Emerald

The only incentive that makes a man want to stay with you is if he loves you and wants you in his life. A man who loves you will walk through the fire to be with you. There is no other incentive that works to keep a man... not looks... not marriage... not giving him sex... not with-holding sex for a more opportune time... not cooking skills... not anything else. If he doesn't feel that way, he just doesn't feel that way. And you can't do anything to make him feel that way. He either loves and wants you in his life or he doesn't. And there is no strategy for making him stay. Just be the best version of yourself. And as a side effect, you will attract in the men that are compatible to you and who value you. And then reject all the ones you don't like... and reject all the ones who don't recognize your beauty/value... and reject all the ones who aren't available for a relationship. Trying active attraction strategies is a masculine way of going about things and doesn't work for women. Instead women need more passive strategies around selecting the right man and rejecting the wrong men. It's only when you reject the men that don't love you or value you in particular that you tune yourself in to a man who loves you in particular and wants to be with you in particular. That's a much better strategy for women. And when you use this strategy, you don't have to use sex or marriage as a man-trapping strategy because there is no need to. You can have sex because you feel like it or wait on sex because you feel like it. Or you can get married because you want to or avoid marriage because you don't want to get married. Anytime you're trying to devise a plan to get a man to commit... you're already using the wrong strategy. A man who wants to commit to you always will. And a man who doesn't want to commit to you always won't. And if he doesn't... let him go. That's the most powerful strategy.

Here's the thing. If you're a woman who is strategizing on how to keep a man... it's already a bad strategy from the jump. Find a man who already loves you and wants to be with you that you feel the same way towards. And that's a good strategy for a lasting relationship.

None of this is relevant if you find a man who loves you and wants you in his life. Doesn't matter if you have sex with him on the very first date... or if you wait until marriage. If he wants you, he wants you. And if he doesn't he doesn't. And there's nothing you can do (or should do) to try to change his mind on the latter. There's no strategy you can employ to make a man stay or value you... other than to choose the man that loves you and wants you in his life and to reject the men who don't love you and/or aren't that into you and are just keeping you around to avoid loneliness or for easy female companionship and sex.

Thank you! I'm glad it resonated.

If I remember correctly, the study had been conducted with men and women all over the world in different economic brackets. And it makes total sense because it all pertains to what's healthiest and gives the biggest advantage to offspring in a given environment. Keeping weight on and being strong/muscular and masculine/unemotional is going to be very helpful for surviving in difficult and lean contexts. But in contexts of plenty (with lots of high calorie foods constantly available and less hardship), the healthiest people for the environment are leaner and more integrated with the Feminine and emotionally sensitive.

<3

It was definitely trippy. Especially with the exposure to infinite knowledge. It was like a movie where every frame is a different movie.... but multiplied exponentially to the point of absolute chaos. Needless to say, I'm glad to have chosen to forget it. Right now, I can only remember a symbolic understanding of what it was like.

Thank you! And you're welcome!

I'm glad to hear that! <3

You're welcome!

Thank you! I'm glad it resonated.

It's shown me that my path is a more Feminine path related to embodiment and embrace of the Earthly and ordinary.

I was thinking about this the other day that the thing that makes a social system more or less corrupt is how unfocused or focused it is toward its ACTUAL function. For example... the function of the military is defense. And to the degree that it deviates from its purpose of defense (towards extra concepts like offense) is the degree to which it slips towards corruption. And the function of an economic system is to disseminate value across society. And to the degree that it deviates from that purpose (towards extra concepts like deserving and undeserving) is the degree to which it slips towards corruption. And the function of the criminal justice system is to protect society from detrimental actions. And to the degree that it deviates from that purpose (by adding in extra concepts like punishment) is the degree to which it slips towards corruption.

I feel like a lot of this is pretty obvious if you have a general understanding of biological signifiers of attraction. That said, regarding size of a woman, studies have shown the attraction changes based on economic factors. They gathered a bunch of data on it, that I read about some years ago. (It also changes for men). So, it isn't likely to be the pregnancy suspicion thing. In economically poor areas, the attraction preference is towards bigger women and more hyper-Masculine barrel chested men with small eyes and a protruding brow. (Think Lizzo and Joe Rogan as ideally attractive in this context) In economically rich areas, the attraction preference is toward thinner women and men who have bigger eyes and a combination of Masculine and Feminine features. (Think Florence Pugh and Timothee Chalamet as ideally attractive in this context) And these conditional attractions make sense because they are signifiers of optimum health and adaptivity to the given environment.

Men don't stay because of looks or any other specific quality for that matter. And if a woman tries to work to make a man stay, this isn't going to work. Also, a man who is interested in women mostly for looks will only look to "collect them all"... which makes him poor husband quality as he won't stay through the aging and the ups and downs of the cycles of life. And to go through the motions of looking good to impress or please him only puts a woman in the masculine role of trying to "win" his affection which doesn't bode well for her. And she'll usually be doing these methods to keep the wrong man who isn't that into her. So a woman should only doll herself up if it pleases her. And she should do this or that or the other thing that a man might find pleasing, only if it pleases her. This keeps her in her Feminine energy when she lives her best life for her and her alone. And it has a side benefit of maximizing her magnetism. In truth, a man will only stay if he loves you and wants you to be a constant in his life. If he doesn't love you, he won't stay. If he loves you, he will. And a woman should just be true to herself, so that she functions as a beacon to call in the right men that want to love you and repel the wrong men who won't. And the only way to have a man stay is to repel and reject the wrong men while sending her authenticity out into the world to attract the right man. Only the right man will stay. This is why men's #1 dating strategy is to attract. And women's #1 dating strategy is to select and reject. When women try to use the masculine "attract" strategy, this only works to attract the wrong man and puts her in the Masculine role of trying to win him and please him.

My advice would be to avoid it all costs, even if she’s within the age of consent for your region. Honestly, even if she was 20 and you were 30 it still wouldn’t be too great for her. Take this from me as someone who met their 32 yr old husband at 20. It really made me miss out on a lot of normal early-20s things as I felt it skipped me straight to my 30s. But dating someone 10 years older as a 17 year old would be incredibly damaging and stunting for her in ways you may not anticipate. And she probably is looking for something in you that you can’t give her. Younger people tend to get attracted to older people because they’re looking for someone mature to take care of them… when they didn’t receive it from others. And unfortunately this leaves them a match to immature older people that don’t consider their vulnerability.

It makes sense that you'd be concerned about getting someone pregnant. But your fear seems a bit intense, given the precautions that you're taking. And it might get in the way of you actually getting closer to a a partner since there's a lot of fears of lack of trust and the other person having power over you. So, it makes me believe that it's more than just a concern about pregnancy... but rather a fear of powerlessness. Definitely take contraception seriously. But is there a deeper fear of powerlessness that underlies the fear of making someone pregnant... and other non-related fears around powerlessness?

Here's a bad boy anthem to help transform yourself into what a bad boy REALLY is...

Thank you!

Thank you for your insights, all knowing ones. I'm merely sharing my direct experiences with Ayahuasca. There is nothing that I've said here that is untrue as I'm just sharing my direct experiences working with the medicine. You both seem to be under the impression that you know the true nature of God. And if you're honest with yourself, you'll recognize that no one knows that.

In the past, Western imperialist powers would justify their dominance and colonization over other peoples under the guise of bringing civilization to the uncivilized people.... which is very similar to your idea of being the more evolved ones in comparison to the less evolved ones. And it was a way to get more liberal-minded (gullible) people to get on board with colonization, exploitation, slavery, wars, etc. In America, the gullible liberal types eventually caught wise... and realized that it was based in ideas of racial/ethnic supremacy. So, now America says "We're bringing Democracy to the region." which sufficiently fools the gullible liberal types into supporting colonization, regime change, wars, etc. You are doing the same thing in this... and characterizing Israelis as more evolved than Palestinians. But that is just another method you're using to get rid of your cognitive dissonance and find justification for the fact that the government associated with your cherished national/religious identity is committing a genocide. So, you can see the mote in Palestinians' eyes but you can not see the giant log in the eyes of Israel and the IDF. Let go of your self-bias and you will see it more clearly. If it were some other country doing what the IDF is doing... and they were doing it to some other non-Palestinian group... I'm pretty certain it would stick out to you like a sore thumb that a genocide is going on and that it's quite deliberate.

Thank you!

Thank you!

Well, that's a spectral thing and largely depends on the semantics used to define these terms. If we look at things from a Left vs Right semantic perspective... we could call Hilter right wing If we look at things from a Liberal vs Conservative semantic perspective... we could call Hilter conservative. But my argument along these lines is that Conservatism and Fascism are spectral with one another because Conservatism tends to have mildly to moderately fascistic elements (though the radicalization of the recent decade makes the average Conservative far more comfortable and familiar with Fascist talking points)... like there will be a general dislike a immigrants coming in, a desire to maintain in-group purity and traditions, and more traditional gender norms. And with Fascism, it's about actively cleansing society of outsiders and restructuring it to fit more traditional norms. So... the Conservative and the Fascist tends to have the same groups on their shit-lists.... minority ethnic, racial, national, and religious groups, the LGBT community, anything that deviates from traditional gender norms that upsets patriarchal order. The difference is by matter of degree and action. And to categorize the Conservative and the Fascist as fundamentally different and not existing on a spectrum with one another, just feels like another way to muddy the waters so that people don't notice the Conservative Overton Window shifting further to the right. Actual White Nationalists often do this to try to distance their movement from the likes of Hilter and the Nazis because the average normie doesn't like Hitler and the Nazis. So, redefining Far Right as "not Conservative" feel like what White Nationalist try to do to make themselves more palatable... or some normie picked up that talking point and is spreading it without realizing they're being tricked into muddying the waters.

There are two strains of conservatism that apply here... one is a more preservative kind of conservatism around preserving the status quo... the other is a more reactionary kind of conservatism where it seeks to rehabilitate a mythologized past. So, a person can be a conservative who wants to maintain the current power structures that be (in the case of those that benefit from the current structures). Like a person might want to preserve Capitalism if they have current success under the Capitalist system. But a more reactionary conservative wants to resurrect a traditional ideal (one that never truly existed but that they believe existed). This is where the archetypal "Golden Age" myth comes into play. And you can tell who is progressive and who's conservative based on that. Someone who is on the far left would project the Golden Age into the future and imagine a future utopia that has not yet existed. You can see this in far left ideologies that are all about the idea of the ideal social where workers own the means of production and the problems of that past are gotten rid of. Someone who is in the center-right might view the current era as the Golden Era and have the thought that we already reached the Golden Era... and that not we need to preserve that by fighting against progress. And someone who's in the far-right will project the Golden Era into the mythologized and idealized past... which deals with in-group purity (ethnic, national, and racial), traditional gender roles, ect. And it appeals to fears of outsiders (like immigrants and those of different ethnic, national, racial, and religious groups that differ from that of the in-group. And it maintains itself on the masculine sexual insecurity of outsiders coming in to "rape" of the dominant groups women. And I use scare quotes on rape because the fear is actually a fear of consensual miscegenation. And this is in alignment with Hitler's vision of the Aryan mythology. And it really doesn't take too much awareness to recognize that HiItler is right wing. It's really obvious. The far right wing is all about rehabilitating a mythologized past where the dominant racial group was great (before "the outsiders" came along and ruined it)... and is thus anti-outsider and commits atrocities like genocides against particular minority ethnic, national, racial, or religious groups to cleanse the land for the "chosen people" and to bring back the good old days where women were women and men were men and everything was in its proper place in the hierarchy with the dictatorial father on top of the society and every household with the father on top. The far left wing tends to be futuristic and utopian and seeks to undermine the status quo to go in a brand new direction that wasn't done in the past. And it commits mass murder of those who don't subscribe to the revolutionary agenda or who are seen as enemies of the movement. This is how you can tell the difference between a right wing autocrat and a left-wing autocrat.