Emerald

I usually get one like every ten views or so within the first days after posting as my subscriber base is tuning in. So, about 10%. Then, with the general population, it goes down to about 1 in 15. But it’s never been at 1-2%. Yet again, I just have around 50,000 subs. So, maybe larger channels have a lower like to view ratio.

You quoted me as saying that. But it was @aurum I was curious about his rationale.

I’ve never heard a Feminist (or anyone on the left even) argue for “equality of outcome”. So, what must be understood here is that JP is straw manning the left to give himself an easy and unpopular argument to slap down. Next to no one (left or right) believes in complete equality of outcome. Public figures on the right of the political spectrum (like JP) often use this tactic to misrepresent people on the left’s views and hearten people to their views by contrast. From the stage Green perspective, Feminists and Leftists in general will point to inequalities between people of different demographics as SYMPTOM of deeper structural problems within the collective. Where stage Orange and below will have different views. For example, if we notice the statistic that black people are nearly three times more likely to be shot by the police than white people are... A stage Green person will say “What collective issues within society is this a symptom of?” It sees the issues faced by individual trees within a forest as indicative of deeper issues within the structure of the forest. But a stage Orange person will say either, “It’s that individual black person’s fault.” Or they’ll say, “It’s the individual cop’s fault. There’s a few bad apples in the system.” And a stage Blue person will skew collective like Green but they’ll say, “Of course black people get shot more often by the cops. Black people are just worse than white people as a collective.” So, when JP says that Feminists and others on the left are arguing for equality of outcome he’s giving a bastardized and uncharitable distortion of that perspective. So, instead of recognizing that the argument is “Hey, we noticed that there is a substantial pay gap between men and women. So, this may be indicative of some collective issues with sexism within the greater system that must be addressed.” He says, “The left wants everyone to make the same amount of money, period.” And that just isn’t true... especially because the type of Feminists that stand most for this perspective tend to be Capitalist-leaning. It’s that people in stage Green are noticing that patterns within the trees may indicate a deeper issue with the forest. And if there is an inequality, then we should regard that as a red flag and explore the roots of that inequality to find out if there’s any deeper systemic and structural issues within society at large. Also, Feminists are not a monolith. There’s a great diversity in Feminist thought, and there’s a ton of in- fighting. The same thing is true with Leftists. So, there’s also that problem with the way JP frames the left. So, I second what Leo said. Read some stage Green stuff about Intersectional Feminism. You’ll get a feel for what the actual perspective is... instead of what JP and others straw man it as.

Yeah, I think it’s mostly because there is a strong cultural under-current that says logic/rationality is always more wise than intuition/emotion. So, if a person can come up with a rational truth, they will often use that rational truth to invalidate the more emotional truth. And rationalization can be a very sneaky self-deception mechanism. And this topic is particularly prone to this because the emotional truth is VERY unpleasant to observe. And it’s kind of like opening Pandora’s Box. Once you really let yourself be emotionally aware of your true feelings about animal suffering, you can’t go back to innocence and convince yourself that you don’t feel the way you actually feel. Once you eat of the tree of knowledge, you can’t go back into the blind bliss of paradise. This is why you find a lot of avoidance relative to this topic. A great many people (probably most) have Vegan feelings/values... and they don’t want to become aware of how they’ve been living out of alignment with those feelings/values. And all the negative feelings about that disalignment have been underneath the surface... until a major shift happens. When I went Vegan 5 years ago, in the first couple weeks, I had to face a lot of negative feelings rising to the surface once the rationalizations and cognitive dissonance around animal product consumption no longer needed to exist. Also, the feeling of powerlessness in relation to how meager my capacity to effect change is in relation to this issue was rough to deal with. If a person really wants to know the truth about how they feel about factory farming, I recommend watching Earthlings. If you watch with an open mind and heart, it will show you what your feelings and values ACTUALLY are, up underneath the rationalizations.

Veganism can certainly be an ideology too. But ideology is useful sometimes. Ideology is basically a form of mental technology that we invent in order to look at the world from a particular perspective. Ideology is a lens. And all major shifts in consciousness come to the masses in the form of ideology. The problems come in when a person gets attached to one ideology and can’t see beyond it.... aka being ideological.

What is your rationale here?

I started doing the "be like Jesus" thing that she mentioned when I was 12 to cope with my home and school situation. I decided to model my personality after Jesus, the Buddha, my dad, Bob Marley, and other such non-reactive men. It was the first thing that ever made me feel a sense of power over my environment. It was like a kind of mental Judo where my non-reactivity would lead me out of harm's way and into feelings of superiority. So, I came to the conclusion back then that I was "more enlightened" than others... both kids my own age and adults. And I was really fed by how non-reactive I could be. So, whenever a person would go over my boundaries (as would often happen at that juncture in time), I would relish in the fact that the blow didn't land on me because I was like water. And also that I was a stronger person than others because I didn't even flinch when bad things happened. And I would look for pain simply to show how I could handle it. This pain-seeking to prove that I was more masculine/non-reactive was even there when I was 10. It wasn't until years later, at age 20, when I got my first glimpses of transcendence that I was able to recognize all the self-deceptions that went into creating that "more enlightened" persona. And then I had trouble because I could no longer use that coping mechanism in innocence. This pattern still exists in me as it was created to cope with traumas and unmet needs. I'm just a bit more skeptical of it than before. But then I get into this struggle again, and the skepticism toward that aspect becomes the same coping strategy. And it leads me into lots of doubt and then that doubt means that I can never feel certainty about anything. And this comfort zone of uncertainty leads me genuinely into deeper and more accurate truths about things, and then the pattern continues. But ultimately, this aspect of myself is looking to get out from under feelings of inferiority and unimportance. And it reveals a deeper need to connect to the higher self... which is inherently empowered and expressive.

Usually only 5-10% of the subscriber base tunes in. This is the norm for YT channels.

I’ve never even been a woman on dating apps, so maybe I don’t know the territory. But I have a couple male friends (who are below average in attractiveness with not much game) who get dates on dating apps. I’ve also been the friend of a woman while she chats with guys on dating apps. And the guys were okay looking (like 6s) in my assessment. My point is that I’m not apt to take it personally and will feel more comfortable taking risks than a guy who might have his ego on the line and who might feel the sting of rejection more acutely.

This illustrates it precisely.

The main goal of my interactions on this section of the forum is to give a more accurate picture of the female bias/agenda. Too many misconceptions about how women actually feel and a misunderstanding of what women are really wanting in a man at the deepest level. I’m a huge advocate of letting the deep feminine bias be known. Men’s stories about it may serve their agenda, but the stories are inaccurate and incomplete. So, I want men to know the truth of what the female sexual bias/agenda actually is. But most men aren’t interested in the truth of our perspective. They’re interested only in what has worked for them. But truth and practicality are different things. The stories that men superimpose upon female sexuality work similar to how nature myths worked... where the people in a given village/tribe would notice a natural phenomenon and place a story upon it to demystify and explain it. This helped them feel more in control of that natural phenomenon. For example, a tribe may notice that it rains and not know why it rains. So, instead of having a clear understanding of the precipitation cycle, they have a simplified and self-centric story of ‘there’s a God in the clouds and he’s crying tears of joy as a gift to us to water our crops. So, we must give gifts to God in the form of sacrifice to get God to cry the tears of joy.” This is what men do in relation to female sexuality, which is a force of nature that they don’t yet understand and thus feel out of control of. And the nature-myth men tell themselves is an understandable distortion. I can see why men believe what they believe. But it is functionally a nature myth about female sexuality. It may work as a functional understanding for your purposes and agenda. But it isn’t true. Just the same way that the ‘crying God’ myth used to understand the rain might be helpful to the tribes-people for their purposes and agenda and to feel more in control of their fate, but it isn’t true. And I’m the person here with the scientific understanding of the precipitation cycle. And I want you to understand the precipitation cycle because that’s what’s actually true. And knowing what’s true (instead of just what’s practical) will free you from enslavement to the image of the crying God. You can still use the myth for practical purposes.... but it won’t consume and rule your life any longer. You won’t be at the mercy of a false idea once you realize the idea isn’t true. Now, the ‘crying God’ metaphor may be more useful to you than the truth behind the precipitation cycle in many situations. But it doesn’t make the ‘crying God’ metaphor an accurate reflection of what’s really going on. And the female bias is toward intimacy. If men don’t understand us, we don’t get what we need. Period. So, understanding the precipitation cycle may not feel relevant to the tribes-people. But in order to go deeper, you must get a more accurate view of what’s happening.

He’s a very aesthetically pleasing man, for sure. And his expressions are sexy because of the nice warm smile and relaxed appearance. But you can only really tell if a man’s attractive to you when he’s in motion. It’s the sound of his voice, his gestures, his level of alertness, and his character that will determine how attractive he is to a given woman. This same guy’s looks would tank by several points if his personality were unattractive.

This is a great point too. You need non-sexual channels for that libidinal energy.

Explore into what @SamC about the Anima. This can create a strong attraction to women that leads into chasing mirages. Otherwise, it’s really important for couples to have these conversations. It would be unrealistic to expect no feelings to ever come up toward anyone else. The main thing is holding space for each other’s feelings.

Again, you keep saying I’m in denial but I am not. In fact, I’m the first to admit I’m attracted to the capacity for aggression. Yet you keep acting like my argument is that the capacity for aggression is unattractive, and that women don’t respond to it. As I’ve said, many women do. You speak a lot about projection. But if you look back at our conversation, you’re the one projecting an entire argument onto me that I’m not even claiming. My argument is that the capacity for aggression when unfettered is attractive to women who are dealing with trauma and dysfunction in themselves. Otherwise, it’s easily identified as a weakness... specifically weakness of character. And it becomes naturally repulsive.

@Harlen Kelly Here is my response to an earlier poster that said Leo and I are saying the same thing... No. He’s arguing that all women are attracted to aggression regardless of whether it’s expressed in healthy or unhealthy ways as a natural feminine instinct. And he’s also arguing that men with the capacity for violent behavior will have more narcissistic and sociopathic behaviors by default. I’m saying that men who express aggression in dysfunctional narcissistic ways are repulsive not attractive. And that women who are attracted to these kinds of guys are dealing with trauma. And that it’s trauma and layers of dysfunction in herself that lead into this attraction. And that a healthy woman will be repulsed by a barbaric man who has no self-control as it is weak behavior (though Leo sees this as strong behavior). Also, I’m saying that men with the capacity for aggression and violence aren’t more narcissistic or sociopathic than a guy who lacks in that department. You can find plenty of men with the capacity for aggression/violence who have strong character. And you can find plenty of wimpy guys with weak character.

Awesome! I think when a man gets over the fear of women’s judgment and codependency on women’s POV, then this leads him into a space where he can grow himself into a more exalted version of himself. If there is a fear of women, it tends to lead to lots of dysfunction and misogyny. But once the fear of judgment and the projection of the “pedestaled judging woman” onto women falls away, this enables a man to be a better person and by extension a much better lover.

@Leo Gura and I don’t have the same POV on this matter even if we share many crossover views. And we both explicitly state our points of contention with the other’s POV. Go read the conversation. There are several very important divergences in our claims. Though it seems that people are missing the nuances and believe we’re saying the same thing a different way. But we’re not. Also when you say “This is what women like.” to a group of men, it may not be consciously prescriptive... but the effects will be prescriptive. So, portraying an incomplete or distorted view of feminine sexual attraction dynamics, will glorify to men whichever traits are indicated. And that’s true even if you don’t intend it. And I do know that’s not your intention. So, even making the claim (as Leo did) that aggression, narcissism, and sociopathy are a sign of strength and thus inherently attractive to women, is to glorify and prescribe it. This is especially true because he has an audience of impressionable men who will try to emulate that behavior... without the lion tamer to channel the aggression into positive expression.

But I’m a woman. So, uploading a photo of an average looking guy would be the control factor. If I did the experiment with the image of a male model, it wouldn’t be a fair experiment. Perhaps on dating sites, it’s true that average looking men don’t fair as well as they would in life. So much of a man’s attractiveness ONLY comes through in person. But I’m still confident that I could get 5 dates set up before the allotted time elapses.

I was saying I think I'd fair well on a dating app. If I had a picture of an average looking guy on my dating profile and I was engaging with the app as men typically do, I think I could find five dates in the time allotted. But to get her to respond, I'd have to come up with an opener that piques her curiosity and sets me aside from other guys. And I'd have to look for context clues on her dating profile to figure out what she might respond to.

That’s the issue. Men are too influenced by women’s assessments of them. This creates a cap, where men don’t develop themselves past a certain point because they are codependent upon the average women to reflect their worth back to them. And so, their muses aren’t inspiring them to higher ideals but are acting a delimiting factor for personal growth. But I can tell you that this attraction to men like I described started at age 20. Lots of very young women are tuned in to these qualities.

But men have control over this quality. On a personal development forum full of men trying to improve themselves... why would they choose a shittier form of masculinity to develop themselves into? Why is that the hill to die on? If you want to know what women respond to, this is what it is. Men respond to a perfect face and body in the ideal. And they talk about that often. Doesn’t matter if it’s .5% of the population. And women respond to men who possess these lion/tamer qualities... even if it’s .5% of the population. When you have the capacity to develop these virtues and become more universally attractive, why wouldn’t you?

The problem is that they’re not saying the same thing as I am. Most men on this thread (including Leo) are believing that only the beast is attractive to women. They’re discounting the role of the tamer in the attraction dynamic. And they will emulate a shittier version of masculinity because they believe that it will be more attractive to more women than integrated masculinity. But they are dead wrong. Raw instinct by itself isn’t attractive. Raw instinct tamed and channeled up in the form of pro-social behaviors is.

Women will be very attracted to it. It stands out. It’s rare like a woman with a perfect body. Again, it’s universally attractive because it’s great for survival of woman, child, and tribe. But you have to go back and read our discussion. I’m not saying the fuck boy won’t get success. There are plenty of traumatized women who will respond to it as the fuckboys might remind them of their womanizing dad or something. But that success that behaving in low consciousness ways can get a man is because of layers of dysfunction in these women as opposed to being a reflection of feminine instinct. So, I’m saying that there is a distinction between what will work for your own agenda versus what is actually true.

It depends of if the woman has analogous traumas that make her attracted to men who posses these qualities.