Emerald

No. I’m just picking up on the underlying implications of the post. Also, you’re not understanding how female sexuality works. It isn’t just a pickier form of male sexuality. It’s quite different. Women in their feminine intuition are drawn to men as particular human beings. And we get a Cupid’s Arrow for one of them... usually one that matches us in attractiveness. So, women generally go for their match. Tens will go for tens and feel ecstatic about it. Twos will go for twos and feel ecstatic about it. Men, on the other hand, are all attracted sexually to 10s. And without emotional development and feminine integration, he won’t see the value in a woman of equal dating marketplace value. He will always go for the ideal woman, even if she’s out of reach. So, men with a disintegrated feminine side, project their objectifying “aiming for 10s” tendency onto women when this is not how our sexuality works. And because women are more selective, they get the distorted notion that all women only really care about guys who are tens and will weed out all the 9s and below to be in the “harem” of a guy who’s a 10. And that only 10% of men get affection. And all of this distortion and anxiety because you don’t know how women work. Women like specific men... often for his flaws. We are attracted to men’s humanity. But because men without an integrated feminine side are not attracted to women’s humanity, they project the same objectifying and cold hearted tendencies onto women. And then the insecurity rules them.

Obviously not a good thing. But look around and you’ll see that this dynamic is less common. Men are mostly seen as subjects where women are often viewed as objects. Hence the underlying assumption of this post of ‘woman as resource’.

First off, I do not “reward” anyone with my love. I just do what feels good to me and follow my intuition and instincts. There is no concept of reward... just magnetism and feeling and love. That “reward” idea is a male projection onto women’s sexuality. Female sexuality has nothing to do with the reward/punishment dichotomy because female sexual attraction is non-objective. Also, I personally am not interested in men who are out of touch with their emotions. A man who is callous, who sees me as an object is simply incapable of going into the depths with me. And men who can’t dive deep and meet me in my depths are boring to me from both a sexual standpoint and relationship standpoint. Not enough juice to keep the mind stimulated and the blood flowing. But you’d also be wise to recognize that you are projecting the tendency to objectify women onto these conquesting men... which do exist. But you seem to fail to see your own objectifying tendencies. You did after all refer to women as a resource. So a man who gets laid who objectifies women and a man who does get laid who objectifies women are cut from the same cloth in my eyes. Equally lukewarm and not energetically magnetic.

Yeah, the framing of women as a ‘resource’ is certainly disturbing... but also unfortunately very common. I get the response as it’s how I (and other women) feel about these kinds of posts. But unfortunately they’re just going to turn it back on you for picking up on the ‘woman as commodity’ implication and say that you’re straw manning and misreading. But really you’re just noticing the underlying meaning of the post... and responding to the dog whistle.

Well, nothing really auto-corrects itself. People have to make these moves for this to happen. I don't anticipate this will be mainstream for at least a few more generations. So, in the meantime, we have to adopt more patterns that match with Stage Green. And a big part of that is community creation with like-minded people, which can be done right now. A man who is currently isolated and looking for a partner would find a far more fulfilling set-up by building his own friend group/network and dating within that network than going out and doing cold approach with random strangers or meeting women on a dating app. Not saying he should avoid that because it isn't really and either/or, but it's just that these will be sub-optimal solutions to his isolation problem compared to the community building solution. It will also fulfill more of his social needs and take away that sense of not belonging, and it will confer more power/status to him as social relationship (mostly platonic) is how influence is derived.

One thing that I've noticed, yet never articulated before... A lot of guys who try to polarize themselves into a more masculine way of being, end up with the energy/vibe of Invader Zim somehow. I always end up unconsciously picturing that I'm conversing with Invader Zim every time I'm in a discussion with these masculinity-obsessed guys. Whereas, an actually masculine man tends to have a lot of gentle, warm, and feminine undertones to his energy which makes him better at socializing and attunement/awareness. I'm just mentioning this in relation to the comment you made about the energy of these guys. It's like in trying to polarize themselves so far into the masculine, there is a loss of the grounded personal sovereignty that can only come from a deep connection to the emotions and intuition... which are an aspect of the feminine.

The biggest problem right now at the societal level that contributes to this is that we live in a very atomized and isolated Stage Orange society, where most people live in their own bubble. And social media has made this a more comfortable bubble to live in. And porn certainly makes this comfort zone more comfortable for men to stay in as well. And because relationship to community is the healthy organic way to meet partners, young men who live in such an atomized way may simply miss the opportunity to socialize with friends and potential partners. A young man may have to go out of his way to socialize in ways that his father didn't have to go out of his way for. So, the best solution to this issue on the individual level for the man (as @Etherial Cat said) is to integrate the feminine more which entails being more emotionally aware, more in touch with his instincts/body, and more social which will counter-intuitively make a man more relatable and more attractive to women, as intimacy is only possible with an integrated man. So, the integration of the Anima is key to healthy and attractive masculinity and it also cuts down the anxiety because the man is not grappling with and projecting his feminine side. But collectively the best thing we can do is to connect with the feminine more which will lead us more into Stage Green which is community focused and will act as an antidote to all the isolation that comes from the hyper-masculinity and individualism of the Stage Orange paradigm. Stage Blue was also community focused and the good part about it was the community and the connection. The bad part about it was the control and inability to be authentic and the need to fit a very certain mold. But Stage Green community is more expansive and very inclusive while still having that tight-knit connection factor. I think a big part of this shift to Green will be a move away from single family homes and atomized communities into more centrally planned communities like communes. I think you'll also see the rise of more polyamorous relationships as this shift happens.

100%

When there is talk about “regulating the sexual market place” that means that a regulatory body of sorts (like the government) would be taking away women’s role as selector and the freedom to choose the sexual/romantic partner that they want. And that isn’t a straw man. That’s just literally what “regulating the sexual marketplace” means. And even in your post you acknowledge that you see women’s sexual freedom and ability to choose who they want to sleep with as a “problem” in need of solution. Also, your idea that some men just can’t get laid is not true. Just go out and talk to women and you will eventually find a woman to sleep with or have a relationship with. And that’s true no matter who the guy is. Trust me, I’ve known tons many unattractive or nerdy guys who get laid and have had relationships. The last guy friend of mine from my hometown to lose his virginity (at age 19) was a very overweight, awkward guy, with no sense of style, who was really into Anime. And he was a late bloomer. The big difference is that these nerd guys were willing to socialize with nerd girls and did so often. They actually cultivated friendships with girls of like mind, tastes, and level of attractiveness. And so they got laid and got girlfriends all in their teen years. That’s how most men are. They socialize enough to have these intimate experiences with the opposite sex. So, these incel guys will have to learn to socialize and adapt as no one is entitled to anyone’s affections. And I say all that without saying that it’s not difficult to get past these mental blocks and self esteem issues or that no empathy should be given. Low self esteem is hard to deal with. But it’s unwise to expect the world to change to accommodate a person’s emotional issue. That’s especially true when that emotional issue is surmountable.

I definitely know that some would make that argument.

Because regulating the dating market would mean regulating the dating/sexual choices of women without their consent. Women in this scenario become the commodity that some regulating body (like the government) distribute to men. And men then become a class that are entitled to women as a commodity. This is why you can't have a regulated dating market.

Here is something to be mindful of that I’ve mentioned to you before. The biggest issue I see with this forum as an environment (in relation to your role in it specifically), is the short punchy way that you share things. It gives a harsh vibe of absolute certainty, and then others (usually young impressionable men) who look up to you as a leader immediately and uncritically absorb what you say without really thinking. Every time that you make a claim with this air of certainty, I can go right down on the thread and find multiple guys parroting what you say... simply because of the way you say it. And this turns the forum into an echo chamber. And I see sometimes that you expect for people to understand when you’re being funny or satirical or simply playing devil’s advocate or taking a spiritual truth to its most extreme ends. But many (if not most) do not understand. Basically, you would be wise to understand the position of power you’re in relative to your viewership. And with the understanding of that power, being able/willing to pick and choose carefully what you decide to share and what you choose not to. Every Hierophant is wise to consider what is unintended for the uninitiated and those not predisposed to the work.

Now, getting off to Facebook friends is something that will genuinely be concerning to most women. That includes women who are poly, because it’s a bit boundary breaching because the other person probably doesn’t know you’re using the images of them that way. Watching porn, on the other hand, is something that some women are okay with and that some women aren’t okay with. So, she may genuinely see that as cheating. But many women would not. My advice is to decide whether or not you’re comfortable with sacrificing your porn habits to stay in the relationship. But an even deeper topic (even if you are willing to sacrifice porn for the relationship) is to suss out sexual compatibility and compatibility in general. You’ll probably want to have a partner who matches your sensibilities about sex and shares your views/values relative to things like porn.

Women are the selectors and men are the one's trying to be selected. That's what that means. This is the heterosexual human mating dance. If a woman acts as if the man is the prize, then she's already messed up because she'll be in her masculine energy trying to impress the guy and win him over. And that just doesn't work. It communicates low standards. One of the best things a woman can do is to be in here Yin energy and communicate her standards. Men who are genuinely interested in her will (and only men who are interested in her) rise the challenge. This sorts out the men who are not good choices. As an analogue to the human mating dance, there is one egg and many sperm... and only the best sperm gets to join with the egg. Women are best to remember that they are not the sperm in that scenario. The main goal is not to chase and impress. The main goal is to be receptive and attract but to sort who isn't suited... or have them sort themselves. Also, in a healthy relationship dynamic, the man is more committed to the woman even than the woman is committed to him. If you have it the other way around, there's going to be a lot of disharmony in that relationship because the guy doesn't actually see the woman as the prize. When you have it the other way around, the woman feels anxious and chases the guy around and the guy feels annoyed. And that's because the guy really doesn't want to be selected by her. Also, I didn't say there's "no shortage" of solid men. Most men are not very solid. But there are plenty of solid men. And with the woman being the selector, her job is sort the wheat from the chaff... sorting out men who don't see/treat her as the prize, who are not solid, etc. With this sorting job, 95% of that job is done by communicating expectations and being connected to the intuition.

I agree with your point that desiring a monogamous relationship is as self-focused as any other desire. It's an agenda just like any other agenda. But I do think women are wisest to expect (and by expect, I mean feel entitled to) the dynamic they want. And then, be ready to duck out if that dynamic is not to be had with that particular guy... ideally prior to getting involved with him. Women are wise to remember that they are the selector and the "prize" in the mating dance, and that any man who isn't ready/willing to step up into the role she is looking for him to fill isn't a good candidate for that selection process. So, ideally don't have sex with that person, unless you're looking for casual sex and you know for sure that you're never going to want him in any serious way. And ideally, don't even spend time with him once you know that he's not aligned to your agenda as you don't want feelings to develop with someone who isn't aligned to your agenda. There are plenty of men out there who will be in alignment. Unless you're really just interested in some sexual escapades, it's best to move on and look for a more solid man.

Geriatric lesbian sex cult... final answer.

I am monogamously oriented. So, no. What I'm saying is that all relationships are technically monogamous... even polyamorous ones.

Well, honestly... there is ONLY monogamy in the strictest sense. Every relationship is monogamous because it's always person to person... one to one. Even a polyamorous relationship is really a collection of overlapping/interconnected monogamous relationships. All friendships are monogamous too. The real question is it more ideal to have an exclusive monogamous romantic relationship... or a collection of non-exclusive monogamous relationships. I would say the later is more challenging because of the complexity... but can be done well. But if the question is "Is monogamy right?"... there is no inherent right or wrong. But there is an inherent healthy and unhealthy... harmonious and unharmonious... natural and unnatural. I would say that there are unique challenges in relation to health, harmony, and alignment with nature with any relationship because our instincts and higher nature always leave discrepencies. Monogamy is easier in some senses because it's less complex. But harder because it's more strict.

If you feel unable to achieve intimacy with a woman despite being attracted to women, it could be because you have a disconnect with your feminine side and are thus projecting certain things from your disintegrated feminine side onto women. This will create a sense of one-sidedness and hostility. So, perhaps your drive toward intimacy with women is being blocked and thus only can come out through fantasizing about a connection with a man... despite being less attracted to men.

What you mean is that it isn't inherently morally superior. Morals are essentially made up castles in the sky. You could argue that being a serial killer is moral if you wanted to and find some well-reasoned argument to support that claim. But Veganism IS ethically superior to eating animal products. And this is why... Ethics has its roots in whatever causes/perpetuates the least amount of suffering. Unlike morals, ethics are not castles in the sky and empty assertions or right and wrong. There is a more objective measuring stick for what is ethical... which is the question "How much suffering does _____ objectively lead to or contribute to?" Since Vegans are boycotting an industry that causes suffering and are taking away from the demand for these products, supply in these industries will diminish accordingly. And this means that Vegans (who make up 1% of society) and Vegetarians (who make up 3% of society) en masse are cutting into the demand... probably by 2-3% points. Bearing in mind, it's financially incumbent upon these industries to produce only what they can sell... because it's a waste of money for them to breed more animals than the populace will eat. And it will be priority number one for these industries to cut costs as much as possible and maximize shareholder profits. And when we're talking about 70 BILLION land animals (including 50 billion chickens, 300 million cows, and 130 million pigs) killed each year, 2-3% points make a huge amount of difference. If we're going to round down and estimate that Vegans and Vegetarians (and even those practicing meatless Monday) cut into factory farm product demand by 2%, that's over a billion land animals per year that aren't bred into a life of suffering. And that's not even mentioning marine animals. There is also the issue that we use a lot of farmland (like 75%+ of it) to feed livestock, which accounts for tons of field deaths (mice, snakes, etc.) and the deforestation of lands meant to be occupied by other animals. And I'm sure that this creates a lot of suffering as well. Also, the existence of Vegans and Vegetarians creates demands for new technologies like lab-grown meat, which will be a huge ethical leap forward as it will make the consumption of meat and dairy possible in a way that doesn't contribute to animal deaths/exploitation... which will create less suffering in turn. So, Veganism isn't morally superior. But it is ethically superior.

No. The solution is more open-heartedness.

You have to experience for yourself to know. I see no value in arguing nor any value in you blindly believing me. If/when you have direct experience, you will see it.

But it's also less accurate if you put it in secular terms. And it's core to the whole thing to understand that it does derive from masculine/feminine polarity as these are the building blocks in all of reality.

It’s a feeling state not a thought process. It comes from tuning in to the emotions and the body. You’ll know if you experience it as a feeling instead of as a rationale.