Emerald

That's not true that women don't need men. People are not independent. People need each other. We are wired to live interdependently and communally, and it's unhealthy for us to be socially isolated. And unless the woman is a lesbian or asexual, she is likely going to want/need a male partner at some point in her life. And there is no such societal change that's going to over-ride those fundamental instincts, nor will there ever be. Now, as a caveat, the only thing that could stand in as a blockage is if women feel safer outside of a relationship than she feels inside of the relationship. And there's tons of misogyny that's been laid bare and rising in popularity over the past 10 years or so because of social media, which makes women feel unsafe with a sizable minority of the male population. So, women might be a little more cautious now-a-days compared to before because these safety concerns are more front and center in the collective consciousness than before. But even still, those instincts and needs for pair-bonding with a male partner run very deep for most women. The issue is that you don't understand what women find attractive and appealing about men beyond what's purely functional. Lots of straight men fall into this trap because they can't fathom of what's attractive about men. And what men value about men and what women value about men tend to be very different. So, you're thinking logically like women see men as these fungible tools that play a specific functional role in a woman's life. And if a man is just a fungible collection of functions and tools, then why wouldn't the woman go for the man that can perform that function the very best. And it assumes that practical needs are the only reason why a woman wants a man around. It's like car parts... why get an average carburetor when you can get a better one? But this isn't the way women feel about men at all. Women are hyper-subjectivizing in their attractions towards men. And a woman can get super obsessed with a guy who's pretty average by objective standards. And it's about his vibe, the way his voice sounds, his facial expressions, his gestures, the way he thinks, and other tells about his personality.

You're talking past my point here. My point is that the man has to be somewhat more invested in the woman than she is in the man for it to work out long term... or it has to be dead even (which is rare). It's a very common occurrence that women get swept away with feelings of chemistry with a guy and starts putting a low-investment guy up on a pedestal and chasing him around... regardless of whether he's average or the top 1%... she can end up in a roller coaster of dissatisfaction that doesn't lead out to the kind of relationship dynamic she really wants. And the attractiveness of the guy in this case is not relevant to the point. It's more of a behavior that women can fall into when she gets attached to a guy who isn't interested in her in particular. And women who "want what they can barely hold onto" are setting themselves up for failure, because a guy you can barely hold onto just isn't that into you. He's just sticking around for easygoing female companionship and sex. And to get the kind of relationship you want as a woman, you have to weed out those guys... even if there are feelings and chemistry. So, a man who seeks a dynamic where he's the aloof guy who's just out of reach of the woman will keep her in her Masculine trying to chase and pursue him... while he doesn't feel much of anything in particular. And it doesn't have to be multiple women flocking around a particular guy. A woman can just get super obsessed with a guy who's not that into her and she can end up wasting a lot of energy trying to hold onto someone who isn't right for her. And that dynamic creates an unstable anxious situation that isn't conducive to starting a family.

Women's attractions have probably stayed pretty similar over the centuries and millennia that humanity has been around. Human biology and psychology have not changed. And average women tend to develop attractions to average men. I just think that the attractiveness of the average man escapes most straight men, because they can't fathom of anything attractive about an average guy. But you must understand that women's attractions to particular men are highly subjective and very personalized. So, it's never a math formula of "if I do x, y, and z, the woman will like me." So, even if there's a guy who objectively has all the best qualities and is Prince Charming who will make her the prize, there's no guarantee that a given woman will feel that way about him. It has so much to do with the unique chemistry of two personalities coming together and the communication and banter between them. And it's very emotional and easy to get swept up with a partner that isn't a good fit based on the chemistry, which feels so profound. The risk of this is increased if the man and woman had childhoods that were traumatic and chaotic... who look for a similar chaos in a partner. And this is what happens when a woman goes into chase mode where she's putting a particular guy up on a pedestal. Strategically, it's a terrible move if the woman wants a good relationship. But most women need to live to learn how to separate out intense chemistry from questions of compatibility and the question of longterm happiness and relationship sustainability. And that's a huge learning curve.

There's a difference between chasing and investing. I'm not advocating for some desperate situation, but one where the guy is clearly invested int he particular woman and wants a future with her in particular. And that can only develop over the course of months.

You're thinking about what's good for men who want to have lots of women attracted to them, which is what a lot of male dating coaches teach. The dynamic that sets up is one of a very well sought after guy with a bunch of desperate women chasing him and competing for him, while he sits on the pedestal of his Feminine without having strong feelings for any woman in particular. And the women go into their Masculine to try to woo and win the guy. But it's not what's good for a woman's interest and won't lead out to a fulfilling relationship that feels good to her. And the relationship will fall apart relatively quickly within 1-3 years.... either because he got bored or he cheated... or things got too chaotic with her chasing him around all the time. Not sure if you'll know the reference, but the dynamic you describe is a bit like the relationship between Carrie and Big in Sex and the City. She's basically obsessed with him and he's indifferent about her, but keeps stringing her along. And he's like this big shot womanizer guy that lots of women throw themselves at. And that's "women going into their Masculine to chase the man" is unfortunately a very common dynamic because these types of relationship imbalances create all sorts of anxious excitable emotional states. And it makes them feel more profound than they actually are because it awakens the Masculine Lover archetype within the woman. And she starts trying to give and woo the man. And for the unseasoned young woman with self-esteem or abandonment issues, it's easy to fall into that dynamic because it matches the chaos of childhood. But women who want what they can barely hold onto are not setting themselves up to receive what they ACTUALLY want in a relationship dynamic... and are setting themselves up for failure and lots of anxiety. And that frenetic anxious state is not conducive to a fulfilling longterm relationship nor is it a stable environment to raise children in. A healthy dynamic is one where the man is highly invested and is the reliable rock, while the woman is able to be stable and focus on raising children (if the couple chooses to have children). And an inexperienced woman can end up thinking "intense emotions = he's the one". But a woman who's had longterm relationships in the past knows that a good sign for the health of a relationship is a settled comfortable safe feeling. A good relationship feels like an out-breath, rather than an anxiety inducing longing for what's just out of reach. The issue here is that you're thinking on too short of a timeline... and when you say "Women are repulsed by men who chase them", that's true if the relationship hasn't been properly established yet and it's just within the first 3 to 6 months. But the most comfortable and fulfilling relationships last a lot longer than that. And that doesn't happen if the man isn't investing equally or greater than her.

Of course, on a human level, all people are on equal footing in terms of validity. So, this is not a value judgment comparing men and women. But the type of pairing that works is either one that is totally equal (which is rare)... or is one that the man is very invested in the particular woman and sees her as the prize. In a situation where the man is the prize, it leads to a desperate woman draining her energy trying to keep a complacent guy who likes her just enough to have sex with her and spend some low investment time with her. That's what happens when the man is the prize. But in the opposite situation where the woman is the prize, she can rest in the Feminine. And he will pursue her and invest in her. And this creates a relationship where both the man and the woman are invested in each other... but the man slightly moreso. So, if you want a woman to be desperate and obsessed with you while you don't reciprocate her feelings, find a woman who sees you as the prize. If you want a committed relationship that is stable and can last a long time, only pursue women that you truly see as the prize.

You are so far off from understanding what women actually want... and how male/female relationship dynamics really operate. Women (on the whole) tend to find a lot of meaning in the mutual single-pointed devotion in monogamous relationship. And deviations from that (from herself or her partner) water down the potency of that meaning. I only know one woman who genuinely prefers polyamory to monogamy. And that's because her personality is very sexually open. And she would never go for a harem situation where only the guy has multiple partners because she also wants variety. So, there are poly women who exist. But these poly women tend to want to have multiple partners themselves... and don't prefer some harem situation. Otherwise, in every other situation that's arisen where a woman I've known has entered into a polyamorous situation (or stayed in a relationship that turned poly) with a guy who has another female partner or who wants an open relationship... she stays with him because she cares about him and doesn't want to break up or lose him. And the guy is always just some guy... not even a particularly attractive or powerful guy. Just a guy that she's got feelings for and has grown attached to. And the women I've known who have stayed in this type of poly situations, were doing so at the sacrifice of the type of relationship dynamic that they really wanted and just tried to make do with the polyamorous situation. But this dynamic just arises from a lack of fidelity to one's own boundaries. There's always a lot of cognitive dissonance to avoid acknowledging one's own boundaries in these kinds of situations.

I don't know very much technical information about Karma. But my understanding of it is more along the lines of lessons that must be learned and traumas that must be processed and growth that must happen. And this is just my interpretation, but the way I see Trump is that he himself is a manifestation of the Karma of the collective consciousness of America and the first world. What I mean is that Trump is a reflection of the Karma of the collective of humanity, and is a Karmic "expectorant" of sorts that dredges up a lot of things that people don't want to face with. He seems the ideal embodiment and reflection of the collective American Shadow.... of unbounded ego, Capitalist greed, anti-intellectualism, falseness, and ugly glamour. So, I believe that we're collectively "burning off Karma" through the Trump presidency because it brings so much hidden unpleasant stuff from the collective unconscious up to the surface to be faced with and processed and learned from. The past 10ish years has been one big Trumpy shit sandwich of Karma that we're all collectively eating through.

I know you wouldn't do it. I wasn't really directing that advice towards you in particular... just addressing the post more generally. But I would guess that, if he's not in the exact Jackass-like night-life scenario that I mentioned in my previous post, that it's probably pre-planned and staged to get clicks and views from guys who are trying to learn to be more confident approaching women so that they can marvel at it and go, "Wow! How was that guy able to do that!?!?!" Otherwise, it would definitely end up with him ending up in jail because it's such an aberration to the norm and against the law. And even if (theoretically) a woman on the busy street in broad daylight was receptive to it (which I doubt... but yet again, crazy likes crazy), somebody else would definitely call the cops on him. Like, if you're going to act crazy, you have to be in an environment where crazy is normal and where you have social proof from friends that crazy is normal... like at a rock concert/festival, spring break beach party, or rowdy club environment. Like, when I was 17 years old and I went to my first rock festival show (Livestock 2006), the first thing I saw upon entering the festival was a woman giving a guy and blowjob on top of an rv while a bunch of people cheer them on. So, in these kinds of environments that are already crazy, it's like the Wild West. And in most environments, you have to a very young person too. Or it's going to still read as weird and crazy no matter the environment. Like a bunch of 21 year old guys going out to a wild place and a friend in the group starts streaking to be funny is just read as young adult hooligan antics. But a 30+ year old group of guys going out to a wild place and a friend in the group starts streaking, it's like "Good lord! John's gone crazy."

I didn't see the videos because they were blanked out, but the only way I could see this remotely work out for him is if the following is true contextually... He's young (under the age of 25) He's out with a bunch of friends at night... and all the guy friends are funny and brash together as a group. He's in some kind of wild nightlife place (like Ybor city or something like that) or out during Spring Break in a beach party town He's extremely outgoing and naturally funny He's totally detached from sexual outcomes (in a take it or leave it kind of way). His intention in being naked is not about getting girls. And he wants nothing from being naked other than to be outrageous and funny with his buddies (like the Jackass guys, if you're familiar with the show from the early 2000s) He's taking the frame of being the funny daring punkish guy who skirts the rules and disrespects the law He has to be courting young women (18-25) who he and his friends happen to encounter, who are also out to have a wild night and who are attracted to punkish outrageousness who haven't yet grown tired of these types of antics Some alcohol is involved He has to be at least somewhat conventionally attractive with a lean tall build. And ALL of these conditions would have to met for him to be considered as operating within the realm of normalcy. He'd have to be coming across like a Johnny Knoxville type of guy who's out having a wild night with his buddies. And some guys can pull this kind of thing off if it's in their personality to be such a jokester. But they're also taking a huge a risk. So, I don't recommend taking any risks like this for sure... especially if you're not naturally funny, outgoing, or brash AND you don't have a big gaggle of naturally funny, outgoing, or brash guys to go out and get into antics with you.

I choose my actions based on my values. And I have two values that are at play... 1. I don't like it when animals are needlessly suffering and are killed for the sake of human pleasure. So, I have chosen to abstain from eating meat and animal products, because I don't want to contribute to something that I have such a strong visceral reaction against even seeing it happen. 2. Sovereignty and personal choices is important to me, and I want to respect it in others... including in my children. So, I would never try to control the dietary and lifestyle choices of other people. And I don't feel right controlling the dietary choices of my children, since I wasn't Vegan when they were born. Like, if I were Vegan before they were born and my husband was also Vegan (he's not), we could have just set that up as the normal way without them feeling deprived of choice and of their favorite foods. But if I were to just be like, "Okay kids. I, as your mother, am your supreme authority. You're Vegan now! DEAL WITH IT!" that would not sit right with me because that kind of top-down authoritarian control is just not good parenting. Plus, they would rebel from it as soon as they turn 18 and become hyper-carnivores just to get away from parental authoritarianism. So, I am Vegan to bring MY OWN actions into integrity with MY OWN sovereign values. But it is not for me to tell anyone else what they should value. And it is not for me to control the dietary choices of another person. Instead, I just focus on getting people to be conscious of their own sovereign values and to become aware of how their own actions are misaligned with their own values. And once they face those realities about themselves, they can do whatever they want from there. That's why I'd never try to convince a person who doesn't value the life and well-being of animals to go Vegan. It is not my place to tell them what they should value. But if someone doesn't like it when animals to needlessly suffer and die and disagrees with eating animals for pleasure... then I try to get them to see that their actions are misaligned from their own values.

If you've had psychotic breakdowns in the past, that indicates a difficulty grounding in the consensus reality... which is necessary for living a happy, healthy, and fulfilling life. And I don't recommend using any psychedelics for your medicine journeys given your breakdown in the past, as that can ungrounded you further and aggravate those issues. And beyond that, there could be something that's purely physiological that could be happening as some people don't do with the medicines. Your challenge will be more about grounding into your human form rather than trying to transcend the 3-d world. If you want to do a medicine journey, you would likely benefit from a grounding medicine like Hapé... which is a ceremonial tobacco. It will bring you more into the physical and in touch with your body, which is important if you tend to drift away from your humanity and your body. Think about it like your spiritual practice is a tree, and you've been over-focusing on growing your branches (which represents higher spiritual understandings and insights) without growing your roots (which represents your Earthly human life). And if a tree's branches grow without the roots being deep enough to support that growth, the tree will uproot. And that uprooting can be experienced as depersonalization, derealization, psychosis, loss of meaning, and other negative symptoms related to ungroundedness. So, for your own safety and well-being, I don't recommend psychedelic entheogens. Instead, you might opt to work with more grounding plant teachers... like Hapé.

Same here. And they also said something that pseudoscience along those lines. They said that Aubrey is doing this because of some trauma that caused him not to produce enough testosterone at a formative age, and that that has caused him to have developed a Feminine brain that causes him to be overly romantic and emotionally guided. I agree that Aubrey is operating in archetypally Shadow Feminine ways in this dynamic, which can happen when someone psychologically polarizes themselves into a polarly Masculine identity. And it seems like Aubrey fits the bill because his identity expression is very polarly Masculine. If someone pushes away the Feminine, the Shadow Feminine will creep in unconsciously through the lens of the Masculine identity wherever the Shadow Feminine can be intellectually reframed and interpreted as Masculine. Like, Aubrey probably conceptualizes this as an expression of his Masculine virility. But the MO is more of a Shadow Feminine expression of putting too much meaning to the emotions and towards what feels good. (And this dynamic isn't just with Masculinity and Femininity. With any polarization of identity, the opposite unwanted quality sneaks through the identity crafted around the opposing polarity.) But with all this being said, I'm sure that it doesn't relate to some disturbance in his physiology or testosterone levels. I don't like it when people try to "biologize" something that's psychological.

Thank you! That's all anyone is saying here.

Aubrey certainly isn't opening himself up to the same level of vulnerability as Vylana in this. So, there's no mutuality to the vulnerability that's being explored. It's just Aubrey getting what he wants... and Vylana continually challenging her boundaries and feeling vulnerable to keep the relationship going. And women feel good in relationships where they feel safe, stable, and secure... not draining their energy and challenging themselves to sustain a vulnerable position that doesn't feel good to them. Also, if a woman is putting in more work than the man to make a relationship work, it's just not going to work as it messes up the polarity. And the woman will drain herself to make the relationship work. It either must be equal... or the man must be somewhat more invested in the woman than she is into him. And that's what creates a stable foundation upon which to bear and raise children. And all those boundaries she's transcending are her trying to quiet her boundaries, instincts, feelings, and intuitions... because she is operating off a framework that sees these things as a barrier to a higher conscious love. But I do think it gives her a great opportunity to learn self-love the hard way and to integrate her inner bitch... which is a difficult lesson all women must learn. It's in these moments where we can learn to choose to show ourselves love and loyalty over trying to maintain a relationship that doesn't feel good to us. It's very common that someone can rationalize to themselves why they should continuously throw themselves under the bus and sacrifice their boundaries for a relationship. And for women especially, it is an absolute must to love yourself more than you're attached to your relationship... or you'll end up in a situation like this. And this is a very difficult lesson to learn for MOST women because attachments run deep and grief is difficult to face with. So, women frequently have an issue with going into denial to preserve a relationship. But for women, it's especially impotent to protect our energy and hold our boundaries where vulnerability exists... and to only allow those close who will not drain our energy. And if you lack proper boundaries as a woman, everyone will try to vampiricy drain you of energy and exhaust you. Gotta be willing to be a mean queen sometimes if you want to be treated with the love and respect you're entitled to.

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.