, and I only know my own experience. But this is just what I've noticed as a women and from observing myself as well as other women and men in general. I occasionally hear/see guys talk about the friend-zone, and I think the concept is misunderstood and causes a lot more stress around meeting women and dating. I think it's misunderstood because of a fundamental difference in the mating behaviors of men and women that is unconsciously taken for granted as being the same in both genders. For men, the primary reproductive drive is to spread the seed as widely as possible to as many willing females as possible. So, men (generally speaking from what I've noticed) tend to have a constant radar going relative to women and mating. So, men (I'm just guessing) probably have a line in their mind that splits two large groups of women: "Women I'm attracted to" and "Women I'm not attracted to." There seems to be a sorting that happens where both groups cast a pretty wide net. Correct me if I'm wrong about this. It's just what I see from my outside perspective and from listening to male perspectives. So, women who make the "attractive group" met the guy's standards for attraction but women who don't make the group failed to meet the guy's standards. So, the unattractive women are in the friend-zone. This is all normal and makes sense relative to creating a heartier and more diverse species. And this is a fairly objective type of attraction sorting that happens on a conscious level. For women, the primary reproductive drive is to find the best quality sperm possible attached to the best quality provider. So, for women, it's a quality game when looking for a mate. And it's highly subjective and intuitive. And mostly it happens unconsciously and without objective "sizing up", unless a woman is actively trying to find a partner through a dating service or something like that. Biologically, we only have so many eggs in the first place, and we have to incubate and grow a child for 9 months whereby we can't be impregnated by anyone else. There is also a biological time limit for women to be able to reproduce in their lifespan. So, a lot fewer men make the cut for attraction. For men, on the other hand, it's a quantity game that quality comes into play with here and there. Men can have thousands of babies a year if he's ambitious and not too picky. So, even if he wants to sleep with a 10, nothing much will be lost from bedding a willing 3. He can afford a few "duds" if he's having a thousand babies a year. This is all said in a very tongue in cheek way... I don't actually think babies are duds. This is, of course, speaking only from the reproductive standpoint without regard to other pair-bonding drives. Luckily, we're more than just our reptilian brain. So, because of this, women don't really have a constant conscious and objective radar going like guys tend to where that binary sorting happens. Speaking from my experience, we don't actually create a friend-zone in the same way that men do. But the male assumption is that women do create a friend-zone in the same binary way, and have the same kind of sizing up mechanism going on. But that we're basing it on a litany of factors that stem beyond just looks and trickle down into the most personal aspects of self-hood. So, I think men assume that women also have a large pool of men that make the "attractive and would date them" group and a large pool of men that are the equivalent of the unattractive women group too. But this isn't how the female friend-zone works. In truth, there's usually just one guy that a woman really likes (or maybe a few that she's somewhat attracted to) and all other guys (and the entirety of the rest of the world) are just in default mode. And this is what the female friend-zone is. It's just default mode. Everyone is in default mode to begin with, and only a guy who really sparks her interest or has chemistry with her gets magically and inexplicably bumped up to romantic-mode. So, there's a ton of videos and content about how to avoid being "put" in the friend-zone. But nobody really gets "put" in the friend-zone... it's just that they never left the friend-zone in the first place. They never moved past default. So, no conscious 'sizing-up' happened on her part relative to their worth as a partner. She didn't look at them and think "Hmmm... Well... Nah." She just never thought about them in a romantic context to even size them up in that way. She literally only ever saw them as an acquaintance or friend... mostly for no reason at all. And this will happen with most women, no matter how good at pick-up a man becomes. It will still happen that he will be in default mode for most women. Now, when I said no one get "put" in the friend-zone. The exception to this is if she was first attracted to the guy and then put them back into default mode. But if she was never interested, they've just been in default mode since moment one. She didn't sort him there. The attraction just didn't happen.

I don't think MDMA would quite have the effect that would really help him. I have recommended that he consider doing an Ayahuasca retreat. But he's not interested in taking anything.

She wasn't giving advice or copying me or anything like that. She was just saying that my sharing my husband's experiences were helpful to her because she was noticing some of her own behaviors in what I shared.

I don't test my husband. It doesn't come naturally to me. When we first met, I was super weird and chaotic so I was very bold and honest about that. So, perhaps that was a test of sorts to see if he could handle me and my weirdness. But it was really only for the sake of fun. It just feels petty to me to expect a man to jump through hoops. Plus, it's not fun or rewarding... so I get nothing out of it. But I do remember back to when I was more neurotic and in my first relationship. I was 16 years old, and I was in a serious relationship that ended up lasting four years. And for about the first six months, I would unconsciously exaggerate being upset or hurt because I wanted him to apologize and dote on me. And I would even unconsciously set up situations where he would make mistakes toward me, so that I could then exaggerate being upset or hurt more. I never had anyone give me that kind of attention before, so I craved it. I had needs there that I wasn't aware of yet, so they had never been met before. But he was meeting them when he cared enough about my emotions to try to repair them with me. So, I was unconsciously using this manipulative behavior to get an emotional fix. But once I realized that I was being manipulative and why I was doing it, I stopped. I just asked him for attention directly after that point. So, I don't really think that testing men is part of the healthy feminine instinct, unless it's done at the onset of the relationship. I do think it becomes a feminine instinct when a woman is unconscious to her emotions though. It's what happens when you are unaware of your emotions and needs, as a woman or feminine man. The Shadow Feminine comes up and unconsciously uses manipulation to get its needs met and uses these tests. But it should not be celebrated as the natural way of women. It's the natural way of the Shadow Feminine. It's an unconscious behavior.

No. That's not what I mean. Everyone has Yin and Yang in varying degrees as a natural state. So, the idea that men need to work at becoming a real man, is just a stumbling block to authenticity that society sets up. In the case of modern society, this stumbling block is completely unnecessary as our degree of social development has made it obsolete. In the days of old, the "becoming a man" rhetoric had some function as it was needed to adapt to the social structure. But in our social structure, it is completely unnecessary other than to prop up the self-esteem of men who have been conditioned to believe that they need to buy into that rhetoric to be valid human beings. But it is not necessary. Masculinity is natural to those with higher degrees of Yang energy. But we all have both energies in varying degrees. The main thing is to release resistance to both Yin and Yang so that your authentic self can shine through. I have a couple videos that you might like.

These are great questions. It's actually a complex and multi-faceted topic, and can be confusing to talk about. So, I want to clarify a handful of different ideas that relate to this topic. Yang: The primordial energy that is the opposite of Yin energy. It is one half of the binary code that creates all of reality. The nature of this energy is concerned with doing, expansion, ideals, ideas, and all things spiritual and non-material. It is related to the elements air and fire, as it has no substance on its own but is concerned with transforming substances. It has an implicit tie to the masculine principle. This supersedes human gender and is inherent to all living and non-living systems. A system isn't truly a system without it. Yin: The primordial energy that is the opposite of Yang energy. It is the other half of the binary code that creates all of reality. The nature of this energy is concerned wit being, contraction, reality prior to interpretation, and all things related to matter and materiality. It is pure substance with no movement or transformation. It is simply being. It has an implicit tie to the feminine principle. This supersedes human gender and is inherent to all living and non-living systems. A system isn't truly a system without it. The masculine principle: All expressions that are an expression of Yang energy as is generally recognized across unrelated cultures and in esoteric texts. Human beings have always associated this to men and masculinity because it is the closest humanity-related metaphor that relates to these traits and ideas. Men as a group generally express more of these traits as they tend to have more Yang energy. But this is not always the case. Some examples of this can be found in similarities in polytheistic religions. You will often find sky gods and Earth goddesses in most cultures. There are a few that have it the other way around, but those are exceptions. There are also human traits, strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies that are part of the masculine principle. But the principle isn't real like the energy is. It's just a comprehensive framework for understanding the many expressions of Yang... as Yang is a subtle energy. This also supersedes human gender as it contains both human and non-human aspects. The feminine principle: All expressions that are an expression of Yin energy as it is generally recognized across unrelated cultures and in esoteric texts. Human beings have always associated this to women and femininity because it is the closest humanity-related metaphor that relates to these traits and ideas. Women as a group generally express more of these traits as they tend to have more Yin energy. But this is not always the case. Another example of the feminine and masculine principle can be found in the Hindu Goddess Durga. She is representative of the interplay of Yin and Yang in the universe. She has the body of a Goddess and represents being and the energy source of all life. But she has many arms which are each an arm of a male God. And they hold his weapon of choice. So she also represents doing and particularity. Durga is meant to represent the workings of how being and doing work together in all things. There are also human traits, strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies that are part of the feminine principle. But the principle isn't real like the energy is. It's just a comprehensive framework for understanding the many expressions of Yin... as Yin is a subtle energy. This also supersedes human gender as it contains both human and non-human aspects. Masculinity: All traits ascribed to manhood within a particular culture. This is limited to human gender and is often frequently solely socially constructed and may not even have a tie to Yang. Sometimes it will be a true expression of Yang. But other times, it is just social understandings about what relates most to manhood. For example, in America in the 1700s it was considered manly to where powdered wigs and face powder. But we may see it as very feminine or just plain weird. Social understandings of masculinity often get in the way of a person's ability to truly be in touch with and express Yang energy. Femininity: All traits ascribed to womanhood within a particular culture. This is limited to human gender and is often frequently solely socially constructed and may not even have a tie to Yin. Sometimes it will be a true expression of Yin. But other times, it is just social understandings about what relates most to womanhood. For example, wearing make-up in most modern cultures is considered feminine. But it was considered masculine in many societies as it was used as war paint. Gender: Human beings are always androgynous in varying degrees because Yin and Yang are required to create life. No man is made from sperm alone, nor any woman made from an egg alone. The interplay of Yin and Yang energy creates life itself and it creates the human personality. And the Yin/Yang signature is pre-conditioned and immutable, and finds expression through socially constructed means. To close yourself off to one or the other energy because of ideas of how a man or woman should be is one of the biggest barriers to authenticity and truly thriving as a whole human being. It stifles your life energy to repress Yin or Yang from your awareness. Most of the time, men will have a higher degree of Yang relative to Yin energy and vice versa for women. But there are as many types of Yin/Yang signatures as there are individual humans. So, the man=Yang and woman=Yin idea is very over-simplified. We're all a lot more complex than that. Edit: So, to answer you question, the reason why we relate these things to maleness and femaleness is because the energies of Yang and Yin 'feel' man-like and woman-like. When I experienced ego transcendence, I was able to pick up on feminine energy, and it felt feminine. So, male-energy and female-energy (generally speaking) are just the most similar human expression to Yang and Yin. So, it's used as a quasi-metaphor for understanding... but it also has a real similarity because you can experience Yang when experiencing someone with a masculine personality and you can experience Yin when experiencing someone with a feminine personality, regardless of gender.

We live in a society that really likes the masculine principle but really dis-likes (or is completely oblivious to the nature of) the feminine principle. This has been true throughout the course of written history... especially in the west. In many ways, this works in men's favor because the social structures that we still use today were all built for and by men and are very Yang oriented. This sounds like it would be a pretty sweet deal. And when it comes to men who have high social standing, then it absolutely is. But despite the perks, things are not all sunshine and rainbows. This is especially true for men who don't have a high status. Since, up until the past few generations, it has been taken for granted that men are superior to women, men have been expected to live up to the expectation of superiority to women. So, anything that could be perceived as woman-like in a man's nature has historically been a major status-killer. Even today, some people still subscribe to this notion, though I think it's very unfortunate and sends us backwards. So, if a man fails to be strong, capable, and stoic then he loses his social power because he is seen as woman-like as women are seen as weak, incapable, and emotional. So, the "be a man" rhetoric is conditioned into men and actually covers over their natural masculinity. That's why men really have to break their backs simply to fit into the "man" mold simply to be looked upon favorably by society. A man has much further to fall if he fails to match up. To find a man who is actually able to tune out this rhetoric and simply be his natural self without falling over on the other side and repressing his masculinity, is quite rare and refreshing. The reason why "be a woman" isn't a rhetoric, is because VERY FEW people in this society think that "being a woman" is actually a desirable thing to be. That's why "woman up" isn't a saying, because womanhood is the very thing the idea of "man up" is said in contrast to. Womanhood is what's meant to be avoided. You'll even find that most women have internalized this mindset and decide to identify more in a masculine way. Many women only want the beauty aspect of femininity, but otherwise want to just be seen as just "one of the guys." However, I have a feeling that the feminine principle will come into public favor in the future as we move toward a better society. And this will take actually becoming aware of what femininity actually is and not just seeing it as a synonym for feminine beauty. Femininity is actually quite a deep and broad topic. But right now we only see the tip of the ice berg, which is the social association with the word feminine. So, motherhood, beauty, and emotional sensitivity are mostly what we associate with the feminine. But there are many other aspects like being, stillness, cycles, compassion, respect for the Earth and its creatures, mystery, the subconscious mind, the material world, psychological awareness, wisdom, beauty, intuition, motherhood, emotional awareness, and many others. There are also shadow feminine traits, but I just focused on the positive.

I find this all to rings true to me.

I was afraid of cockroaches as a child. Then, I lived with a severe German Cockroach infestation as a teenager for a couple years. We bombed the trailer many times, but they would just go up underneath the trailer and have a have a giant cockroach orgy. So, bombing just made the problem worse. So, it was not super uncommon to wake up with one crawling on you. If you picked up the cordless phone charger the wrong way twenty would come spilling out. Open up a cabinet and a few would fall on you. Kick the dog's bowl and fifty would come skittering out. Open up my backpack in highschool, and hope that no cockroaches stowed away with me. They were everywhere. But after a few days of infestation, I pretty much had to get used to it. Human beings can get used to ANYTHING, and quickly. Exposure therapy totally works. Now, I have no fear of cockroaches. But I'm very glad that I don't have to live with them anymore. Also, I feel obligated to do a little infomercial. I'm normally not one to advertise about things online, but this product totally works. So, if anyone is struggling with a German Cockroach infestation, then I HIGHLY recommend getting "Dupont Advion Cockroach Gel Bait". You put little dots in the corners of the room and cabinets. And in two weeks, you'll have ZERO cockroaches, even if they have completely taken over your home for years. It's a life saver.

I'm glad that you're okay Leo. I never even thought of the possibility that you might be affected. It's not that I don't know that you live in Vegas, but you don't strike me as a country fan to such a high degree that it literally never even crossed my mind.

I feel like you're probably unaware of the irony of your post.

You have to click on your avatar in the upper right-hand corner of the screen. A drop down menu will appear and you click on "Account Settings". From there you'll go to another page and on the left-hand side you'll see menu with four options. Choose the bottom option titled "Signature" and you should be able to write in whatever you want for your signature along with the link to your channel.

Fair enough. I'm not really an expert on Rome. I had always heard that Gladiators were mostly just similar to things like public executions where people get to gawk at scenes of violence and carnage. But I'm not an expert. But I did study art history as a minor in college, while I double majored in fine art and art education. And from that it's very apparent that so many things in Roman culture were just a complete plagiarism of ancient Greek culture. American culture and European culture though are completely different from one another, though you can see influences. But there is no plagiarism there. So, I was just saying that Rome didn't really have the amazing amounts of culture like you said it did. It was mostly just a copy of the past. The selectivity of the slutty side would be if a guy is simply attractive in a general way. I'm not saying that there's no selection to the "slutty side". But I'm saying that the selectivity doesn't come with a "find the right guy" mindset. It's just whoever is generally attractive. But there just isn't a big emotional pay off in the first place for women to abide only by the lower nature. Engaging in this side by itself is just unsatisfying because it's always high risk and low reward. For men it's medium/high risk and high reward. So, the lower nature doesn't have very much positive in it for women in general. It's pretty much sucks. The shame here is that it's much more difficult for women to be in touch with their more animalistic instincts and it gets locked away in the shadow because the lower nature is a minefield of threats to the ego. This limits personal growth so much because the energy to grow the higher nature comes from the lower nature's libidinal energy. It's been a really uncomfortable process for me to dive into because there are lots of demons down there that would be easier just to ignore and not risk dis-empowerment or lowering my self esteem. But in early human times, when we were in groups of 30 or 40 nomads, it is posited that all non-related adults would engage in sexual activities together. So, everyone in the tribe raised all the kids. And paternity wasn't expressly known. It was only when we settled in agrarian societies and tribes that we started to become monogamous. And because paternity had to be known to know who inherited the land, sexuality was highly controlled. This is especially true for women's sexuality. So, a slutty woman and her children were probably punished by ostracism and death because female sexual oppression was the glue that kept society together. Agrarian cultures are always like this. But this is an adaptation to a particular type of social structure and not actually indicative of feminine nature. As a firsthand experience, I can tell you that my sexuality first brandished itself in a very slutty way before I learned of the hazards of it and the lack of reward. I remember at age 11 thinking that I was going to sleep with tons of guys when I was older because it was an exciting thought. But when I was 13 or so, I agreed to kiss a guy that I liked between classes. And then we didn't do it. But then he told everyone and I was ridiculed for being slutty. So, I became much more reserved in my attention. This became even more true after I experienced that if a guy wants something physical, then it doesn't mean that he cares about the girl or even likes her as a person. And that there is no scarcity of guys who will be interested in something physical. So, I can tell you from first hand that women are generally very erotically inclined... perhaps moreso than men. It's just a lot more dangerous (physically, emotionally, and socially) and a lot less satisfying in lieu of more subtle and powerful emotional states. So, I'm not talking in some theoretical way about women's slutty side... I know it well. And I know why I don't let it lead. And I know what to do with it to make the experience more satisfying for myself. Of course, this is just me. Some women may be different. Again, I come back to the question... are you using the spanking in a tongue in cheek kind of sexual way? Or are you being serious about it? Because, trust me, no healthy woman wants to be spanked for real for some sort of transgression that her partner perceives. A relationship like that is very smothering and unnerving. Think about the feeling you got when your Mom or Dad punished you unfairly. And I say unfairly because if your partner is acting like your parent... it's just not fair. It's not fun or exciting. It's just frustrating. The only people who might actually enjoy genuinely masochistic acts, are people who are playing out some psycho-sexual scenario because of past traumas. Otherwise, the normal reaction is to go into fight or flight when someone commits a genuine act of violence against you. But as I said before, these scenarios can be fun to play with in the bedroom. But if you think a real spanking is an aphrodisiac... then your theoretical framework for what women like is interfering with becoming aware of how women tend to actually work.

The gladiator fights were basically where they would put a criminal, socially outcasted, or enslaved man in to fight with lions. It was pretty much a guarantee that he would lose. And the people would come to watch the carnage. This doesn't really sound like a good society to live in. Certainly, the Pax Romana would have been nice to live in if you were in good social standing. But the quality of life back then is nowhere near the level of quality we have now. It's important not to glorify the past too much. Also, Roman culture was basically just a rip off of ancient Greek culture. They just rebooted everything and gave it a new Roman spin. That's true. But it was the best thing we had at the time and did bring us forward in human evolution. The rigid rules allowed for us to keep our baser drives outside while we worked on developing other aspects of humanity. And Jesus' teachings were always about compassion for one another. If we allow the rule of the jungle to be the leading mindset in society, then only the biggest and strongest people would rule. That means, that intellect and creativity and compassion mean nothing. Orienting society in a way that is more compassionate and in line with the higher nature and its principles allows for our better angels to lead us and society. You see the strategic aspect and "finding the right guy" is part of the higher nature. The lower nature is very indiscriminate and just focused on indiscriminately following the sexual impulse. So, any guy will do for the task of simply getting pregnant. Now, in the earliest days of humanity, this was probably a guarantee of death for yourself and your child because the mother could not go out and hunt to provide while taking care of a newborn. But it is still part of the lower nature. It has no consideration for the future. It just follows the primal instincts.

One thing that I only alluded to briefly in my post is that this is from an American perspective. I understand that customs are different in different countries. If I were in that position where I wasn't sure what to do, I would tell her "Hey. I'll pay for this one. You can get the next one." And if she still insists on splitting the bill, then you agree to split. The main thing is to not treat it as a huge deal.

There are very good reasons for this to be the case. A society that's lead by our more animalistic nature is more barbaric and unconscious. It devolves humans into mere apes. And it sounds like it would be a sexy thing to let the sexual nature lead, but it's not. A society that's lead by the lower nature has no room for anything that makes life more than just a zero sum game of fuck, eat, and shit. It's a dirty type of world. And it takes all the beauty and mystery out of sex. I'm not religious but I'm going to bring up the Bible. The Bible warns against the nature of the beast and is so focused on shaming sin. Society had been very barbaric before the morality religions came about, so creating these rules of behavior was a major step forward for us in human evolution... even if it's a step backwards for us now. I believe the mystics of morality based religions saw firsthand society lead by our lower nature becomes degenerative. So, that is why they were so focused on controlling (or sometimes outright suppressing) our baser drives. They knew that society as a whole would not be able to become as conscious as them, so creating strict rules for controlling the lower nature was the best they could do given the level of evolution that humanity was at. It was the most loving thing they could do at the time given the nature of the era and culture. A society that's lead by our higher nature is moving in the direction of greater human evolution. This is the part of us that creates things that make life better. And it's the part of us that has principles and ideals, and works for the good of others. It's the only reason why our lives are anything near the quality they are at now. I know there's a lot of cynicism about the state of society at present. But if we had the contrast with the earlier eras, it would be very clear to us how lucky we really are to live in such a society. However, on the flip-side, when the higher nature has no connection to the libidinal energy from the lower nature, the whole thing stagnates. So, it's important to be able to channel the lower nature's power upward toward more evolved forms of expression. Also, sex is a lot more interesting when approached from the higher nature because the emotions are a lot better. Sex from the lower nature only allows you to feel the emotions of shallow lust, orgasm, physical dominance, physical submission, pain, and other such feelings. Sex from the higher nature allows for all these feelings in their more exhalted forms as well as sensuality, sexual tension, love, longing, connection, rest, belonging, eroticism, emotional rapture, ecstasy, and all sorts of other far more interesting and fulfilling emotions. So, the sexual nature will always glint through a person with a highly developed personality. But it will be very subtle and mysterious... and a lot more tantalizing. I'll give an example of the female version of the lion/lion tamer dynamic because you can probably relate more to that example and see the difference that it makes to let the lion tamer lead and not the lion itself. A woman's lion is her (for want of a better word) slutty nature. The woman's higher nature is the part of her that has principles and values and behaves like a proper lady. So, is it sexier to see a woman who leads with her slutty nature and shows it off in any context? Or is it sexier to see a woman who behaves like a proper lady in public... but in the bedroom she let's her slutty nature show?

I'd say that it's pretty safe to say that most psychologically healthy people don't enjoy being punished and physically smacked by their significant other in any kind of real way. Psychologically healthy people don't like to be physically dominated or controlled by their partner in the context of non-sexual life. They may enjoy it in the context of sex because you're playing around with the lower nature, which works very differently than the higher nature. This is what BDSM is. It's people who are indulging in and playing with the power dynamics of the lower nature in a safe and consensual context. But to take those power dynamics outside of the bedroom is just really unappealing in reality... especially from the female perspective. So, spanking a woman when she disobeys your whims in real life is just violent, regressive, and completely un-sexy. It's a quick way to lose a woman with any shred of self-esteem. Have you ever had a serious significant other and then try to spank them in a real way? I suspect not. I suspect that the idea of punishing a woman who gets mean with you is probably a fantasy of yours. Many men feel like women are aggressors because they are of the thought that women are holders of their sexual value... and by extension their actual value. So, it makes sense that sex, dominance, and punishment would play out in the context of some male fantasies. Because it is both sex and revenge bundled together in one package, that's topped off by an affirmation of your own dominance and desirability. Then if she eventually enjoys it, it hits even more psycho-sexual buttons because that means that she's come to learn to enjoy her subservience to you. So, I recommend keeping the lower nature in the bedroom, and to play these fantasies out with a woman who shares the reciprocal fantasy. But when you bring the lower nature out of the bedroom, it will wreak havoc on your life. Think of the lower nature like a lion, and the higher nature like a lion tamer. Everyone's lion is very animalistic and primal, and has appetites that are less than socially acceptable. The lion represents all of our baser instincts like sex. The lion tamer is the higher nature, which in healthy people has strong principles and ideals and is skilled at taming and controlling the lion. The mistake that I see people make is to believe that the lion itself is sexy. So, they want to let the lion lead. But the untamed lion is not sexy. The lion by itself is just scary and destructive. But with a skilled lion tamer, the two of them become very appealing. This is why women generally enjoy being with man with a dominant and aggressive vibe in the bedroom, but prefer a warmhearted gentleman in almost all other contexts. They are attracted to the lion tamer and his ability to control the lion. So, a man who is aggressive and sexual all the time is just not sexy. Because it seems like the lion tamer is just unskilled at taming his lion.

Is this a tongue in cheek kind of play like "You deserve this!" Or is it a serious thing where you want to spank a woman when she does something that you don't like as a legitimate form of punishment? If it's the former, then it's probably a fun and playful sexual experience that enhances whatever other erotic thing that the two partners are engaging in. So, she probably enjoys it if she chooses to engage in it. Small amounts of pain can feel good in that context. Also, spanking tends to mimic the sensation of a man's hips banging up against her in doggy-style sex and it makes blood flow to that area. So, if she likes it then it probably makes her feel turned on, naughty, and submissive. Some women may dislike it though. In this case, she will let her partner know. But if it's the latter then it's just a shitty thing to do to her. And she's probably going to hate it and hate whoever is doing it to her. It will be the opposite of a turn on and something that will legitimately make her upset.

You talk about spanking women a lot. Is it a fetish kind of thing for you?

I will always offer to split the bill because that's just common courtesy. It speaks to a woman's character if she doesn't offer to pay. But if a man invites me out on a date with him and doesn't insist to pay for the bill, even after I've offered, then it does register as a little red flag that I watch out for. First off, because he invited me out. If you invite someone out, then you should offer to pay. It's a bit rude to invite someone to something at their own expense. But that unawareness I could let go of. But below are the deal-breakers that COULD relate back to him being unwilling to pay for the date that he invited me on. So, this decision to split the bill will put me on high alert for these things... and will give me uneasy feelings about the future of the budding relationship. 1. He's really resistant to any and all traditional gender roles to the point where he's willing to sacrifice romantic polarity and having a good time. 2. He's petty and stingy with his money and lacks generosity of spirit. He's afraid of the woman getting one over on him so he pays really close attention to not paying for anything beyond his portion of the date. 3. He's unemployed or has money problems. 4. He's socially unaware and doesn't know that it's still an expectation that he pays on the first date. (This is true in America, at least) 5. He's not willing to go through the effort to court me and is more concerned about money. (Note: I put a lot of time and effort into courting a man that I'm interested in. So, this is an incongruence of effort and values.) All these things have very little to do with the money, itself. It has much more to do with the man's level of maturity relative to dating and finances. And if the above concerns don't show themselves in his personality, then the concern about him not paying goes away. I don't care about the money. I care about having a good time on the date and the person being a mature potential partner that doesn't get hung up on small things. So, I would never say that a man SHOULD pay on the first date. Do whatever feels right. Equality is important to a functioning society. But it's just kind of a turn off. The traditional mating dance works really well for me. So, if a man isn't willing to step into the traditional masculine role for even one date, then it's just kind of a buzzkill. It's an anti-aphrodisiac.