Emerald

I wouldn't recommend it as your dating profile picture or really on your dating profile in general. This kind of humor would only work if you've already know someone for a little while... like if you were to send it to a woman you've been with for months and a secure bond has already formed and she knows your sense of humor. If I were on a dating site, and I saw a picture like that, I'd probably assume that the guy is unserious or perhaps a bit socially unaware.

I don't mean that their physiology is inert as that is always there and acting upon them. I mean that the most negative expressions of their authoritarian physiology is inert/dormant until it's activated under the right conditions... which requires corrupt demagogic leadership and collective instability and trauma (financially and otherwise) to channel that otherwise neutral tendency into scapegoating. (which eventually becomes genocide if it fully takes hold in the collective) Otherwise, the authoritarian physiology is just an expression of one of the variety of types of human natures that are necessary to make a society with many specialized professions run. You need people who are able to defer to the leader within hierarchical structures to make certain societal systems run... and who see reality in a more black and white way because it has its function within society. And you need people who can just respect hierarchical structures within the workplace and follow orders without challenging the leadership. It doesn't become a problem until people with that authoritarian specialization experience traumas and instabilities and have those vulnerabilities exploited, organized, and weaponized by a demagogue that uses them for their own authoritarian political ends. Plus, you also don't even need authoritarian physiology to become a Nazi... you just need a rationale that fits with your framework. That's why you see a lot of hippie dippie new age types going Fascist, because the Fascists might share their views on vaccines.... or engage in mythos in a similar way.... or might use anti-status quo contrarian rhetoric that strikes a chord with hippies, etc.

My point is that there are other factors that must be in play for those authoritarian patterns to become activated in a way that leads to dictatorship. So, I don't see authoritarian physiology as the primary reason for authoritarianism as that authoritarian driver is fairly inert until a demagogue takes power. And it's also fairly inert in an economically stable situation. But once a demagogue does take power and the economic circumstances are right, it's like they strike a match where there was already kerosene. And it awakens, organizes, and weaponizes the more authoritarian potentials in people who are fairly harmless in other contexts. They're like cute and fuzzy Gremlins who happened to have been fed after midnight.

It doesn't need to be that intense for people to turn into Nazis. That collective economic scarcity dynamic and oppression from outside forces is certainly fertile ground for a demagogue to take power. But it doesn't necessarily need to be something like that for a demagogue to light the fires of authoritarianism within people... as many people are dealing with chronic feelings of powerlessness and difficult scenarios. Even just the stresses of existing in a way that's disconnected from one's own sovereignty is enough for people to go searching for some charismatic leader to take the lead and for them to follow orders... so they don't have to feel responsible for their own actions anymore. And it's a very common human dynamic for people to look for scapegoats to blame who they can personally wield power over... and that's especially true if people are being screwed over by the powerful and untouchable. Like, the 8 year old son who's being beaten by his father might feel powerless to fight back against his father. But he will be able to recoup some illusion of his own power if he beats up his 5 year old little brother. So... people who feel powerless will look for a powerful leader to take the responsibility from them and to save them from what they feel powerless against. And they will look for those who are less powerful to scapegoat and externalize their responsibility onto... and to bully into submission so that they feel the illusion of relative power in the face of their own powerlessness and loss of sovereignty. So, people don't need to be starving to turn into Nazis. And there are people who are dealing with economic scarcity that might be swayed by the populist messages that hide the true agendas of authoritarian demagogues. Or someone could be feeling powerless for some other reason, and put their hopes for power in the idea that a big strong authoritarian Daddy will come in and hurt the bad guys.

While I'm positive that it's true that some people have a more authoritarian physiology... I don't see that as the primary cause of the current situation we're in.

He plans to put Elon Musk in charge of overseeing elections. So, I wouldn't count on a free and fair election. Plus, there are voter suppression laws where ordinary citizens can say "This person looks suspicious. They should be thrown off the voter roles". So, there were millions of voters that were purged from the voter roles in the 2024 election that were mostly from minority communities because of regular citizens being able to wield that power. And I have no doubt that it will be worse in 2025 because Trump is actually holding the levers of power. He will likely just try to remain in power as a dictator until he dies.

He just said he could get arrested for that kind of thing.

That takes the agency and accountability from the person committing that crime to the person they're committing the crime against. And if a man uses this to justify his actions as such, it's just a form of scapegoating and victim's mentality... and an avoidance of personal responsibility. "Like, shame on those women for not giving me sex... it forced me to date rape them." Let's keep people accountable for their own actions. The call is always coming from inside the house.

Happy birthday!

It's common that younger women tend to be more attracted to men who have a lot of Feminine elements to their appearance. This is especially true because their male counterparts (who are in their teens and 20s) tend to have a softer and more lad-like look about them because of their youth. Like you'll see a bunch of young girls and young women gush about a Justin Bieber types or even John Mayer types... but not look twice at some super macho muscle guy, because the latter is just a lot less physically pleasing. Like, when I was growing up as a pre-teen, I was attracted to boy-band guys... like Justin Timberlake. As a teenager, I was into tall skinny gothy guys who painted their fingernails, put on eye-liner, and dyed their hair black and put it up in spikes. Long hair was also a look that I was attracted to. And I've always liked it when men have bigger eyes rather than smaller eyes. And when I was in my college years, I was very drawn to either sensitive artist types with long hair and alternative tastes or clean-shaven guys with soft features. It wasn't until I got a bit older that I started to be able to appreciate a more Masculine look. So, there's definitely a changing of preferences as women age... as I find myself able to appreciate the appearance of Masculine-looking guys than before when those features used to put me off as a younger woman. That's not as to say I don't find guys with a mixture of Masculine and Feminine features attractive. But there was a study that was done on what types of guys that women around the world from different backgrounds are the most attracted to. And the results were that the wealthier a society is, the more women are attracted to men who have a mixture of Masculine and Feminine features (think Ryan Gosling or Timonthee Chalamet). And the poorer a society is, the more women are attracted to men who have a very Masculine look with small eyes, big muscles, and a barreled chest. (like The Rock or Joe Rogan types) (They also studied men in this regard... and men in wealthier societies like thin petite women the most, while men in poorer societies liked chubbier women.)

Thank you! And thank you for sharing your dance reels.

If you're philosophizing you're in the Masculine about it. This is why you can't integrate the Anima by philosophizing and knowledge crunching. The bio-energetics seems like a decent means of getting more in touch with the body though... which is one element of Feminine integration. Getting in touch with your physicality and attuned to the material world is a great method for connecting to the Feminine. But the phrase that I bolded above is exactly the type of thinking that gets men into Masculine polarization and a repression of the Feminine... which creates an aversion to their own Feminine side and a cocktail of both bitterness and obsession towards women as they see their own rejected inner half projected out onto women. And then, the negative elements of the Feminine take on a possessive role and the man becomes bitter, petty, catty, irrational, and fragile. And I notice that the men who are all about the idea "Modern men are too Feminine and have become bitches" tend to give off these denigrated expressions of the Feminine polarity. I can pick up on it right away in a guy's energy. And the manophere is rife with negative Feminine energy specifically because the Feminine is simultaneously the most reviled in that space but also the most worshipped and obsessed about. The manosphere is basically a goddess worshipping cult that doesn't yet know it's a goddess worshipping cult.

Masculinity and Femininity are unchangeable within the human personality. So, you can't add or take away Masculinity or Femininity from yourself. (Believing that you can is the source of a lot of confusion around this topic) But if you repress one or the other, you will get the denigrated expressions of both. And if you integrate both and embrace all parts of yourself regardless of which category they fall into, you will get the exalted expressions of both. Things grow and develop out of their opposite polarity... like Yin and Yang. This is true with polarities beyond just the Masculine and Feminine as well.

Men who are more emotionally attuned and sensitive are able to embody higher expressions of their Masculine side and come across as more stoic and Masculine than men who are disconnected from their emotions. Without that emotional attuenment and sensitivity a guy comes across as nerdy and as brittle as glass, like he's holding back and bitter and could easily break. Men who try to eradicate the Feminine from themselves come across in this very nerdy fragile kind of way as the Feminine is repressed and comes through in its lower forms. But the more emotionally attuned and sensitive a man is, the more give and resiliency his personality has and he comes across as more embodied and more socially attuned (while embodiment, social attunement, and emotional sensitivity are positive Feminine principled qualities). That's the interesting thing... if a man wants to enhance his Masculine, he should integrate the Feminine. If a woman wants to enhance her Feminine, she should integrate the Masculine. A man without the Feminine is a brain in a brittle class jar... a woman without the Masculine is a lazy blob on the ground.

Believe it or not, when I was a teenager and up until my mid-twenties, I used to be very jealous of men having added attraction value for the content of their character and achievements over me just being appreciated for surface level qualities that have nothing to do with the content of my character and achievements. I really had a romanticized notion of becoming more successful as a man and to have my successes be the measure of my attractiveness... and the idea of having all of this room to grow and develop my attractiveness. And that my efforts and goals would make me more attractive generally toward the opposite sex. Like I was so jealous of guys for having such a range of attractiveness that can either grow or shrink based not the content of their character and his personality qualities. And I thought about how cool it would be to be a man and to engage in personal development and learn to attract women and to be valued in the personality-centric way that I have valued the men I've been interested in. And I felt doomed to only be appreciated for shallow appearance-based qualities that would lose sexual marketplace value and general societal value (plus I feared existential value) with age with nothing that I could do about it... and I would never be loved or valued as a personality. So, men actually have a lot of leverage points for developing attractiveness that women don't have... and are less prone to being objectified. And there's just more power in their own hands to increase their levels of attraction. And I felt like, "Why do men get to be valued for their personality, while women don't?"... when the reality is that men and women get to be valued for their personality. And the personality can be useful in attracting the very niche audience of right people. It's just that personality development will make a man have mass appeal attraction-wise where lots of women will flock to a well-developed man... And personality development will enrich the woman's life and will be appreciated by the right people but will not lead through to her having mass sexual appeal as she cannot truly change her level of mass sexual appeal because it's all physical and set in stone. In fact, having a more well-defined personality will decrease a woman's mass appeal. And you'll see this blankness of personality in the pop culture images of women with the most mass sexual appeal, as they are intentionally left fairly blank personality-wise because it gives men someone blank to serve as their Galatea and project their Feminine side onto... which creates an even stronger level of sexual appeal that's otherwise empty of love and pathos. Luckily a woman doesn't really need mass appeal to attract the right person for her. And having a really well-developed personality, will help her attract fewer people so as to sort who doesn't fit or who just wants to objectify... as a woman doesn't need mass appeal to attract the right friends or lovers. She just needs to love herself and sort accordingly... which is a difficult lesson to learn if you're a woman with shame and insecurities. Now, I'm not jealous anymore because I've interacted with lots of guys and I see that there's also a lot of insecurity to break through and more of difficulty having social acuity. So, I was imagining being a man and growing my level of charisma when I'm already working with a more sensitive and socially attuned palate... where I already have an interest in people (as women generally tend to). And beyond that, I recognize that I never really resonated with that path. I just didn't know what a positive vision for the Feminine path looked like until a handful of years ago. And so, I felt from 16 onwards this sense of my value and lovability decreasing day by day with no way to escape it or control it... and the sense that all of my value will be thrown into the wood chipper by 30. But I resonate more with the lessons of the Feminine path truly... though there's a lot less control and a lot more surrender as you live your life as a wilting flower as the entirety of society tells you that you're only valuable if you have never wilted. And I understand a bit deeper the value of being valued as you are now... though it does come with the side effect of a lot of people objectifying you when you're young and learning to take that more as a cue to repel rather than to try harder to attract. But the real value is learning that you will be loved just for who you are by the right people without needing to maximize your level of physical attractiveness. It's all about sorting the wrong ones and repelling the wrong ones. Learning to surrender and love yourself as you are and sort accordingly is the female power... which makes it necessary for women to live as a wilting flower and embrace the seasons of life to learn these lessons. And you come to embrace the mercy of losing attractiveness and ceasing to be the goose that laid the golden egg... and the rescinding of societal projections that make you suddenly far less visible in the eyes of society as you are no longer the world's Galatea... but you (as you are) are far more visible at the same time, to the right people. Not to mention there is a great mercy to not being of childbearing age for your entire life. So, learning to surrender, sort, and love yourself are the primary ways that women can grow relative to their romantic lives. Learning to attract is the male power and figuring out how to consciously and deliberately grow yourself enough to let your light shine to attract the right one through having a greater abundance of option (via mass appeal) There is a lot of difficulty for men to understand these female struggles though... as a man can envy the ease with which young women get male attention. And he may not think of the attractive young woman beyond that short season of her life because he only sees her as the archetype of blank femaleness.

There's definitely a lot of over-analysis there... which seems like a way for her to avoid opening up and being vulnerable herself. And I sense that she sees her own closed up-ness and unwillingness to be vulnerable projected out onto these guys. She may even find herself attracted to closed up guys... as that can also be a pattern. Basically, the call is coming from within the house. But she doesn't realize it yet. That said, the dynamic of men being disconnected is also a common pattern that can be observed.

First off, if that's her test to probe for that trait, then she shouldn't be surprised when she gets to opposite of what she's looking for. No one feels comfortable opening up and being vulnerable with a person who is asking attack questions. People naturally will sense "This person isn't safe to open up to." And they will put up armor... men and women both will. Like if I asked... “Are you smarter than your coworkers” or “When your ex broke up with you, did you deserve it?” or “So when your mom died, did you feel bad about it?”.. it would be very foolish of me to expect that people would feel comfortable opening up to me. I'd be like a cactus asking, "Why don't any balloons I talk to want a hug?" The cultivation of strength and emotional regulation skills are not in opposition to the development of vulnerability. They go together quite nicely. And you can sense when a man is well-integrated in that way or if he's polarized into one pole or another. But I would venture to guess that some of the men she speaks to would feel a lot more comfortable opening up to a woman (or anyone) who demonstrates that they're going to handle their vulnerabilities with care.

I wouldn't say this is an issue specifically with contemporary men. I actually assume the issue to be much worse in the past and to be moving in the direction of getting better. Now, first off... I think her questions make these men feel uncomfortable because she's asking very sharp and pointy questions. And if you want someone to open up to you, that doesn't indicate that you're a safe person to do that around. In this sense, I suspect some of this is a projection of her own issues opening up that she's seeing reflected back to her in the men. But even with that said, men do often have issues of disconnection from their feelings and an awkwardness around articulating their inner world and vulnerabilities. But women really need that to feel connected to men and to bond and to feel intimacy. But this isn't possible if a man is not integrated with his own Feminine side. So, women are frequently unhappy and alone in their relationships because men are trained to disconnect from these Feminine princpled parts of themselves from a young age... and are shamed for vulnerability and "weakness". And just about every single insult towards men is just another way of saying "You're too Feminine. Stop being Feminine." Yet, vulnerability is necessary for connection. But boys/men are taught, "You have to be strong and stoic all the time or women won't like you. Women will laugh at you if you have no armor on" So, it creates dynamics where a man is disconnected from his feelings and in a comfort zone within a relationship because he is numbed out, and the woman is starved of the deeper connection because he's disconnected and numbed out. But she is not numbed out. She feels the desire to go deeper but comes up against a huge block. And often times this leads to the dissolution of the relationship. Or it could potentially prevent the formation of a relationship in the first place.

Thank you

The issue is that people who have prejudices against gay people, trans people, racial minorities, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, etc. are easily weaponized to divide the working class. And those straight working class white males will easily have their ire turned away from the powerful and towards these scapegoat groups... to divide the working class populace so that there's infighting instead of a united front. So, while you might see a focus towards gay rights or trans rights as being the thing that divides the left and the working class... it is actually the prejudice against gay and trans people (and religious and ethnic minorities) that does that. You can't have transphobia in your working class movement any more than you can have gender equality in your ethnostate. If you want some elements of the far right (like rejection of the focus toward gay and trans people), you take everything that comes with it. So, if you don't want authoritarianism, you have to learn to accept people's differences. And if you reject people differences, the more you usher in Fascism. Gay and trans people exist. It's not an ideology... it's a fact of the world. Just deal with that fact... and don't be the weak link that divides the working classes with foolish prejudices and infighting... as that only plays into the hands of the powerful.

There are different approaches to determine relative and absolute truths of things. Determining relative truth is about accurate thorough observation and insights derived from observation. Like, the Scientific Method is a good example of this. This only works with things that are actually observable. But with absolute truth, we cannot know it as human beings. We can only experience it. And the more valuable thing is to recognize the limits of the mind to peal away beliefs and assumptions from the reality itself. This enables us to subtract the mind's projections from the experience and observation of reality... which allows more room for insight and a clearer perception of reality. "To gain knowledge, add things every day. To gain wisdom, remove things every day." - Lao Tzu

The reason why I come to this forum is to debate and spar because that's what this context is mostly geared towards. So, yes. It helps me sharpen my own sword to push back against misconceptions because I don't have intellectual debates in other contexts. In other contexts, I mostly ask questions and listen. But in this context, I get to spar.

My own

Sharpening the sword

These questions are very useful in the sense that they can show you you're projecting beliefs onto reality that aren't actually reflective of something that exists outside of your own mind. And these questions can illuminate to you the difference between an empirically observed reality and a foundationless belief that only exists in your own mind. But I don't bring up flaws in your logic because the issue that I"m pointing out doesn't have to do with flaws in your logic. The problem happens WAY before logic can even be applied. A person could project a perfectly logical belief onto reality that just isn't reflective of that reality and is based purely in assumption. Logic just mean "premise (therefore) conclusion"... so is "If this thing is true, then it makes good sense that this other thing would be true." And my issue is with your assumption of foundationless premises to be reflective of truth... not with your logic or conclusions that are built upon those premises. If I project onto reality the premise that, "God is made of marshmallows" then it makes good sense to come to the conclusion "People should avoid eating marshmallows to avoid blaspheming." Or even "If the world is flat, then it makes good sense that you could sail off the edge of it." It's a perfectly logical belief as the conclusion makes sense if we assume the premise to be true. The logic is not flawed. The premise is just made up and untrue. So, my issue is that you're assuming premises that you're making up in your own mind to be true and stating them as such as though God told you himself that this is the way that reality operates and the way that God thinks. And my issue is with you assuming your premises to be true when they're just contrivances of your own mind... not that the logic you use is flawed.