Emerald

That's my favorite quote from Eckhart Tolle, hands down. But I still refuse to believe that Sadhguru said the word "dick." He would have been way more creative about it and called it a "magic wand" instead. That's how I knew it was a fake quote.

Did Sadhguru really say that?

Thank you! I hope you enjoy my videos.

That's my point. Women can still be attractive as they get older. But the cultural narratives don't reflect that. The cultural narratives are difficult to buck because they are drip fed to women since they were in early childhood. So, it's difficult to unpack for women and for many to feel entitled to have sexual feelings, pleasure, and libidinal power.

The thing is. I have a husband and I've been with him since I was 20. It doesn't have to do with wanting a partner or anything like that. It has to do with narratives being pushed on me my entire life, that are designed to squelch women's personal power. It sets up a narrative that women's main value in the world is through their level of physical attractiveness. And it also says that once a woman hits 30, that she no longer has value in the world. So, there comes to be rift between women's natural sexual energy and their personal development. It's society's way of cutting women off from their power source and dis-allowing the Divine Feminine to be expressed into the world. And it hurts when you're young for a woman. and it hurts as you age. But I'm sure that you do take pleasure in it. Cultural narratives are designed to keep women's natural energy cut off. And the most effective way to do that is to construct narratives, where men relate their own value to female validation. So, women, who actually lack power, seem powerful to men who buy into narratives centered around the idea that women's attraction is somehow a conveyor of worth. So, of course a man who has had no success with women, will love it when women are struggling. It makes him feel like, "Finally those bitches are being taken down a peg and getting a taste of their own medicine." But this is a distortion. Women have always has less power, so it only adds more insult to injury. If you zoom out a bit, you will be able to see it. It's not about sex. It's about taking validity, authenticity, and expression from women as they age. And only allowing them validity when they're young and fit neatly into narratives around male sexuality.

Well, your mom probably laughed because you're dad said it and she's probably already older. Older women tend to be much more acclimated to being written out of the sex narrative than younger women because they've already been around the block. They also know that the world doesn't go away because they've aged. Many have completely transcended cultural narratives around sexuality. But if you're talking to women in their 20s and 30s, they're terrified of being written out of the sex narrative for good. It's something that I've struggled with personally. I already feel at age 29 that I'm not attractive and don't deserve pleasure because I'm not under the age of 25. And it's a major blockage on my personal power which is derived from libidinal energy. Intellectually, I know that this narrative isn't 100% true. There are a ton of desirable women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. But that's the effect of that kind those kind of narratives. It makes me feel that my sexual desires are invalid, which causes a lot of repression and less personal power to come to the surface. But young men are attractive to young women. So, they have the ability to be attractive in high school, college, middle age, and old age. So, men are never completely written out the sex narrative. But once a woman gets to be about my age (or more realistically about four years younger), they are pretty much written out of that cultural narrative for the rest of their lives. So, to say that it's somehow the same level of bad, isn't true. That's especially true given the fact that the most of the attention that young women get is unwanted and sometimes scary. It's often their universal attractiveness and appeal that make them easy to fit into narratives that diminish their personhood and power. They are seen as objects and not subjects. For men, personal development and sexuality go hand in hand and tend to compound to make a man more and more attractive as he ages. For women, personal development and sexuality have an inverse relationship, where personal power grows as sexual attraction shrinks. It's a hard reality to come to terms with. So, if you look at this issue being one of the rift between personal power and sexuality, you will see that the issue that Incels are going through is not similar in any way to what women go through.

I actually made a video that gets at this question a bit, in a round about way. It's about Divine Feminine integration.

'lol. It's just a little lemon juice. Don't get all triggered now.' Says the person with no cuts on them to the person with a lot of cuts on them. You and other men can take what you said as a joke because you'll never have to experience aging in the same way that women do. For women, it's a really big existential crisis, because they are told their entire lives that their looks are what makes them important. So, when a woman's looks fade with age, statements like the one that was made above is anything but a joke. It's pouring lemon juice on deep wounds. So, forgive us for not laughing. You wouldn't either if you were a woman.

That sounds correct to me. I think it is the case that the deeper attraction has to really be engaged to really compel the majority of women to engage romantically with a man in any way. There are a ton of exceptions, like if a woman wants to have a one-night stand or something to shake things up a bit and have a novel experience. But for me personally, there's not really enough of an emotional payoff to want to have a random experience like that. The erotic emotions just won't be there for a man who isn't THE man that I'm attracted to. The meaning that I derive from the feelings of attraction is the most powerful aphrodisiac there is. Everything that I said, is especially true given the potential physical, emotional, and social consequences of such an experience. The potential bad often far outweighs the good.

I went back and read your first post, and I see what you're saying now. That's ultimately the difference between initial attraction and the deeper levels of attraction that happen thereafter. The deeper level of attraction that happen afterward are quite similar in both men and women. But in the initial stages of attraction they tend to present differently. For many men (probably most), it tends to be more objective and general. For women it tends to be more intuitive and particular. But if a two people get into a relationship together, the initial dynamic fades away and give way to a completely different dynamic. But most of the guys on this thread are only focused toward that initial dynamic, because they haven't had a lot of success with dating. So, they tend to look at relationships through the lens of the initial dynamic. And they tend to project a lot onto women because all they're familiar with is their own initial attraction dynamic, which tends to be objective and general. So, they assume that women are the same level of objective only with far more particularity and selectivity. So, because of this error in thinking, it makes them feel like they're inadequate as a person and the cards are stacked against them, when they actually aren't.

My very point is the male and female attraction work differently. So, I agree with the point that male and female attraction are apples and oranges. That said, it's very common that men use looks as their main standard for whether or not they're attracted to a woman. So, they tend to defer to objective qualifiers to determine whether or not they will go out with someone. There can be other objective qualifiers too. But it's still a list of things, that if a woman has them then they will consider dating her. It's objective and uses the rational mind. Women, on the other hand, tend to get deeper and more intuitive initial attractions. So, a woman won't necessarily know why she's attracted to a guy. All she will know is that she wants to be as close to him as possible. She will be attracted to him just because he is who is his. So, it's very selective. But it's non-objectifying. If a woman is deeply attracted to you, it usually means something to her.

It is a really a yucky feeling to look at it, for sure. They really have no clue how actual real human women are. But these guys really do actually believe what they say and what the propaganda tells them. So, men who buy into the propaganda, put themselves in all kinds of negative mindsets and really do see women as both super-human and sub-human at the same time. It's almost as though they psychologically put women up on a pedestal and see them as automated worth-conveyors for men. Then, because they don't like the fact that women are on a pedestal in their minds, they psychologically drag their idea of women down from that pedestal and stomp on it to lessen the women's perceived power in determining their worth. But that's only because they feel powerless, and they want to blame someone for that powerlessness. The best advice I can give to them is to get away from the computer and interact with real people in life. It's the isolation behind a computer screen that takes the humanity out of all interactions. If Tinder is the only dating experience that someone's had, it's really distorting natural dynamics. And it's easy to confabulate the worst narratives around women's attraction because it doesn't work similarly to men's attraction. But the isolation allows them to dehumanize and objectify women by thinking of them in a two-dimensional way. And they are psychologically enslaved to their image of womanhood, which is the main way that they experience women is through that image. So, because that image has power over them, they cope with it by projecting powerless onto it. Kind of like in the third Harry Potter when they used the 'Ridiculous' spell on the Boggart, making something scary seem trite or silly. It's the same idea. So, when they create/believe these narratives, it's basically them projecting their own tendencies toward objectification and dehumanization onto women. They think that women are attracted to men in a similar way to the way they're attracted to women. But women who are genuinely attracted to a guy, are anything but objectifying and dehumanizing. They like a guy just because of how he is, and NOT how closely he matches arbitrary objective standards.

It is a really a yucky feeling to look at it, for sure. But these guys really do actually believe what they say and what the propaganda tells them. So, men who buy into the propaganda, put themselves in all kinds of negative mindsets and really do see women as both super-human and sub-human at the same time. It's almost as though they psychologically put women up on a pedestal and see them as automated worth-conveyors for men. Then, because they don't like the fact that women are on a pedestal in their minds, they psychologically drag their idea of women down from that pedestal and stomp on it to lessen the women's perceived power in determining their worth. Basically, it's them projecting their own tendencies toward objectification and dehumanization onto women. They think that women are attracted to men in a similar way to the way they're attracted to women. But women who are genuinely attracted to a guy, are anything but objectifying and dehumanizing. They like a guy just because of how he is, and NOT how closely he matches arbitrary objective standards.

Most of this thread is exactly what happens when people of one gender assume that people of the other gender get romantic attractions in the exact same way. Men tend to look for women who are more physically attractive and as long as they are over a certain level of physical attractiveness, they will be attracted. It's a very objective qualifier. That's how men get attracted to women in the initial stages, using a small list of objective qualifiers. Women tend to have no list of objective qualifiers, if they're using their intuition. She will not necessarily even be looking for a guy. But then she talks to a guy, and she doesn't feel something right away. Then, she's by herself and she's thinking about that guy and she notices that she feels something pleasant. So, she thinks of him more, and more pleasant feelings come. And before the five minutes it through, she's very into that particular guy. It's not because he's a super-model. It's not because he's successful. It's not because of how much money he has. It's not because of any of those things. It's simply because he is who he is. It's pure chemistry. But it is highly selective. Very few men will ignite that response in a particular woman. Everyone else will be neutral. But the fact that you've yet to ignite that response in someone, isn't because you're not in the top 20% of guys or whatever. It's because you don't spend time around a lot of women to even ignite that response in the first place. Plus, women tend to be attracted to men who mirror themselves including in level of perceived value. For example, I feel 100% platonic toward super-model looking guys because they're more attractive as men than I am as a woman. So, I don't want to feel lesser. I want to feel like a catch. So, I'm much more likely to get attracted to a guy who's even with me or slightly less attractive than me than I am to get attracted to a guy who's more attractive than me. But it will never be the physical looks that attract me. I'll be attracted to him because of how he makes me feel, first and foremost. So, all you guys have to do is open yourself up and go out and talk to women. Eventually, someone you meet who fits your list of objective qualifiers will develop an intuitive attraction to you. But don't let Tinder statistics bog you down. Women can't use their intuition over the internet. So, they have to use the more masculine mode of attraction on there to determine who they'll choose for a date by using objective qualifiers. But this isn't how real life works. Tinder is just technology, which paints a totally different picture of romance/dating that's not actually accurate.

No worries. I didn't take it that way. I read your message earlier. But I've been working really hard on editing a video for my channel. So, I haven't had the opportunity to reply. I'll probably get to it tomorrow or the next day. I'm going out of town tomorrow, but I may be able to carve out some time.

@Spacious I just think you're looking at things that you're identified with, and labeling them as Green because you think "Green=Good" and think lower stages are bad. But these videos just aren't examples of predominantly Green thinking. You might resonate with them, but they're still objectively Orange and Blue ways of thinking about things, predominantly. Maybe the Big Think guy is more geared toward Green in general. I see that he's not in resistance to Green. But that video was from an Orange perspective, and I've never heard him speak on other topics. Edit: I have to go post a video to my YT channel. So, I'll come back to your arguments later.

@Spacious All the videos on Jordan Peterson (I didn't watch your videos on him that you posted because I've seen quite a lot of Jordan Peterson's stuff) His main talking points are usually him trying to use archetypal understandings of religion (Blue) to solidify traditional norms (Blue). He is also of the belief that we live in a meritocracy (Orange) that sends the best and the brightest to the top. Basically, that the free market and capitalism (Orange) are fair or mostly fair sorting methods for hierarchical status (Orange). He is also very resistant to Green, and he sees most initiatives toward equality as steps toward social decay, dictatorship, and the crumbling of Western values (Blue) and Capitalism (Orange). These are very Orange and Blue fears about Green. So, he is in resistance to Green in the way that Blues and Oranges normally are. The video with Warren Farrell - He is talking about from an Orange and Blue perspective as well. He is Orange in the sense that he is viewing Feminism from the perspective of the workplace and capitalist hierarchies. He also is of the Orange belief that the workplace and the capitalist system works as a reliable meritocracy where if men are in the top positions it's because of the fact that they've worked for it more. He is Blue because he is harkening a lot back to traditions and gender roles. And in his focus toward gender roles, the underlying subtext is that they come from natural differences and not social constructs which is a very Blue idea. He is also anti-Green, and tends to view Feminism (Green) as unfair to men and misrepresents it as a movement against men, and uses the existence of men's issues to invalidate those focusing on women's issues. And because his entire argument is for the purpose of arguing against Feminism (Green), it means that he is in resistance to Green. Any viewpoint that is in resistance to Feminism will not be Green. The video with the short haired lady - Now this is a shorter video. So, all she really shows is a resistance to Green. She is displaying a resistance to Feminism (Green) and misrepresents it a movement against men. She also sees the word Patriarchy as a demonization of men, because of the fact that the word has the pre-fix "Pat" to it. So, this implies that she doesn't recognize Patriarchy as a real thing. This leads me to think that she's Orange. Oranges don't like to pay attention to unfair structures built into the social system. That's dangerous to their assurance that success and status is always rightfully earned and is a reliable metric for determining personal worth. They like to see society as a fair meritocracy where everyone is already on an equal footing within society. So, Oranges will tend to see Feminism as unfairly focusing toward women's issues, because they don't recognize the unfair social structures. They will think of that kind of unfairness as purely a past phenomenon and as an outgrowth of Blue... which they have a resistance to. Also, Orange women tend to convince themselves that the world sees them as equal to men, which enables them to ignore inequalities and climb in social hierarchies without noticing or caring about differentiated treatment. The Big Think video with the guy talking about the future of Capitalism- This one is 99% Orange and like 1% Green. He's Green in the sense that he thinks the future of Capitalism (Orange) might entail even more Capitalism (Orange) and more Socialism (Green). But all the rest of his points are very comfortably within Orange. He focuses toward Capitalism and talks about the benefits of the free market. He is examining market trends and is interested in new business models. He also has the idea that the meritocracy works and that those with the most money and success within the field of technology tend to be the most capable, most hard working, and most compassionate. Basically, the ideas that the cream will rise. He also shows resistance to Blue in the sense that he looks at having a regular 9 to 5 job as being inferior to being an influencer in the free market and the field of technology. He also sees those who are the biggest influencers and most tech savvy as being the best leaders. He doesn't show very much resistance to Green other than the uncertainty of what Green will mean for the free market. He thinks Green can be either bad or good but doesn't take a definitive stance. The one with the Red Pill documentary - Features a former Feminist that has turned anti-Feminist (resistance to Green) because she has recognized that men have systemic issues too (Green). But she sees the existence of male issues as somewhat of an invalidation of what Feminism (Green) is as a movement. Not entirely but somewhat. So, like some of the others above see Feminism as an ideology against men, so now does she in many regards. This is probably because of the reception she's gotten from Feminists who see the issues of her normalization of the MRA group. I'm sure that the Feminists pushing back at her exacerbate that effect. And she views recognizing the effects of patriarchy (which is a real systemic force) as anti-man because patriarchy has the suffix "pat." (Green in resistance to Yellow) So, she doesn't seem to recognize the unequal power structures that actually cause those issues for men (lacking Yellow), which actually come from the same structures that cause issues for women. So, because of this, she likely thinks that the system is already pretty equal (Orange). And she has chosen to ally herself more with MRAs (mostly Orange, but with a significant amount of Red and Blue) than Feminists(Green), who are fervently anti-Feminist (Red, Blue, Orange) and often anti-woman (Red, Blue, Orange) instead of listening to the concerns of men who are not allied with a hate group. So, it shows a lack of nuance, that I'm inclined to place in Orange. She lacks the systemic thinking (Yellow) to understand the effects of allying herself with those who espouse anti-woman sentiments. In fact, she views those anti-woman sentiments as being just a neutral marketing tactic (Orange). So, the MRA group is often based around a few legitimate issues, but its members use those issues as a way to invalidate Feminism (Green) as a movement and place the blame on women for creating those issues. So, the effects (intended or not) would be that the status quo is upheld within society (Orange with some Blue). So, hers is a little tricky to pin down because she is noticing some Green things too. I've heard some of her interviews before, and with regard to noticing the taboo of male pain and focusing on men's issues, I would say she is taking issues that require Yellow and trying to approach it from a Green mentality that tends to see things in a non-nuanced way still. Then, she ends up coming into some resistance to Green, and falls on the other side of the horse and normalizes an Orange/Blue/Red group who are very anti-Green. The effects of which, she thinks will be Green. But the effects it will likely have is just more validation of the Orange/Blue/Red perspectives within that group. So, I'd say she's an Orange/Green who lacks Yellow and ends up adding more resistance to Green in the process, thus maintaining the status quo of mostly Orange society. But the guy asking her questions is definitely Green (and a bit Yellow) with the things he is saying because of his concern for how she's approaching this topic.

@Spacious The videos you're posting aren't Green examples. They are examples of Blue and Orange resistance to Green. But they aren't Green in and of themselves. You might consider posting them in the Blue or Orange mega-threads.

That's okay. I do take this topic seriously. If you're interested in understanding a bit more about what I'm saying, you can watch this. It's very informative about the very social patterns that I was mentioning but goes into more specific detail and gives concrete examples of how sneaky rhetoric is used by the Alt Right. Plus, Contrapoints is just downright entertaining. Edit: I just watched it again after a long time of not watching it, and it's SOOO relevant to the conversation that we just had. Both sides of it. It starts getting down to the propaganda and rhetorical strategies at around 3:30 in the video. Oops! Forgot to tag you @billiesimon

I've listened to that song many time before. So, I didn't listen to it this time. Especially, because you were using it to call me paranoid. But it's a good song.

I'm literally just telling him something that's happening and telling him to watch out. But he still thinks I'm paranoid about this. Now, can I give you statistics? No. It's not really a quantifiable phenomenon. But you can notice various rhetorical devices being used by the extreme right to normalize their views by presenting themselves in such a way that has plausible deniability and a veil of normalcy. And once you see it, you can't unsee it. But it can be hard to get people to see it because they are very crafty at hiding their ideologies in positive euphemisms like "states rights" or "freedom of speech" or "being anti-identity politics." And people really eat up these euphemisms and repeat them all the time. But people on the left aren't necessarily the victims. It's the people who are at risk of being negatively effected, if the society write off the views of the left and see the left as being radical even when it's not, and sides more with the radical right over the moderate left (which gets mischaracterized as radical). So, it's not that the political left is the main victim. It's just that women, people of color, gay people, trans people, religious minorities, and disabled people will be victims if all left-wing politics geared toward addressing their issues is seen in the public eye as radical, regressive, and anti-freedom. But the intention is to make them seem that way by giving the least charitable representations of the social justice movements in terms of people and arguments.

Unfortunately, there is no true idealogical center. In reality, humans are capable of considering even Nazi-ism as the center, if that's what everyone else is doing. That's why being a Centrist means totally different things in different societies. Not knowing this about human nature, is what leaves the door wide open for a shift like that in the political climate. And not knowing this in our own nature and our assuredness in our own incorruptibility, is what leaves the door wide open for unwittingly aiding the Alt-RIght in gaining more an more of a foothold in mainstream society. And certain ideas when held onto dogmatically, even great ideas like freedom of speech, can create the necessary blindspots for those acting in bad faith (like Neo Nazis) to covertly take control of the narrative. And if you think there are no Neo-Nazis around, you should pay more attention. They do exist, and they are having effect on the Overton Window and doing a pretty good job at getting people to see them as legitimate. Take a look at how many people subscribe to popular Alt-Righters on YouTube. It's not a small number. That means that there are a ton of people who are at least sympathetic to those viewpoints.

That's funny. I never knew she was actually an intelligent and civil person. I've only ever seen her screaming in that one video. But yeah. This is the kind of mis-representation that proliferates in the anti-SJW videos. It just gets more clicks if you stir up more outrage. Fewer people will watch a video that says, "Feminist talking rationally about viewpoints" than a video called, "Triggered Feminist gets REKT by logic." And of course, hyper right-wing extremists in the Alt-RIght have fully embraced this pattern of YouTubers posting anti-SJW content as part of their rhetorical strategy, so that anyone who has a viewpoint that's left of center looks radical. Even TJ Kirk (who is on the left) did a lot of Anti-SJW videos, recognizes that this has paved the wave for people to weaponize videos of this sort and make the radical right look more reasonable by comparison to the radical (or not so radical) left. But yes. men's issues definitely deserve to be addressed. They're just too often used to disrupt and obscure the issues that Feminists are focused on. Basically, they should start a new conversation. But don't use that conversation to encroach upon a pre-existing conversation in the hopes that it will shut that conversation down.

You're welcome. Yes. Some Feminists are misandristic. But you have to understand that Feminism is a HUGE movement. So, there are millions of self-identified Feminists. And there are tons of different schools of thought within Feminism, many of which are at odds with one another. So, you could probably find some fringe groups of radical Feminists that are really anti-man. Or you can find some women who think Feminism is about hating men, and they don the title because they think that "Feminism is about hating men." But, by and large, that is an uncommon viewpoint in a seas of Feminist viewpoints that are geared toward dismantling social structures that disenfranchise women, and occasionally men and other minority groups. And the "Feminists are against men" argument is just another way to make the views of Feminists (or any woman advocating for her rights) seem less legitimate. And this ideas is weaponized all the same, by the same people that I mentioned above. But point being, you can't avoid having a few rotten apples in a movement as big and broad as Feminism. I guarantee you there are like five or six Feminist serial killers out there. But that doesn't have anything to do with Feminism. They just happen to be serial killers who identify as Feminists. Feminism isn't an exclusive group that screens everyone who identifies that way. So, you can't look at the behavior of a handful of individuals or even a whole group of radical individuals, and say it's a problem with Feminism. To truly criticize Feminism, you have to address the particular school of Feminism and criticize their beliefs or practices directly. Like, I will criticize the heck out of SWERFs and TERFs, because I disagree vehemently with their version of the Feminist ideology. But you really have to stop straw-manning me. I never said that Classic Liberals are Nazis. I said that Nazis are strategically targeting people who identify as Centrists and Classic Liberals for the proliferation of their own political agenda. And it's working INCREDIBLY well. They are really good at re-packaging the ideologies of the Third Reich into socially acceptable forms and marketing them out to moderates. And most people are totally unconscious to the dog whistles of the Alt-Right, which are designed to slip past the sensors of unconscious people who are assured of their lack of vulnerability to their rhetoric. So, if you think I'm being paranoid, I just hope you don't like peanut butter that much.