Emerald

To be clear, my claim is not that having fewer sexual partners is the driving force behind misogyny. Repression of Feminine aspects of the personality, shame, resentment, and scapegoating are the driving forces behind misogyny. And the "women won't have sex with me" is just an Incel's means of feeling like their resentment and scapegoating is justified and to wallow in self-pity, anger, and shame. And when misogynists start getting sex with many women through learning pick up, their hatred tends to intensify rather than getting better. But it is hard for me to imagine that the majority of misogynists are getting more sex than the average non-misogynistic guy. Yet again, perhaps they do seek it more often with pick up and things like that. So, maybe that's the case that they're getting it more because they're seeking it out more. I'm still not sure about that though because the average misogynist seems to be a lot less social than other guys. They come across online as victimy and isolated. I think of the keyboard warrior type of guy who does nothing but play video games all day and complain about women. That's my impression of what the average run-of-the-mill misogynist is like. I rarely think of the hyper-aggressive macho misogynists because that seems to be the exception and not the rule. Perhaps that machismo doesn't translate online, because misogynists all feel pretty catty and bitter. So, what might translate as machismo in person, exudes emotional vulnerability online. Yet again, my impression is still that most misogynistic guys I've encountered in real life and online are fairly vulnerable guys who don't possess a lot of machismo. Maybe the study selected for guys that fit the "misogynistic macho guy" mold and that less masculine misogynists weren't included in the study. I'll have to see how the sampling was done in the study.

This can also happen when a person is able to cope well with their shame by polarizing into superiority to avoid falling into feelings of inferiority. And many can be fooled that this person comes across as a confident person. But more often than not, misogynistic guys aren't as good at coping and hiding their insecurities. It's just like if someone feels shame, and polarizes into achievement to temporarily bolster their sense of self-efficacy to feel superior instead of inferior. Some people can keep that up and keep running on the floating log of achievement. But far more often than not, people fail to stay afloat on the floating log and end up in the waters of shame and inferiority.... and they can't motivate themselves at all.

Yes, women tend to be more socially aware than men on average. We are better at socializing as an aggregate... partially due to nature and partially due to nurture. But just because men aren't as good at meeting their social needs compared to women, doesn't mean they need them less. In fact, they might potentially need them more BECAUSE they aren't as good at socializing. It's kind of like if humanity evolved into a form where people needed to be constantly lifting really heavy weights to get by, women might struggle to adapt to such a society quite a bit more than men. And they may require more outside assistance. The same thing is true with connection and men. Connection is a heavier weight for men to lift. And it's evident to me that men are struggling to adapt to hyper-individualistic society far more than women are... precisely because women on the whole have greater levels of talent with regard to social connection. I know a great many people that I've met as friends and as clients in my role as a coach. And 8 times out of 10, it is the men who are struggling the most with loneliness and connection. And there was a study that came out of older men and women whose spouses passed away. And when the women's husbands died, the women were still able to keep themselves together and live full social lives. The men, on the other hand, really fell apart and became isolated and struggled to care for themselves and their homes when their wives passed away. Now, this could be because they were studying a populace that had a clear delineation in the man's and woman's roles. And women had learned to socialize, cook, clean, and all that other stuff that's necessary to maintain a quality of life. While men had learned more individualistic achievement-oriented skills like working and making money, which became less relevant upon old age and retirement. But when we think of socializing only as something women need and we don't teach men how to connect and the importance of finding community, it is men that end up suffering for that misconception.

Men's survival also requires it. No human being is exempt from our collectivist nomadic wiring. And the bottom three rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (which your channel is named for) have always been met through existing within a community. Men did not evolve in different circumstances than women. To say that women need social connection and that men don't, is like saying women need food and men don't. Every single man (prior to a couple hundred years ago) who survived and went on to reproduce lived a life that was deeply intertwined with a community of people. And the more socially adapted a man was, the more likely he was to reproduce. Men today are less social because they have more of a capacity to ignore their needs and disconnect because men are encouraged to be stoic and disconnect from their feelings and needs, while women are more generally more in touch with the goings-on of our nervous system and sensitized to their feelings. And my conjecture is that men tend to have more of this emotional disconnection capacity because men who tended to be the ones that would need to kill animals and other people to provide and go to war for the community. So, there is a built-in capacity for emotional numbing when circumstances call for it. But just because a man has that built in Novocaine to help him go unconscious to his emotions and needs, doesn't mean he doesn't have those emotions and needs. He can just go selectively unaware of his emotions and needs for short periods of time if the situation calls for it. It's the same way that, if you numbed your hand and stuck it down on a hot stove... you may not feel the pain but the harm is still being done. The issue with the way things are is that men tend to be fed with ideas about how to be Masculine that focuses on rugged individualism and personal achievement. And in a more individualistically oriented society where there is the possibility of getting our physical needs met without social connection, men might have less of a tendency to seek out connection because of these hyper-individualistic achievement-oriented tendencies that are enforced by the culture. But it's really clear if you look around the men are collectively hurting a lot more than women are by a hyper-individualistic society... precisely because they don't feel their hand resting on the hot stove as much as women do.

Men's survival requires it just as much as women's. Men often just don't realize it and go numb to these needs because of certain contemporary narratives around individualism, self-sufficiency, and being the lone wolf. But these narratives aren't that old. For 97.5% of the run-time of our species, we lived in small nomadic groups that relied on each other for survival. And 2.5% of the run-time of our species, we lived in tight-knit agrarian communities that relied on each other for survival and had shared community and rituals for everything. And even now (over the past couple hundred years) in industrial and post-industrial times, we still rely on others for survival. We're just more spread out and socialize less often. And we don't cultivate the community element very well. There's never been a time where a large number of solitary men have gone out in the wilderness to hack it on their own. And so, men have never evolved the wiring to exist and survive outside of a social context. Our wiring is still nomadic and communal. It's only pop cultural narratives and myths that make that seem like being a lone wolf without a social circle is viable option for men. And it's a dangerous narrative as well that leads to men to isolating themselves and not acknowledging their needs for connection and community. And then we end up with the political mess we're in right now because all of that male pain and sadness has to go somewhere.

Yes, they repress and push their Feminine side away from themselves as much as possible because they hate and are ashamed of their Feminine side. And then, they feel this lack and this craving for wholeness and integration with the Feminine. And they put the blame and responsibility onto women to operate as their own Feminine side to fix their own lack of integration and wholeness. And they feel powerless to women because they feel that only women can validate them and save their from their own shame. And when women can't/won't fill that role of making up for their own repressed Feminine, they feel resentful towards women. They feel like women have all this power to fill this void for them and validate their existence to reprieve them of shame, but that women just refuse to because they're being evil man-haters and/or have been brainwashed by Feminists. So, every encounter with an attractive woman becomes this intense projection of a mythos of Shadow boxing with their own repressed Feminine side that they want desperately to integrate with to feel whole... but also hate and feel ashamed of and try to marginalize within their own being. But they do not realize the call is coming from inside of the house. And then, all these feelings are there that most men are totally overwhelmed by. But some men who are very disconnected from their emotions may lose the awareness of these vulnerabilities from their conscious mind despite still operating off of them unconsciously.

Perhaps that's true for Andrew Tate in particular because he's a famous fighter and he can put on an aggressive show that some women would find interesting. And there are quite a few guys like him that exist. I've encountered quite a few. In the little redneck town I grew up in, there would be these emotionally blunted mildly attractive trashy guys with macho vibes. Maybe 1 or 2 out of every 20 guys were like that. And they'd usually have a few average to slightly above average looking trashy women getting into cat fights (and sometimes fist fights) over them because these types of guys are always cheating. Andrew Tate kind of reminds of the Platonic Ideal of that type of local yokel. He's what that type of person thinks they are and are trying very hard to be. And certainly these guys are misogynistic. And they get laid pretty often because their social circle is still partially in Stage Red and values what they are. And many trashy women are looking for a Stage Red petty warlord to turn into a Stage Blue trad hubby with the power of her love and body... which of course is a fool's errand. But these guys only account for a fraction of misogynists that are out there. And they only get saved from the awkwardness around women because small redneck towns are very social. And working class people are more communal in their ways of operating. And because they are somewhat proximal to the Masculine beauty standard, especially compared to others in the same environment, they can garner some popularity in that environment. So, he gets saved from the awkward social isolation and manifesto writing because he's a Stage Red/Blue guy in a Stage Blue communal setting where there are other Red/Blue men and women who see him like the villagers in Beauty and the Beast see Gaston. But I understand that, even men who are becoming emotionally stunted and unable to interact normally with women because of watching people like Andrew Tate, believe they're benefiting. And they believe he's helping them and that the misogynistic view of women will eventually pay off and they'll be getting tons of sex once they pull it off. It's what happens when people believe that the poison is the cure and that the cure is the poison. Here's an example of a (really accurate) parody of the type of guy that I'm talking about who does get laid more because he's misogynistic...

1) That's true. It's more about their perception. 2) I somewhat doubt that misogynistic guys (on the whole) get more sex than guys who aren't. My observation has been that guys who are more misogynistic than average tend to be obsessed with women and put women up on a pedestal, which is why they put so much energy into hating women and trying to tear us down from that pedestal. And my guess from what I've observed about misogynists and been on the receiving end of is that 90% of the time, that leads to lots of insecurity and difficulty approaching and communicating with women. The more hatred, the more obsession. The more obsession, the more desperation. The more desperation the more social avoidance and awkwardness. The more misogynistic a guy gets, the more he loses the ability to have a normal human interaction with women. It's only like 10% of misogynistic guys who go out and do pick up and can pull off the misogynistic macho man vibe that might get him laid here and there. And this is only possible if a guy is able to gain the respect of other men for his machoness. The rest just seethe in their room about alpha males fucking all the women and write manifestos. Like, look around on this forum (or other places on the internet where men tend to congregate) and you'll find plenty examples of your truly average middle-of-the-road misogynist. And these guys usually give me inexperienced awkward nerdy vibes. But I'm sure Andrew Tate himself is getting a lot of sex. But he's got a lot of aggression and the ability to block out all of his insecurities through emotional disconnection. So, even if it's clear to the trained eye that he's got tons of vulnerabilities, I can see a woman who hasn't developed that radar to fall for his macho man act. But that's why he's famous. He's an exceptional misogynist... an aspirational misogynist. Most misogynists are usually just guys with no social skills who believe like women hold the power to validate or invalidate the value of their existence. And they get resentful and catty about that.

These are generalizations based off of what I've observed. My perception is that men tend to be more lonely because they're less likely to develop social connections with the broader community in general and more likely to think of themselves as independent/loners. And there's this belief that men should be strong and not need anyone. And men might be less likely to reach out to others fro support. So, I think it may be the case that women are more likely to feel their loneliness and acknowledge it. But men may not acknowledge or share because they believe they shouldn't feel lonely or need anyone.

Certainly Fascism is all about appeals to male dominance and hyper-masculinity. But are men who subscribe to these things (excluding pickup artists who are specifically focused on approaching women) actually having more sex than men who don't subscribe to these things? To me, it seems like most of these guys are making themselves more socially stunted and nerdy through subscribing to these ideologies, and are thus much less attractive to women as a whole than if they'd never gotten into those ideologies. And plenty of young women are wanting to do the American version of the 4B movement because of young men's turn towards Fascism. So if anything, all of this is backfiring on men's ability to get sex and female companionship. Like... who needs problems, when you have solutions like these?

You already are mysterious... as are all human beings with all our psychological and emotional complexities. And if you want that mystery to be seen by others, you must come to know the depths of those psychological and emotional complexities of yours at such a deep level that the vast majority of people don't yet understand. And the first place to begin is total self-honesty and accurate articulation to yourself about your feelings, thoughts, and patterns.

No. That's the problem with the left. We become so strategic that we cede ground to the right. And then, it will become more and more taboo to support civil rights, trans rights, gay rights, women's rights, abortion rights, etc. That's the way the Overton Window works. They more you insist on something, the more normalized it becomes. And the left is always ceding ground to the right and trying to meet in the middle, while the right just goes scorched Earth and plays power games and insists that their view is correct... facts be damned. So, the right never goes "Should we stop hating on trans people?" or "Should we cool our language on immigrants?" They wear their freak flag out and proud, and tons of people jump onto their movement because they have a vision... a terrible hate-filled vision... but a vision. It's time to stop being strategic and start being honest and go on the offensive, instead of playing defense all the time. And the leftwing politicians need to have a vision that includes both human-rights and economic populist messages.

The main thing is that these Red Pill influencer guys are grifters. The vast majority of them are playing the role of misogynist alpha chad because it's lucrative. They are actually fine with dating single mothers. And they're not going to pass up on the ability to love and be loved by an attractive woman if the opportunity arises to have real intimacy. But they know their audience. And their audience will eat up anything that tells them "Don't worry. You're more desirable than single mothers, promiscuous women, etc. because you're a man and your value only ever goes up while their value only ever goes down." And then the guys who watch it throw their money and views at them as they revel is schadenfreude that the girl in their poly sci class in undergrad is going to be sorry that she didn't pick him when she's a discarded valueless single mom with a body count over 1. All it is is just profiting off of the shame, bitterness, and grievances of lonely men and showing them an fake but aspirational character of the strong alpha male that takes no shit from women and feels totally secure... and is in the role of selector and rejector of women, instead of women being in the role of selector and rejector of him.

It's not about hating Trump. I hope he lives lives his long and merrily... just away from the levers of power. He's a very immature and dangerous person to entrust with this responsibility. In his last term, there were more checks and balances on his power. But in this term, there aren't that many checks and balances. And it's possible that he could erode the checks and balances of the system away so entirely that America devolves into Fascism or simply into pure chaos with the aftertaste of Fascism. Anyone who's talking about Trump in a serious way is really just concerned about the consequences.

It's more about emotions than about intellect. Someone with a strong intellect can use that intellect to trick themselves into ignoring issues with Trump... simply because Trump hits some emotional button for them. My guess is that he's in this community of men, who are largely right-leaning. And that's who respects him and where he has status. And he's gotten influenced by his environment that's very pro-Trump. He also could just be kind of anti-Feminine in general. Anyone who hates the Feminine, will want to vote Trump because Trump and the right wing movement is about controlling and eradicating the Feminine from society in any and all ways.

100%

To be honest, I think it would be a bit dangerous for the receiving man to wear a condom during oral sex. It seems like a choking hazard. But you wouldn't be able to catch genital herpes from someone with mouth herpes unless they have an active infection. And you can usually see it when a person has a cold sore. But you can also ask the person if they have a cold sore if you're concerned.

When I think about human nature, I see it as an unfurling of new archetypes, inventions, and paradigms that already lay in wait in the recesses of the human psyche. So, I view all things that we invent, create, think, do, and subject ourselves to as part of that natural unfurling. And that will naturally take us into a state of opposition to our nomadic wiring as those are the stress tests necessary to bringing about greater changes as a collective. For example, we have evolved to be deeply immersed in community. And we have a profound need for connection. And yet, we have developed a society that takes us away from connection. And one might think. This is unnatural for us. And it's unhealthy. And on one level, that's true. It's very stressful to the mind and body of a human being to be alone. But on a deeper level, this age of Hermicism is also part of the unfurling of new potentials where we are driven apart for a time to help us come more into our authenticity and to experience freedom... only to coalesce again from a higher ordering principle that allows both social connection and authenticity/will/autonomy at once. And certainly, there is the possibility that we can be a stillbirth species, where we don't make it past the tipping point and we self-destruct before reaching the new birth. But in the grand scheme of things, I have a lot of faith in humanity to make it through these stress tests. We're adapting so quickly and so well to so many things. We're just way up close to the phenomenon, and so we can't see that we're actually sticking the landing. 97.5% of humanity's past is nomadic. And 2.5% of humanity's past is agrarian (which is where all the conservative values were technological adaptations to survival). And just a sliver of a percentage has been industrial and post-industrial living. So, the past 10,000 years is like a sudden peak of change and growth and evolution. And we're still in that 10,000 year growth spurt. And growth spurts are always chaotic with all sorts of stresses to the human system. So, it's quite natural that we be stress tested by collective dynamics that run in opposition to our nomadic wiring.

What are you defining as unnatural? Human beings aren't capable of doing things outside of our nature. It's just that our nature looks different than other creatures on this planet. One of the major issues as human beings is that we see ourselves as existing as something outside of nature and interacting with it as an outsider, as opposed to recognizing that we are just as natural as any other living organism on this planet. Can you see that cars, computers, and all the tools that we have created are just as natural as when a beaver builds a dam, or a wasp builds a nest? And when we are subjected to any conditions, we will have contrasts that arise... both positive and negative. And this creates both growth and decay. Regeneration and degeneration. Birth and death. That is the way of nature. And it is the weakness of the cell that is the vigor of the organism. Degeneration is what helps us slough off the dead skin and move forward. We're always moving 10 steps forward and 9 steps back as a species. So, usually when people start labeling out "degeneration" they are just pointing out the things that are naturally decaying that they wanted to hold onto. And then they start believing that the entire world is degenerating and going to hell in a hand basket because their personal squishy bears are dying. But in reality, there's stability, regeneration, and degeneration all around us. But this is just spoiled modern thinking. We take for granted how awesome things are. And we only see a fallen world. Also, I'm going to need a CREDIBLE source to show that boys who don't play sports when they're little have smaller brains and are less Masculine.

I never believed in the idea that strong men - good times - weak men - hard times cycle. That always just seemed to me that this idea comes about from a type of modern spoiledness and seeing the contemporary way of life only through a negative lens. It's clear to me that good times (where people have their emotional and physical needs met) produces less trauma. And that subsequently produces psychologically healthier people who are able to adapt better to the world, and who are less prone to self-destruction. It's evident to me that human evolution is both cyclical and progressive with a trajectory towards love, unity, and expansion... and an awakening of global consciousness. It's similar to giving birth... with its cyclical patterns of painful contraction of the pelvic muscles enabling the cervix to expand wider and wider and wider... until something brand new can come about. And I believe that we've collectively been in this process of labor and giving birth for the past 10,000 years as there have been many contractions and expansions over the course of written history compared to our nomadic past. Right now, we're about to go into a contraction for a minute. But if the pain is sharp enough and the contraction is deep enough, we will come back from that contraction more dilated and wiser and more able to step into deeper levels of consciousness and a more world-centric paradigm.

Very well said. I bolded everything that especially resonated. I see conservatism and its concerns about "degeneracy" and "sexual aberration" as operating off of the agrarian coping strategies for living in a mono-cultural village. I think this is why people in rural places tend to skew a bit more conservative as well, because it's closer to that agrarian village living lifestyle. And in an agrarian village, you need to control people's sexuality to maximize the society for growing as many children as possible to work the field and protect the village. But the issue with this, is that these are maladaptive coping strategies for living in a post-industrial society. It's like trying to stick a cassette tape in a cd player and then believing the cd player is fundamentally broken because it won't play cassettes "like it's supposed to". So, those in this conservative agrarian mindset always feel like everything is broken and working improperly because they haven't acclimated to the new societal technology. And it also leads these conservative agrarian-minded types to be very susceptible to demagogues who claim they will bring back the glory days of the past where we were just one people and one race and one religion... and people were all upstanding people who aren't sexual deviants... the man was the head of the household... and every woman was having 10 children to help the family tend the farm. But it's also difficult for someone with the paradigm of an agrarian peasant from 300+ years ago to adapt to post-industrial society. So, I have some sympathy for that feeling of disjointedness. But there's often this top-down kind of authoritarian control that they value in a leader because they want to believe that the leader will bring about an agrarian peasant paradise where women and women and men are men... and only the good race belongs... and only the good religion is practiced... and only the good kinds of sex are permitted... etc.

Thank you! I'm glad you like my channel! And yes, I totally agree.

I have done 5 out of the 7 of my Ayahuasca journeys at an Ayahuasca church. But the Ayahuasca church had facilitators that have learned from shamans, but who aren't shamans themselves.

@Joshe This strongly described me back in my teen years. I held a really strong contrarian way of being because self-differentiation had been one of my more effective strategies to (on the positive side) embrace my weirdness and cope with feelings of alienation. As a child, I really felt like an alien trying to figure out how to pass as a human... and constantly failing at it and being ridiculed for failing at it. And embracing my differences and leaning into them heavily was the only thing that ended up working. And as a teenager, I really found my place with people who appreciated my weirdness. So, I started feeling like extraordinariness and divergence was an unquestioned good. And there was a strong judgment towards those who are mainstream... because it was more comfortable to feel like I was rejecting the mainstream... instead of the mainstream rejecting me. And what arose from this was a very strong fear of being ordinary and blending in with the crowd, which manifested in increased fears of aging and becoming more average. And when I felt average, averageness didn't feel like I was enough. It reminded me of trying to conform to normalcy as a child and failing. Then, in my 20s, I really started to recognize the shadowier side of contrarian thinking especially when people were against good popular things (like the ice bucket challenge for ALS)... and I soured on empty contrarianism. Yet, I still felt this underlying sense of differentiation based off of "not being the type that falls into empty contrarianism nor the type that falls into patterns of conformity." The tendency to slice myself away from the crowd was still there, but I had just started to see empty contrarians as "a part of the crowd that doesn't even know they're part of the crowd." But in my recognition of this, there was a pride in being different and not falling into patterns that so many people fall into. So, these Shadow patterns have a way of becoming sneakier and more subtle as you grow and mature. So, I was still looking to differentiate and separate myself. I had just dropped the more overt symptom of reflexive contrarianism because I saw the "ordinary human foolishness" in it. So, I was still carving myself out from everything else and seeing myself as separate and differentiated from the world. But in one of my Ayahuasca ceremonies, it brought me back and forth between two states. One was my usual polarization into extraordinariness to the exclusion of ordinariness... and it was showing me how disconnected I was from everything. And it really emphasized how cut off it was making me. Then, it re-integrated me with ordinariness, and I felt so deeply intertwined with humanity, nature, and the universe at large because I saw the sameness in myself to all other elements of the universe. I was not distinct from anyone or anything at the core. And all this existential pressure was removed from me. And it brought me back and forth between the state of polarization into extraordinariness and the state of integration with ordinariness. And ordinariness was always a huge fear. But in this, it was everything I'd ever wanted to feel and the entire reason I was trying to differentiate myself in the first place. But of course, these coping patterns run deep. So, even in my realization of the value of ordinariness, I can use that as a means to differentiate myself because "Look how uniquely wise I am to understand this when most people don't."

From the "shucking the bearded clams" comment earlier, I'm sure your sexting game is EPIC... Like "Madam, would you like to ride the bony pony?"