Emerald

And I relate to her enough to recognize her vulnerability.

As someone that's rationalized away things I'm not okay with to stay in a relationship with someone in the past, their conversation doesn't convince me one bit. And I could have waxed poetic about why I was staying with him. Consider the mixture of grief and the denial that comes with the potential of needing to leave a relationship to stay aligned with yourself... in combination with being given a narrative that allows you to fully embrace that denial phase of grief. That's how humans tend to operate. I don't think Vylana would be choosing this if she had the opportunity to be in a fully monogamous relationship with Aubrey. She just has to get used to going for WHAT she wants rather than WHO she wants.

Sure, that could be true. I did account for that. I actually just mentioned my best friend and her husband who are polyamorous. And my friend has an extremely high sex drive and needs lots of variety. So, their relationship works out well and it's been poly from the start... 17 years ago. It's more about the way that Aubrey Marcus is going about rationalizing it that's muddying the waters that's the problem.

Then, why don't you think this is an example of that?

You'd be wise to listen to it sometimes.

And clearly you don't understand common sense.

Yes... very tasty indeed.

Funny the things you select to listen to women about.

Hey Leo. God just commanded me to take all of your money away from you for your own good, while I keep it for safe keeping. It's this new enlightened way where all of humanity is embraces a non-materialistic lifestyle. And I will guide you in the difficulties and aversions you'll feel as it is hard to open up your boundaries to let money flow out and love flow in.

There's certainly evidence from what she said that she is lying to herself and rationalizing her boundaries away using Aubrey's narrative. She's been talking about how she keeps having to work really hard to open up her boundaries and push herself past her limits to do this "more evolved form of radical monogamy." And she had mentioned that it's painful to her and that it's challenging. But you see, she doesn't even really NEED to lie to herself. Aubrey has created a convenient narrative for her to lie to herself through that she would not have come to on her own if there wasn't a really high stakes decision attached to it. The thing is, if she honored those boundaries she's trying to transcend as valid and was honest with herself she'd be sitting down the barrel of a divorce from a man she really loves and has formed a lot of attachment to over the years. This should all be pretty obvious knowing how human nature operates. Denial is the first stage of grief... where we find any way that we can to avoid a loss.

This is a silly analogy, because these two examples have literally nothing to do with one another... other than that they generally pertain to relationships. Clearly Aubrey rationalizing his use of dating apps and traversing the previously agreed-upon boundaries of his relationship through the notion that God commanded it... and a priest going through the ritual of blessing a marriage are totally different scenarios. And that's because the priest blessing the marriage isn't a rationalization that's deliberately used to deceive one's self into acting selfishly and committing infidelity. (the relationship wasn't open at the time, and he's had previous issues with infidelity) Just like a priest blessing a marriage has nothing to do with a crackhead using "God's command" to rationalize why he should call up his dealer and do some crack. I think the miscommunication here is that you believe that I'm taking a "pro-monogamy" and "anti-polyamory" stance. But my issue isn't about monogamy versus polyamory... at all. If people are polyamorous, it's not my thing... but I have no issue with it. My best friend and her husband are polyamorous, and it works because I know that my friend likes a lot of sexual variety and so does her husband. So, it works out really well for them. I honestly don't think she would be able to sustain a marriage without it because it would be going so far against the grain of her personality... and they've been together for like 17 years. So, my issue isn't about polyamory at all. It is about unconsciously creating narratives for the sake of self-deception with religious and spiritual accouterments... and then roping others into that self-deception. It's no different than a crackhead convincing himself into hearing a commandment from God to do more crack. Of course, it could happen. But what's more likely? That God commanded Aubrey to scroll around on Tinder looking for attractive women? Or that Aubrey wanted to scroll around on Tinder looking for attractive women, and that he convinced himself that God told him to? Occam's razor is on the latter.

Convenient how God chimed in with its absolute authority to encourage him to scroll around on Tinder (given his past issues with infidelity). It's like a crackhead who is trying to convince himself that he wants to stop smoking crack. And he was about to! But then God chimed in and commands him to reach out to his dealer. And then, later on, God tells him that he even needs to start making his own crack. But he's not REALLY doing crack. He's smoking spiritual evolution powder... which will awaken all of humanity.

Well said. When we have had past dynamics that make us feel like we only deserve scraps, it can set us up for relationships where we give and give to the other person who only takes and siphons from us. And in this dynamic, it's that common pattern of sacrificing herself and her boundaries just to avoid losing the relationship. And of course, any narrative that explains away the pain would feel quite relieving, which is likely why she's going along with Aubrey's narrative that he's woven. And I'm hoping that the public reaction to this has validated her feelings a bit more... as she seems to have bought into the perspective that her feelings of aversion and her boundaries are something to transcend... as opposed to something to be honored. If she leaves, I believe that hindsight will be 20/20 on this situation.

It is definitely a good lesson for her to learn how to choose herself over maintaining a relationship with an incompatible person. She can definitely use this as a growth experience after she gets out of it and unpacks the situation from a distance. But it's a very hard lesson, and it makes it far more difficult when your partner is framing regular polyamory in a totally different way and calling it "radical monogamy" and framing it as some higher conscious relationship evolution that's better than monogamy. Like, if he was like "Hey, I want for us to be a polyamorous couple and to bring another woman into the relationship. How do you feel about that?" that would put her in a much better position to make a sovereign decision. It would still be difficult, but at least he'd be being straight-forward. It's still crappy to spring that on someone. But at least it's being up-front about it. Instead, he's framing this polyamorous throuple situation as an "evolution" and a more spiritual way of having a relationship.... which frames monogamy as a less evolved choice. And in framing it that way, he's influencing her into a mindset where her resistance to being in a non-monogamous situation is something less spiritual evolved to be transcend, and it's causing her to see her boundaries as an impediment to her spiritual evolution. And it's also calling polyamory monogamy... thus muddying the waters further. Plus, he's weaving together narratives to God told him to go on Tinder... and that God told him to impregnate both women. I saw that you said you have no issue with what he's doing and that they seem to be in a higher consciousness situation. But if this doesn't scream RED FLAG, I don't know what does.

People need challenge, meaning, and direction in life to develop themselves. And improving one's self is fine, as long as there isn't a shame narrative attached to it and it's helping you have the experiences you want to have. And the idea that there's some standard of Masculinity to match up to is what creates neuroses and problems because men start feeling anxious that they're not Masculine enough. You can look everywhere and see evidence of this. If you want to grow yourself, forget about "trying to be a man" and accept that you already are one. And just be yourself and tap into your own personal sovereignty and tap into whichever energetic signature that you naturally have.

I prefer not to respond to dishonest arguments. But I'll humor you. My response to the substance of your argument: The existence of Vegans and Veganism doesn't cause harm to culture. My honest reaction to your post: My perception is that you don't really care about the actual argument itself. Like, you don't seem to care about preserving culture in any other context. In fact, a lot of your posts are direct critiques of your own religious/cultural background. And there are certain posts where you try to go radically contrarian against cultural standards with hypotheticals around "What if we questioned social norms and dropped taboos around (fill-in-the-blank extremely taboo thing)?" So, I don't buy for a second that you're pearl clutching about Veganism undermining culture... nor do I believe you genuinely believe that it does cause harm to culture. It's pretty clear to me that you're just looking for a way to defend your own actions in your own eyes because you're uncomfortable with your own actions.

Exactly my point. People come up with these elaborate defenses to assuage their own guilt... because deep down, they know that they're not eating meat for health or to preserve culture or whatever the content of the justification is. It's all because they don't agree with their own actions. And they are shadow boxing with imaginary Vegans in their mind... that represent the way they really feel.

There's definitely a lot of delusion and self-deception happening with Aubrey. He's really creating a lot of magical thinking narratives and religious narratives to justify his own actions to himself... and then pulling others into the narratives that he's woven to deceive himself. I can see it staring with him having a problem with checking dating apps as an addiction... and wanting to stray from the relationship to get sexual validation from new partners. And instead of framing it accurately as an addiction and a boundary breech to his relationship and an unhealed part of himself, he finds a way to reframe it all and make his actions seem to him as a reflection of "greater consciousness and integrity" compared to the average person. And it allows him to bypass his own addictions and deeper seated issues that cause him to look outside of himself for validation of his worth... AND also to feed those addictions. What's a shame is that he has quite a lot of power. So, his self-deceptions have a bigger negative impact than those who don't have as much power.

And you're blaming the boringness, lack of initiative, lack of drive, lack of charm, and laziness (which are negative qualities that many men have had throughout the entirety of human history) on the fact that a percentage of contemporary men aren't consciously striving to match up to some Masculine standard? I believe that's your argument because you said, "The vikings are gone because they don't want to grow pussies" and "Nowadays it's all soy boys!" or something crazy like that. If that's your argument... rest assured, TONS of men are trying to be the same kind of hyper-Masculine guy. And it doesn't help them transcend these issues one little bit. And women are NOT interested in that hyper-Masculine guy that all these men are aspiring to be. And I've noticed that men who are the most obsessed with Masculinity tend to have these problems a lot more than the average guy who just doesn't think too much about being a manly man. The most functional men that I've come across are unapologetically themselves and don't give a rip about what's Masculine or not. And they're certainly not pearl clutching about how "There are no manly men anymore!"

100% All this obsession with Masculinity and the idea that "men aren't Masculine anymore" is just rooted in insecurity and a rejection of the value of "Be yourself" as they feel that that is not good enough. And that on its own is human and wouldn't be so bad if it weren't causing so many problems in society.... and actively exacerbating the very issues with women that these guys are having. And PsychHacks is definitely a hug box for insecure men. But anyone who takes that guy's perspectives seriously is just going to stay stuck in the same issues. I've watched a few of his videos and his formula is basically, "Here's some advice for men to show them how empowered they are compared to women. And here's some advice for women to show them how disempowered they are compared to men and how everything is their fault and how they should settle for what they can get quickly before they lose out entirely because 'high quality guys won't settle for you'." But of course, the intended target audience for the latter advice is not ACTUALLY for women at all. It's just to make men feel validated, vindicated, empowered, and right so that they get to scapegoat women and avoid facing personal responsibility for their own romantic and social issues. It's really well-encapsulated in the sentiment of blaming women's 'unreasonable standards' for the male loneliness epidemic. All blame and no personal responsibility.

@Alexop I wasn't talking about the difference between toxic Masculinity and healthy Masculinity. I was speaking to your notion of men not being Masculine enough... and how women's complaint is that men are not Masculine enough. And I was saying that "lack of Masculinity" doesn't tend to be what women complain about with regards to men's behaviors, as women don't tend to value hyper-Masculinity in men in the way that men do.

You're saying that you don't consider this video to relate to our conversation? You were saying that women are complaining about men not being Masculine enough in an earlier post. And I said that women don't tend to complain about men's level of Masculinity, but about being brainwashed into terrible perspectives on Masculinity. Then, I had made a point about how men tend to value hyper-Masculinity in men... but women don't value hyper-Masculinity that much. And I gave the example of the picture of the manly man vs the picture of Ryan Gosling to show a dimension to where the male perception of what women like and what women actually like are often quite different. Then, I got recommended a video on the same topic. Point being... it's only men that are complaining that men aren't Masculine enough. Men are sufficiently Masculine in the eyes of most women. But women can have other complaints about men en masse... like being brainwashed into all the Manosphere stuff.

The algorithms must have been listening to my post earlier, as I was just recommended a video about what men appreciate about men and what women appreciate about men, appearance-wise and Masculinity-wise. And our conversation is exactly a reflection of this dissonance between what women like... and what men think that women like.

Most of the complaints that I hear women making about men are that men are being brainwashed by garbage perspectives about what Masculinity is, en masse. And it's the guys who are the most obsessed with "being Masculine", that tend to have the problem behaviors that you've described. I haven't even seen gaggles of "woke guys" having the issues you describe. In fact, I haven't seen gaggles of "woke guys" even identifying as such and banding together. You just have relatively secure guys that don't think about Masculinity very much who are just being themselves.... and then you have a bunch of guys who are all trying to be the "Manly Man" to secure the approval of other "Manly Men." And the guys in the latter group are either able to be proximal to the standard of Masculinity or are not able to do so. And the guys who are not able to do so, come across as insecure. But even guys who can ape Masculinity well enough to pass in the eyes of other men, are still operating from a place of insecurity and not being enough as they are. Even the notion of the "soy boy" is just a talking point to keep men chained to immature and unrealistic definitions of Masculinity... so as to avoid being seen as Feminine or weak in the eyes of other men. But the things that men value about men are very different from the things that women value about men. If you ask a man to point out who he thinks is the most attractive man in women's eyes, he'll pick out a guy like the top image. If you ask a woman what they find attractive, answers will vary because women's taste in men vary. But if we're going purely off of physical features and level of Masculinity, a plurality of women will probably go for a guy that looks like the average Hollywood guy, like Ryan Gosling or others who have a similar face and body structure to him, where there's a mixture between Masculine features and softer features.

For me, I need to have a deeper connection to feel an attraction that's intense enough to want to pursue. So, I'm not the best person to ask, as every guy is pretty neutral to me until deeper feelings set in. But what I would say is that I'm attracted to a guy's personality. And it is through the appreciation of his personality that I come to appreciate his Masculine energy... not the other way around. And the subtle innate Masculinity that's there isn't something that needs to be learned. It's just there in the form that it takes. The main thing is to work on yourself to subtract the barriers. But Masculinity cannot be added nor taken away, as is a core subtle essences of one's personality. But it can either be embraced or suppressed... and if suppressed, it creates lots of neuroses and insecurities. And it tends to be when guys feel like they need to match up to some kind of standard of Masculinity that they suppress their natural Masculinity because they see it as insufficient. And that creates a dynamic where the guy gets really up in his head and ideological and neurotic in his attempts to be Masculine.