Emerald

It is a bit different from the female perspective a bit. Women have it too. But it's kind of like how men and women both have nipples... but how male nipples don't develop or function. Women have the capacity to scan for potential male partners that way, but it doesn't give us the same indicators of attractiveness. But I have definitely scanned an environment for attractive/compatible looking guys before. That's how I used to size up who I might be interested in (from elementary up through high school). And I'm sure that, if I were single and in a social environment and looking for a partner, I might do the same thing. But generally, there is a sexually neutral feel to most people. A good looking guy might read to me as romantically neutral as a not so good looking guy. The element that really attracts me to someone is chemistry. It's the impact that their personality has on me. And this can't really be "gamed". It just has to happen. The control is out of my hands. There is a passive quality to it. It either happens or doesn't. So, it's uncommon for me to be really attracted to a guy in a deep way. And it isn't really worth pursuing if there isn't that magnetic chemistry element. But the scanning for attractive guys thing goes on in the background too. It's just that that type of attraction isn't very magnetic, and will probably feel to women as being irrelevant and neutral.

Leo may have assumed that you should know better about the post. There are certain things that are a given and this (from most people's perspective) would be oriented to as an, "Of course I shouldn't do that." And bringing up porn upon first meeting is one of them. Now, it may be the case that you either a. don't have a ton of social experience or b. have a mild form of Autism or something like that that keeps a you from being able to read social situations. Either of these things could make reading social cues difficult. And things that would socially be a given for others, might not be such a given for someone in either of those situations. But in general, the best way to offset this possibility is through the development of social acuity and recognizing how people emotionally respond to things. This means how people generally do react... not how people "should" or "shouldn't" react. To develop social acuity, this means being able to be empathetic and put yourself in the shoes of another person and imagining how that person responds. I can tell you that women are constantly experiencing being approached by men. And it can be either tiring, creepy, or downright threatening when men try to bring things to a sexual level upon first meeting. I've had tons of encounters like this. It's just really awkward at best and scary at worst. So, you don't want to go about things this way even if some women have responded affirmatively to it. This may speak to their lack of boundaries, more than it speaks to the viability of the method you've been using.

Listening to people's struggles is part of what I do for a living. So, there is an awareness that springs from that, that you must validate emotions AND dispel the beliefs that are creating or amplifying certain struggles. It's about helping them let go of false and limiting beliefs. To take an extreme example, if someone believes that they're being stalked by ninja squirrels, my job is to validate their emotions and to help them work through it WHILE ALSO assuring them that they're definitely not being stalked by ninja squirrels. If I validated their emotions and then confirmed their false belief in ninja squirrels stalking them, that would be very counterproductive. It could make their situation worse.

Women are all people capable of both positive and negative behaviors. It seems like you've had a couple experiences with immature women. So, I recommend finding someone that is more mature. Also, we can tend to attract people who mirror our own issues in some way. So, also look internally to see if there is something that has lead you to become attracted to these women or to have weak boundaries that allow others to step over them.

I think it's good that you've found someone who appreciates you for you. That's very important in a relationship. It seems like the guy you were with before had a lot of difficulties with fixating upon women who embody some kind of ideal in his mind. And then trying to use his own fixation to disempower you. It's most likely that, underneath that desire to disempower and poke at your self-esteem, that he could have been dealing with insecurities about his own sexual/romantic value. So, if he could make you feel insecure, it would make him feel more secure... because if your self-esteem is shaken, maybe you'll value him more and stick around. It is often that this type of abusive behavior is a front for insecurities and fears. But my biggest advice would be to look inward at what a relationship to a man means to you. It is often, that our attitude toward romantic relationships reflects earlier traumas. And we often try to recreate patterns from the past to play through old traumas and find resolve. And beyond that, if I were in your shoes, I'd ask myself how I really want to look beyond the expectations of others. So, neither would it be about conforming to what it seems men want you to look like, nor would it be about rebelling against what it seems men want you to look like. Creating a look has so much to do with persona creation and self-sovereignty. Attraction is one faculty of the look we present. But it's so much beyond that. It's about who we want to show up as and what we want to express. I've found it very helpful to have my own style that showcases my unique preferences. And this makes me stand out... meaning that fewer men will be attracted to me, and I won't have quite as much mass appeal. But also, if I were seeking to attract a man, I'd be more likely to catch the eye of one who resonates with something about me and my personality in particular. I'd be more likely to find somebody looking for someone like me... and not just any woman. So, the question is, how do you like to be, and how do you like to look? And to think about this separate from conforming to men's tastes. AND to think about this separate from rebelling from men's tastes.

The main issue with this is that it reinforces some fundamentally untrue beliefs... which constitute a major part of the reason why so many men struggle with low self esteem. So, it strengthens the internal turmoil even as it attempts to give empathy... which is a dangerous combination. It can become an addictive cycle of psychological self-harm for so many men. It's dangerous in this way because it validates men's emotions, which in most other contexts would be a good thing as there are uniquely male struggles and men don't get a lot of space to just be emotional beings... and the video speaks to this. BUT the thing that makes it dangerous is that it reinforces the idea that all women only want the top tier man and that there are just fundamental "loser" men that no one wants... which isn't true. Women are generally looking for their match and for someone she has chemistry with. There is literally no one who won't be desired by someone. And you can't look to dating website statistics to find out how attraction organically works. Dating website stats are skewed by their nature because women are generally most attracted to men's personalities... and on dating websites all you have to go off of is a photo and bio. And most importantly, because it's a mix of emotional validation and a reinforcement of false beliefs, it works incredibly well as propaganda. And this propaganda causes men to feel even more powerless and worthless and sews the seeds of resentment towards women as a whole group.

I can assure you that I haven't seen this song before a few days ago. It's a very memorable music video... especially the creepy part at the end. But it isn't that my experience had these visuals or anything. It wasn't really a visual experience at all during the death. It's more like these visuals are a metaphor for what was experienced... especially where everything dissolved into the infinite body of the Goddess in the video. So, the imagery in the video is very universal/esoteric/archetypal as I can recognize the life mother, the death mother, the magician, and the memento mori as archetypes. But the psychedelic imagery and dissolving is also relevant. I would imagine that MGMT (or whoever created the music video) has experienced ego death while on psychedelics or something like that. My experience was that my body was fragmenting and falling apart and that I died, which was not a visual experience at all. And in the fragmenting, I merged into nothingness and experienced being it. So, the radical de-centering in the video where everything merges into flowers on blackness that make up the body of the deity, felt very reminiscent of the shift in perspective that death is. But of course, neither words nor image can accurately describe it. It just has some semblance to the experience... which is why I said it was a great visual metaphor for what was experienced. I got a little shudder down my spine when I first saw it because it reminded me of it. As close to a representation of death as I've seen.

You're adding a lot of ideas onto sex. Sex is just as much part of one-ness as anything else is. And Tantra is about experiencing being the universe, playing itself out as a physical representation of Yin/Yang... the Dao. Now, we could say that people tend to be very dichotomous in their approach to sex. And sex is motivated by physicality and instinct on the more relative level. But even that more animalistic aspect of ourselves is part of that which is. There is no true dichotomy there.

You're welcome

I haven't listened to much from them other than their three big hits. So, this was a pleasant surprise. Also, I just learned that MGMT stands for Management as a lot of their early stuff was meant to be a spoof on pop music and selling out. But they became popular because of their spoof stuff.

It was the most intense for sure. But I suppose profundity and intensity are two different things. All were profound. The first two were beautiful and pleasant. But the latter was very intense and very bad trip by any measure. So, I've had three very profound Ayahuasca experiences. But the latter reminds me of this video... though it wasn't a visual experience at all. The first two were amazing experiences of being grounded in one-ness and getting some distance from my ego and a dropping away of suffering and fear. And an immersion in a kind of love that I can relate to as a human being. They were profound in a way that was grounded within Maya. And I was able to see all the little ways that I would self-deceive and a bunch of other psychological happenings that I was previously unconscious to. I can say that these were experiences of the merging of the human and divine and to recognize the divinity in the mundane. The third was very different. It was all about death and emptiness... very much akin to what I pointed out within the video. It was like being pulled behind so many veils. And then my body was falling apart. And I died and merged with the nothingness from which the everythingness springs. And I was this nothingness, and I intimately experienced and understood all the connections between everything in the infinite existence all in one instant (though time was not a thing... nor was sensing nor understanding). I knew things and remember knowing things that I can't possibly understand now. And I both was and wasn't able to handle everything in infinity. And as I (God) had a hard time experiencing the elements of infinity that included suffering, I (God) who was impervious to suffering would wrap around myself and comfort me (God), and in a moment things would resolve and there would be peace. And then I (God) would wake back up the the infitine nature of my existence and I (God) would panic and freak out... then I (God) would wrap around myself again and comfort me (God) and I (God) would understand an infinite amount of connections and comfort me (God) again. And this kept happening, until I (God) felt unable to handle it. I (God) had to surrender to the fact that I (God) needed mercy and a reprieve from my infinite nature as I (God) longed for the experience of finiteness. And then, I began to remember Emerald. And I (God) made a conscious decision to live as Emerald and to experience this finite story line and to surrender to my humanity and to relinquish seeking to transcend or get rid of my finite nature. It was clear to me then, that the intention for my life was to exist fully as human as that was the experience that I (God) wanted to have.

No, I just found this music video the day before yesterday.

Because women need you to be in person and to feel safe with you to appreciate any sexual humor... and neither of those bars were cleared. It takes a high degree of social acuity and emotional attunement to do it right. And that just CAN'T come through in text. Women really need to experience your personality in life to get a feel for you. Mind you, it would even be somewhat challenging to pull off in person to begin with. You'd have to wait until she was already having a great time with you and certain barriers came down even at that to pull off a sexual joke. And it would have to feel free of agenda and be very socially graceful even at that. Also, women are used to being sexually bombarded. And it can be like being approached by a salesman, which feels frustrating at best... and definitely not arousing. And you slid into her DMs which just makes you look thirsty and desperate. Women get those kinds of messages all the time, and it's always like, "Hmm... This guy I haven't talked to in years is sending me a message. I WoNdEr what he wants." Also, it reads as socially acceptable when comedians make sexual jokes because it isn't being directed at a specific person and there's not a clear sexual agenda behind the joke. They're just doing stand-up and their joke happens to be sexual. So, it isn't just about making a sexual joke... its about making a sexual joke that's a bit awkward and pointed toward a certain person and is clearly for the sake of fulfilling an agenda. And it's usually okay if a guy makes a sexual joke to a woman he's already been intimate with as the sexual barrier has already been crossed. If there has already been sex, then sexual humor is pretty normal in that situation. The only exception is if the relationship has changed to such a degree that she no longer wants anything sexual to do with him anymore.

If you PM'd her, she probably was like "Uh oh. Here's another guy sliding into my DMs. I guess I'll tolerate it for a bit if he isn't weird about it." This is something that happens relatively often where guys will PM on Facebook if they're interested, so I'm sure that she's had precedent for it. So, when you went to a sexual place, it probably just confirmed her suspicions and she shut the conversation down there. Basically, it's not a great idea to begin with to try to make connections that way. But if you do, you definitely don't want to bring it to somewhere sexual, even as a joke. That's an in-person thing.

I think there needs to be more experience. Right now, I think you're going off some hypotheticals and worst case scenarios. Now, there can be women out there who have a huge laundry list of qualities that they're looking for in a partner. This happens sometimes. But they're not better off for it. This often just leads to analysis paralysis and a disconnect from genuine emotional resonance with someone. So, that is their cross to bear to get back in touch with feeling and to remove that intimacy block. I have worked with a good handful of women who are trying to open up but struggle with it. And there are often a litany of personal reasons why someone might micro-manage their love-life in that way... often dealing with fear and self-esteem issues... and even a desire to avoid repeat traumas from their childhood or from past relationships. So, the reasons why someone becomes this way often has nothing to do with simply what's par for the course in dating. Now, when it comes to what you have to offer and finding someone analogous, I tend to find that like attracts like in that way. We tend to attract partners with analogous virtues and analogous vices. This is why it is good to develop ourselves as we are more likely to attract and be attracted to someone who is how we are. Now, it can happen that someone with lots to give ends up in a relationship with someone who only takes, but that can be chalked up to self-esteem issues and issues with boundaries and codependency. So, as long as you've hammered those out, it will be okay. So, I would look a bit deeper at why you would expect that you'd attract a woman who would undervalue you and not treat you fairly. There can be many reasons. One common reason is just lack of experience talking to women in both platonic and romantic situations. When we don't interact much with a certain group, we can project our fears into the uncertainty. Or it could be a feeling that you're inferior or inadequate in some way that was picked up along the way... and then fearing/assuming that no woman will ever value you as much as you value her. I would really look deeply and honestly at (beyond the surface) what makes you feel like your contributions in a relationship would be undervalued or taken advantage of. And I would look first at your past in general... not just with regard to relationships.

I understand why that would be difficult. Men are social beings and need support too. I think there tends to be a kind of cut-throat view of life and dating thrust upon men... which often makes things unnecessarily more difficult and not less. Now, of course, dating/relationship is highly contingent upon conditions. So, there is that. There is no such thing as unconditional relationship. And everyone has their standards. But it's important not to fall into victim mode. And I ultimately think the reason why you seek out examples of women being harsh and overtly picky is because you fear that no woman will care for you for who you are. But that is not the case.

I didn't watch it. It's just not relevant to me. I am not a woman with a long laundry list of expectations... nor am I looking to marry a woman with a long laundry list of expectations. I was just reading through the thread and saw that you missed Leo's point about confirmations biases. And I was pointing out that this was a VERY common but fallacy-ridden rhetorical strategy.

He was referring to you essentially saying, "See! A woman confirms what I say!" It's a lazy argumentative stance where "Person A" attempts to make an argument that criticizes "x" group... and to do so, they find a video or post from someone in "x" group who holds a perspective that criticizes something about "x" group. And then says, "SEE! Look, I must be right. A person in "x" group is saying it!" It also involves a bit of a logical fallacy that assumes that, just because a person belongs to "x" group, that their opinion must have more weight to it regarding "x" group... even if their viewpoint is marginal within "x" group. It's kind of like how Phyllis Shlafley was a huge opponent of women's rights, despite being a woman. And tons of men would rally behind her because, "SEE! Look, we must be right to deny women's rights. A woman agrees with us!" So, he is right that it is a very cringey and transparent rhetorical strategy.

There is unconditional love... but there is no such thing as unconditional relationship. Being with someone in relationship involves a lot of logistics and boundary setting. So, you'd need to actually test the waters and see what feels right to you AND to do this with a woman who has compatible goals for the relationship. There are plenty of women who are polyamorous or who are not looking for a serious commitment. In fact, I'm sure there are dating sites for people who are specifically not looking for anything too serious or who are looking for an open relationship. But remember, there is no such thing as unconditional relationship. So, it is best to look for a partner whose conditions and relationship expectations don't clash with your conditions and relationship expectations.

That's true. It can always twist around. But my bet is that it will have a net positive effect once things fully unfold. But Antifa could be predicted to have a net negative effect overall. They're just a gift to those who want to discourage progress and to scape-goat and malign left-wing poltical moves. That, and they don't really effect any well-known positive change.

That was when you were on the phone with me! I remember that.

Sure, it's possible for you to be the target of hatred for your gender, sexuality, and skin color. Hatred is a human emotion, so anyone can hate anyone for any reason. And it isn't a good thing, obviously. But I'd imagine that it probably doesn't happen all that often to you on the basis of your demographics, as you happen to belong to groups that are seen by society at large as simply being the default for personhood... and thus these demographic elements are not really noticed as much compared to how much these demographic elements would stand out if you were female, gay, or if you were a person of color. But beyond this, you must realize that context matters... and contextually, straight white men are not systemically oppressed as a result of these demographic factors. And systemic oppression IS what racism/sexism/homophobia is at its core. And it runs a lot deeper than just people hating or being mean. So, yes... people can hate you and be mean to you based on your demographics, and it isn't very nice. But it isn't the same thing as systemic oppression... which you may not even fathom of what that truly entails having by chance hit a BINGO on your demographic factors. Systemic oppression runs much deeper and has far-reaching consequences for someone's life. A handful of blue-haired SJWs on Tumblr saying "I hate white men", simply does not have far-reaching consequences on your life... even if it gets on your nerves or hurts your feelings a bit.

The reason why I view it as a clear advance in societal evolution toward Green in the more zoomed in perspective, is because it has demonstrably increased class consciousness... in a way that sweeps across all of society. And it hasn't lead to any significant number of people jumping on the side of hedge funds. The key difference between the Gamestop situation and most of the others you'd mentioned is that there is a direct correlation to Green evolution with the Gamestop situation instead of of an inverse correlation to Green evolution with many that you mentioned. For example, we could say that MAGA, the Capitol riot, slavery, Capitalism, Hitler, hedge funds, and Wall Street have all played a part in opening society's eyes to Green in an inverse way. It shows the opposite of Green and wakes us up by contrast. So, if our goal is societal evolution and not societal devolution or stagnation, then we can recognize that the fighting against these things will more objectively lead to Green (and thus the stepping stones to an eventual Tier 2 society) than to let them fourish. But in the case of the Gamestop situation, this plays a direct (instead of inverse) role in greasing the wheels towards Green as it has directly lead to more class consciousness. And thus, there is little benefit with regard to societal evolution for those in the peasant class (and yes, I include you in this class even if you have built some wealth for yourself) to rail against it and dismissing it as unilaterally negative... as this does have many more immediate positive potentialities. And it's of especially little benefit for the peasant class to become selectively outraged at day-traders on Reddit while giving hedge funds (that have engaged in this kind of thing for a very long time) the shoulder shrug of acceptance... and to wag fingers and say, "two wrongs don't make a right" while not having treated hedge funds with a consistent amount of finger wagging. This is the basis upon which I see the Gamestop as a situation that doesn't need to be poo poo'd by the peasant class. But instead, to be seen as a small evolutionary victory... as it has done the job of directly opening people's eyes... as opposed to opening people's eyes by contrast. Also, there is the fact that these levers of manipulation won't be available to the average person for long. Wall Street certainly won't just sit idly by and let the peasants rig their own rigged casino against them. So, there probably won't be long-term negative effects in the same way that there has been long-term negative effects from hedge funds rigging things in their favor and manipulating the market for such a long time. Edit: Here's a more concise way to explain it... Fighting against the things you mentioned IS what greases the wheels of societal evolution. Fighting against the Gamestop situation doesn't do anything significant towards societal evolution as fighting it just maintains the status quo. If the average person fights against it, it would mostly just squelch the valuable insights that can be gleaned from it. It would throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Certainly it is as I am speaking from the perspective of the relative paradigm. Anything to do with human evolution is ultimately going to deal mostly with the relative perspective as these are the things that play out within Maya.

Yes. This is true... but also incomplete as your perspective edits your own feelings and perspectives out of the perfection. You still create the dichotomy of internal response vs external happening. Both are a manifestation of the perfection of that which is. Part of that higher perspective is to realize that our human responses to the current events are also a manifestation of perfection. So, if I am in the higher perspective, and I am in the middle of a war zone... I will recognize the perfection even as there is pain and suffering. But likewise, when I feel sorrow in response to that pain and suffering and a desire to change the situation... my feelings and desire to change the situation are also a manifestation of the perfection. And this is because internal and external is a false dichotomy. When one becomes more conscious, it is not that they feel less desire to ease the suffering of others. But the desire to ease suffering comes without grasping and aversion... and that ability to hold space for anything that arises, both internally and externally. But my point that I was making in the last post is that both this day-trading and the MAGA situation are going to be helpful for human evolution in the long-term perspective. But the MAGA thing is worth fighting against because of the more immediate consequences... and also the fighting against it is part of the evolution. And the Gamestop situation, at its current state, is worth being celebrated for what it has revealed... and also the fact that it will most certainly be reigned in fairly quickly, as it is against the financial interests of the owner class. In the more relative sense, the MAGA thing is perhaps a necessary fire to burn in the long run... but threatened to create a lot of immediate damage. So, it's important to extinguish it if we can. But this Gamestop situation is also a necessary fire... but there is very unlikely to be a long-term threat because of the powerful people it might impact.