Emerald

There's like only 10 of these hyper-offended, blue-haired 19 year-olds out there though. They might as well be made up. Ever notice that the only place they seem to pop up in is right wing propaganda, as comical caricatures of the left? But this image gets projected onto people all the time. It makes people nervous to share anything remotely progressive and haults progres. Basically if anyone says anything left of center, they get branded with this unflattering image. And these attack helicopter gender stereotypes of people are treated like they're some huge threat. But look around this forum... how many people like that do you see? Look around at your life. How many people like that do you see? Now look and see how many Red Pill guys there are. And see which group is genuinely more vocal, irrational, and dangerous. The right wing figures do a great job at brand-jamming those on the other side of the aisle, and then making it out like they're the ones whose voices are being suppressed. But the reality of the matter is that they're making a culture that demonizes anything that isn't super right-wing. Watch and you'll notice.

This is exactly what I mean by dick measuring contest. A bunch of smart guys trying to out-smart each other and be the alpha nerd.

I'm generally aware of what RSD teaches. And I'm also aware of what works seduction-wise. You keep projecting that I'm anti-RSD but it's not the case. I'm just telling you how it would be interpreted by most women to be brought to such an event. That should be pretty obvious. Yet you seem to still think it's impossible that she could have been put off by being brought to an RSD event. It's really strange to me that you're not even seeing that as a valid possibility, when it's as simple as 1+1=2. But what I'm saying is that cold approach doesn't really work on most women... it only works on certain women. Most women are not responsive to that unless it's happening in the context of a club where it's expected. All of the traits you mentioned above are universally appealing, but that's not all they teach in RSD. But what I'm talking about are things like cold-approach and techniques like negging and push and pull. These will hook women with certain sensibilities, but won't have an effect on others. But many men take these techniques working for their purposes practically to indicate a truism about all women. But it's really just an indicator that it works on some women. But the RSD guys do a good job of marketing it out as though it works on everyone. They even have that marketing technique where they tell you that women don't know what works on them, and that you should listen to the RSD guys instead. Super evil genius marketing. But the fact that it will work on some women, this is why I said that men try these techniques and get good results, and they take their good results as an indicator that what works practically indicates an absolute truth about women and that all women will respond to it. Neither of those things is true. You can't understand women by understanding what works for practical purposes with them in the dating scene even if you had some surefire techniques that DID work on every woman. And you can't understand women by understanding what works for practical purposes with a fraction of women who will be receptive to things like cold approach, as they won't work on most women. So, no. It doesn't work on everyone. Most women can see men using techniques like I mentioned before from a mile away, as they get it all the time. I want you to realize this is coming from someone who's been cold approached probably a thousand times since I was in middle school like 17 years ago. So, this is coming from someone who's been on the receiving end of it for a long time. Consider that there might be wisdom in what I'm saying. Now, I do generally like the teachings about general self improvement and what works seduction-wise as those work pretty well. I wish more guys knew that. But most of the more pick-up-like techniques are off-putting as most women are so used to it and can smell it from a mile away. I'm sure you've seen pick up demos where the guy gets cold shouldered by a lot of women. This is how most women naturally respond because they're used to avoiding it, and they would avoid it with anyone. So, it doesn't matter how good is game is, he's not going to get with those women. The techniques simply won't work on them. Now, I understand why men must do them, because they have to try with a lot of women before they get to a yes. So, I'd be doing it too if I were a guy. But do understand that your idea that it works on ALL women is false. Women don't fall in love with techniques, they fall in love with men. So, most women don't need or care for cold approach, as they have their eyes set on John at the office who doesn't know they exist. And that guy's definitely not doing any RSD techniques at them. Female attraction doesn't really have a mechanism, other than intuition and chemistry. But one thing I do think is going on is the all the PUA/RSD stuff is a lot like a placebo, at least in part. Men assume that they won't do well with women, so they don't. But once they learn these great techniques, all of a sudden they're getting success. So, the placebo effect of that makes it more comfortable. But it's not really the technique at play that's helping, it's the confidence that the guy gets through employing the technique.

I did pull the numbers out of the air, obviously. But I'm going off of what I've observed of people. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to put together that most people don't like the idea of their significant being with other people. Also, I'm telling you what I know about the experience of being a woman and being friends with other women who are dating and have dated. And one of the major things you have to filter out is guys who are lukewarm and looking only for sex. And you can imagine that a lot of guys who are into pick up are that way. So, it's not something to just overlook like it doesn't mean anything. The fact of the matter is that it might mean something very significant to the guy's viability as a stable partner. So, it's not such a far stretch to put it together that the girl probably went cold after the RSD event because she felt uncomfortable about that. Why wouldn't you think this is probably why she got colder directly after the event? I mean, if it quacks like a duck... it might indeed be a really unusual goose. But chances are, it's a duck. I just don't see why you're putting your bet in on the quacking bird being a goose, when it's a lot less likely. You're missing the most obvious answer because you're falling back on the lens that you've applied in your ventures into dating women, as well as your personal moral compunctions against judging those who are polyamorous. So, you have a mental framework that's getting in the way of you seeing reality as it is. Consider that most people don't have the same level of open-ness about polyamory that you do. And that most women, even if they're okay with others being polyamorous, don't want to be and don't want their partner to be. And on a separate note, even polyamorous people are not okay with cheating. So, even a polyamorous woman might be on guard about a guy bringing her to such an event. Consider the things that are deal-breakers for women in general. Also, keep in mind that RSD and PUA stuff works mostly for finding someone who will go for it. So, you're really learning how to attract a very specific type of woman who's open to cold approach. It's not really women in general that you're attracting. So, if a woman falls outside of that range, the things you've learned and employed will not work on them. So, you're not really getting a clear idea of how women actually work. You're getting an idea of what works for a very specific type of woman, and then taking your success as an indicator of the truth of what you've learned. But from the female perspective, you just look at it and see how inaccurate that paradigm is. It will work for your purposes. But it's not a very effective paradigm for having any kind of depth of understanding into how women in general actually work psychologically and how they actually respond to situations. So, falling back on your knowledge of dating and attracting women is not sufficient to understand female psychology. It's like looking at the flight patterns of a particular type of butterfly to understand the brain structures of butterflies in general. You're working with a very limited, specialized type of practical information to try to understand something that's a lot more complex and only vaguely related. Then, thinking that you understand because you know what kind of works in that very limited context. And you're thinking about how people should think based on your prior knowledge about dating women and your moral code in general, as opposed to the way that most people DO think. So, the mental framework you've created is getting in the way of your awareness of how reality works. Also, none of this had to do with my moral compunctions. It just comes from an intuitive awareness of how people generally function and what would likely put people off. And as a woman, I know that I'd at least be a bit guarded about the RSD thing, and watching for red flags. So, that's probably what she was doing... like most women would. And this is not a projection but an observation of how people generally work.

Many women might find men's primary attraction to their looks a bit offensive as well, but it doesn't make it not so. The fact of the matter is that most women prefer an exclusive relationship. Most men prefer exclusive relationships as well. Maybe you're an exception and you don't mind if your girlfriend sleeps with and dates other men, but most men and women are not oriented this way. So, relative to what I was saying before, you can bet that the OP's partner is probably in the majority. But there are several reasons why this is the case that women prefer exclusivity. Number one, our biology around pair-bonding and a general preference skewing toward depth and stability over excitement that stems from this biology. Number two, there are a lot more consequences on the physical, social, and biological level for women relative to having a non-exclusive partner. Number three, because we don't want to feel disposable, and it weeds out men who aren't very serious and just want a fuckbuddy more than a partner. This is like one of the main things you have to watch out for when you're a woman who's looking into dating. Plus, in my opinion, unless you're just experimenting with your sexuality, there's next to no reason to sleep with a guy if you don't feel a special connection to him, as there's not really a lot of emotional pay off otherwise. The desire for emotional intimacy with that one particular man is the main driver for sexual connection. Also, exclusive relationships feel much more stable, which women tend to value. This makes sense for biological reasons as well, as a stable environment and a committed partner are good for child rearing. That's not to say that polyamorous relationships aren't stable. But if one partner's just out having one-night-stands with a bunch of people or getting romantically involved with a ton of people, it can be a major destabilizing factor. It can also indicate that he has issues with self-control, which is also a major destabilizing factor. So, yes. Most women are going to want a deeper connection to their partner than to their their friends. Not to say that friendships can't be deep, but there's just a different dynamic at play in a romantic relationship that goes beyond just the sex. So, they're not just friends you have sex with. It's something more that that. Perhaps you've not yet experienced that, but one day you might and you'll see what I'm talking about. The level of intimacy is just different. And as a woman, it's not even worth it if that isn't present.

That's good on you. But the reality of the matter is that most men and women don't work that way. They are mostly monogamous and don't like the idea of their partner being with other people. So, you can find 10% of people who are okay with open relationships and polyamory... but 90% will balk at it. That text is super normal. If a guy text me that, I wouldn't think anything of it. Now, if his behavior was otherwise needy, then that's a different story that happened outside of this text. What I got was that she went cold after going to the RSD event... and most women would. Also, I am bisexual but I don't have very much experience with women. But I can tell you, that most women will register the FWB situation coupled with going with a guy to an event that's essentially about meeting, dating, and having sex with women. And many times, the focus is on sleeping with MANY women. Most women don't like that. Most men don't like that. Now, there is that 10% of the population... but the aforementioned woman doesn't seem to be in that 10%.

All audiences will tend to skew one way or another. My audience (as a female spiritual YouTuber) is actually majority male as well... about 2/3 male. And like Leo said, I think it's because of style. But it's also because YouTube is a male-heavy platform... 62% of YouTube watchers are male in general. So, that's very close to the 2/3 that Leo has for an audience. It would be different on Instagram that's a more female-heavy platform. That said, I do think the audience on the forum is probably more like 90/10, as it seems to be a very male dominated space. But if memory serves, it wasn't as much like that to begin with. It was more reflective of Leo's channel audience spread; still fewer women but not as few as now. But this forum becomes a strangely competitive place, where a lot of guys bicker and get in all kinds of dick measuring contests. And there are also quite a few guys on here who are into all that Red Pill/Incel stuff. So, I see why the female population has dwindled quite a bit because all of that is a bit unnerving. But that's not really a Leo problem so much as it is the dark shadow of personal development in general... and particularly masculine personal development. Most people don't get into personal development out of sense of abundance of worth but out of a sense of lack of worth. So, there's a lot of insecurity underpinning the motivations of most people here... including myself from time to time. It's just that it tends to express in a very dick-measuring contest-like kind of way on here. So, you're not wrong that there's something toxic. But it's not really a reflection of the toxicity of the forum itself or Leo or his content. It's just that most people are here for shadowy reasons that they don't even know about.

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

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

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

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

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

You really have no idea how women function.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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