Forestluv

@Urgency A high conscious food restaurant sounds like a good idea to me. In addition to food, you could create a high conscious spiritual atmosphere. Spiritual decorations, music etc. Perhaps have spiritual workshops as well. You may form a small spiritual society. On the more practical side, starting and maintaining a restaurant takes it owns skills. There are financial and management skills needed.

@Dylan Page To me, you are seeing this very individualistically. That you are separate from everything around you - your vote is only a single vote among millions of votes “out there”. Another way to look at it is that we are all interconnected as a whole. Your “inside” thoughts, feelings and behaviors are connected to all things “outside of you”. We are all neurotransmitters to each other. For example, your energy, thoughts and feelings are not separate from your environment. Your thoughts about how your vote is worthless is inter-connected to the life around you and influences how you interact with others. . . Perhaps by expressing views that one vote is worthless, you have influenced others. Perhaps a few people reading this thread were ambivalent about voting and then thought “yea, my vote doesn’t matter. I’m not going to vote”. Your one vote just influenced four votes. . . . Leo created a video series on political engagement and a new political sub forum that is engaging people in politics. Has recently written a blog post encouraging people to register to vote for the upcoming primaries. Taken together, do you think Leo only has 1 vote. In the literal sense, yes - He is a separate individual person that only gets to fill out one voting form. Yet in an inter-connected holistic sense, he has expanded well more than one vote. I can contract into a mindset that I am a separate, isolated individual and my vote doesn’t matter. Or I can get inter-connected and engaged. This is how progress occurs at the social level. For example, I was talking with a guy that said he was against M4A, one reason he gave was he wanted to have choice and freedom with his health care. I asked him his source of health care and he said his employer. I told him that if he loses his job or quits, he loses his health care. He is dependent on his employer for his health care. With M4A you always have your health care. If you don’t like your job and want to leave, you always have your health care. This opens the door to new opportunities and choices. This is a freedom. . . . He said that he hadn’t thought of it like that and he likes that idea. . . In that moment, “my vote” was expanded a little bit on the social level. . . . Likewise, I have a friend that phone banked for Bernie last week. I asked her what it was like. I then asked her if we could phone bank for Bernie together next time. . . “Her vote” was just expanded a bit. . . We are all interconnected.

@Matt23 Nice insight. I’ve introspected similar. Anger can be a surface level cover over deeper insecurity, vulnerability, hurt and repressed feelings. For me, anger is usually tied me perceiving an injustice. For example, someone mistreating me or another. Anger can also be directed at myself. Perhaps have been engaging in unhealthy habits and I feel anger toward myself. Getting to the source of the anger is important, yet also how I express it. When I feel angry, do I repress it? Am I blaming others? Do I internalize it? Do I lash out at others? Do I say and do things I later regret? Am I passive aggressive to others? Anger can be a distraction to deeper issues. I dated a gal who got angry a lot - often over trivial things, like putting the soup bowls in the wrong cabinet. It wasn’t about the soup bowls, there was something deeper going on. Even suggesting something deeper was going on, got her really angry. Also, anger can form into resentment - which slowly eats away at a person’s mind, body and soul. Resentments can be carried for years or decades and alter the way one perceives reality. And repressed anger can block connecting to deeper aspects of ourselves. I was raised in an environment were anger was really bad. When my dad got angry, it was serious. The rest of the day, it was like walking on egg shells. There was an uncomfortable silence and no one wanted him to get set off again. Anger was something I avoided, in myself and others. However, there was a price to pay for that. It seems anger generally can drift toward unhealthy behavior, yet it can also have a positive. Anger can be a signal to bring awareness. The body is trying to communicate something to us. It can be a motivating force to take action and speak our truth. Yet the mind can create all sorts of angry thought stories that can send us into a tizzy. When anger arises, I generally find it best to temporarily get away from the situation. Sometimes that is sufficient. Other times, it something that should be dealt with - for example if a coworker has been overbearing and disrupting the flow of a project. I find it helpful to step back and perhaps talk to another person about it. Not someone who will bash the guy and reinforce the anger. Someone with an impartial view. She may say “Hmmm, to me it sounds like the guy is insecure about his abilities on the team and is overcompensating by being hyper controlling”. This may provide insight and recontextualuze the situation. I’ve also found how I express anger to be important. For example, I may get angry at a gf that is flirting with other guys. One way to express this anger would be passive aggressive, I could send her sarcastic texts or negatively gossip about the guy behind their backs. Or I could blame her and confront her with anger. . . . For me a better way would be to sit down with her and have a conversation. I’d tell her I’m feeling angry about her flirting and ask what’s going on. It could turn out that the anger is due to my p insecurities in the relationship. It could turn out that my gf was insecure and flirting with other guys to get me validation from me. Or perhaps she is losing interest in the relationship. Talking about this with another is a form of vulnerability because deeper layers are exposed.

Yes. I agree many men are oriented this way. I just wanted to make the point that when guys say “From the man’s perspective. . . “. it means “From the perspective of men that think with their dick. . . “. Some guys see dating and relationships more holistically in which their dick is just one of many components. I haven’t read David Deida, yet I’ve been noticing a lot of men evolving upward mention his name. It would be great to have more men like that as role models. Ime, the understanding of high conscious romantic relationships - such as the integration and embodiment of forms of communication, energetics, empath, love, sex - come from the direct experience of actually being in those high conscious relationships. It does not come from reading about it, thinking about it or even psychedelics. The deepest understanding comes from the actual experience of the ISness itself within the relationship. Yet few men have this experience.

Two fundamental reasons I find it unattractive is because it objectifies women and reduces sex to physical penetration. To me, that is unattractive. And saying it’s “disgusting from a woman’s perspective, not a male’s perspective”, are excluding all the men that find it disgusting as well. Saying “from the males perspective. . . “ - suggests it is representative of a male perspective, yet it’s not. It is a subset of men, men that have an end goal of physical sex as their single highest priority. Men that think with their dick. Not all men all like this. As well, this orientation is not very loving. It is highly self-centered. We could say “well, women are self-centered too because they seek emotional and financial support” - yet this does not change the low conscious nature of a male sexually objectifying a woman toward his own sexual desires. At best, one could say both have self-centered orientations. If so, I think it’s most beneficial to develop toward a higher conscious states than stay stuck in a contracted self-centered state. This idea of “closing” is inherently objectifying. A person closes on an object. One closes on buying a house or car. One closes on catching a loose chicken in a yard. The objective here is to “close” by inserting one penis into a vagina. And even then one hasn’t fully closed on their target - even with penis inserted she might still get away! There isn’t full closure yet. . . This talk about getting to know her, having mutual desire, getting informed genuine consent, making connections etc. all are secondary. The primary goal of “closure” is physical sex. The orientation is a “me” that wants to close on “you” - which means physical sex. The woman is included to the extent that she is the object to have sex with. The orientation of closing is that I close on you. The orientation is not we are closing together. . . The guides are all oriented toward having a sex with a female object. The stuff about connections, informed genuine consent, considering her welfare are secondary after thoughts. It’s not until one is called on it, do things like “oh yea, connection and her welfare is important too. It’s win-win”. Yet “win-win” is not the primary goal. One’s “lay count” is the number of women and sexual encounters. It is not the number of “win-win” encounters. I think there are likely some good techniques in this strategy that can help a guy developing confidence to approach and meet women. It can allow meeting new people, perhaps new contacts, friends and lovers. My problem with a lot of the talk is that it strips things down to a woman object and attaining a self desire of sex. The end goal is closure and increasing one’s “lay count”. (Each woman scores as a “count”, which is a form of objectification). Everything else is secondary. If a guy goes on a date and forms various connections with a woman and they have a wonderful time together - that ain’t it. If she says she enjoys your time together and would like todo it again, yet doesn’t feel like having sex - that ain’t “closure”. In spite of the great connections and potential platonic relationship that could form - this situation would be seen as a “failure” and “rejection” because the orientation of the “closure” goal is sex. All the stuff about connections is only relevant if it helps lead to closing on sex. With this orientation one would interpret the mutual connections and enjoyment shared with her to be a “bad” thing that screwed up my chances for sex. The guy may contextualize the connections and enjoyment as “I failed. Maybe I was too nice and she saw me as a friend”. . . I suppose some guys can find it attractive to peruse a woman primarily as an object of their sexual desire. I don’t. Ime, it’s a low conscious encounter. It would be like being in the restroom of a music festival - and feeling relief after releasing bodily fluids. . . Then staying in the restroom with no awareness that a music festival is available. That is how a subset of men see the world. Many men do not see the world that way. It’s not a “man’s perspective”. It’s a man’s perspective that is thinking with his dick. A lot of men don’t think primarily with their dick and would not share this perspective. A higher conscious perspective is available for men.

Is it ok if I ask to dream about it too?

You seem deeply immersed into this thought story. You could work your way out of it if you want.

@DreamScape Maybe you will dream about it and get answers that way. It seems like you want some juicier dream content, more than the ordinary day stuff.

Of course you are linked. You link the book and your dad. There is the experience of the book story, the experience of your dad and you linking them together. It is a triad. Sometimes stuff like this appeared and fizzled out. Other times, it would hold and persist. This allowed me to explore it. There are things we can do to invite it into our lives. And sometimes new appearances ca arise. If it were me, I would welcome it into my life. For example, I may ask it to enter my dreams at night. Perhaps also a genuine question like “please show me more about aliens can teach us intelligence”. I would then allow space. No expectations. If it enters my dream, that would take things yo the next level and my next move would depend on the content of the dream. I would go in with a open mind. If I became overly skeptical and framed it like “I want a dream to show if this is real or not”. For me, that type of energy isn’t welcoming and the chance that a new appearance arises is lower.

@DreamScape To me, the big question is would: you to venture into this realm in your dreams? To me, it doesn’t seem like it’s all “outside” of you - out there in your dad and in a book. It seems like you are linked in this and could explore more if you are curious. I could see myself resonating with story and creating a foundation for it as a theme in life. I’ve found that when stuff like this appears, I can roll with it and develop it as a new creation. Yet, this gets into areas in which the boundaries between real and imagined breakdown. Lucid dreaming revealed a lot about real and imagine - and how they are two sides of the same coin.

Some nice insights appearing. I appreciated her sense of awe and curiosity.

Find one that works for you. Each person has one or two that works best. The most commonly effective ones are: the hand/finger, looking at a watch/clock, blowing nose (my best one) and searching for odd things. One of the keys is to do them many times during the day. Perhaps once every 2 hrs. Another key is to make it as real/genuine as possible. For example, I won't simply think "It's time for a RC. . . Am I dreaming? (hold nose and blow). Nope, I'm awake". Spend about 5-10seconds getting in the right mindset. Really wonder if you are awake or dreaming. I may think "if this was a dream, it would be sooo amazing. (look around). The details and colors are amazing!! This is the type of clarity in a dream I had hoped for. . but wait a minute. . . how do I know if it's really a dream?" Then I hold my nose and blow, and think "oh, I'm awake". . . I try to get as close to "not knowing" as possible - rather than just going through the motions. The idea is that after continual practice, you will ask the same question in the dream and do the reality check. . . You are in a really good place for dream recall. If you get to do a reality check in a dream, that is a big jump up - even if it fails. My early RCs failed. Yet once one holds, it's game on. . .

The good news is, you have a relative sense of dosage. You know that "200ug" is underwhelming. A 10 day break is nearly a full reset. I agree that the week prior to a trip, it's a good thing to eat well, exercise, meditate etc. A general sense of calm. If I've spent a week stressed out and behind on a hundred things, the trip doesn't usually go as well. Some people like to set specific intentions. Perhaps a question about which direction to take to life. That resonates with some, yet not so much with me. I resonate more with general themes like "please reveal to me blocks from me going deeper", or I may be contemplating something like "how does form-formless?". Or I may be working on something like improving my empathic abilities. Sometimes the theme of the week arises in the trip, other times not. I try to stay humble and be open to whatever lessons arise. Mindset is important, yet so is setting. Generally, I think good setting are a place that I am comfortable and familiar with. Nature works as well. . . I would recommend having several options for activities. For example, I may plan to sit and meditate and that just isn't working and some dark energy arises. I may feel an impulse to move. Changing the room and activity can have a big impact. For example, heading to my bedroom and listening to music for a bit. Having people in the setting adds an unknown variable. Some people do fine with it, yet when I'm on a strong trip, people can add in an energy that can be challenging. Especially during the come-up and peak. During the comedown and afterglow, I love being around people.

The rule of thumb is double-dosage on consecutive days. If you took 200ug on tues., 600ug would be roughly the equivalent of 300ug. So it makes sense that it didn't feel much stronger. No, I full reset is about 12 days. If you did 200ug tues and 600ug wed that is 800ug worth of tolerance. A 2-3 day break would have a small tolerance decline. The 800ug might feel more like 500ug. Yet there are psychological issues. Ingesting this much LSD in a short time can cripple the "magic". I tried to trip about once every 7-10 days and it wasn't sustainable. As well, if you have the doses correct - you are dealing with some very high doses and things can get unpredictable. For example, a tolerance calculator may say 800ug would be equivalent to 500ug, yet this are enormous amounts that are leveraged - who knows, it might actually feel like 600-700ug and be way too intense. Or it could feel like 300ug again. . . It's not like you took a 100ug dose and asking about taking 200ug a few days later.

Good observation. Thank you for pointing that out. I am starting to see that.

I did not mean to imply that you said that, I am merely stating my concern. I've been a struggling incel myself, I know what it's like,. I also no what its like to be mislead and used for sex. If a struggling male is taught to approach a woman with respect (rather than a sexual object) and proceed toward a place of genuine mutual consent and desire in a way that considers her wellbeing - I have no problem with that. My impression was that was not the orientation of some of the advice given. This was the same impression as several other users, including multiple women. You are free to have any interpretation you want. I can see how you interpret it the way you do. I could hold your perspective and make an argument for it. Just because I am not holding that position and arguing for it does not mean that I do not understand the perspective and could not argue for it,. All perspectives are relative and one can hold perspectives loosely. Your interpretation is not the only. You do not own the one objectively true interpretation. As others have shown, there are other interpretations - in which both men and women are trying to communicate. To me, your interpretation is very male-centric. I am not saying it is wrong. If I was organizing a forum on this topic, I may ask you to be a representative of a male-centric view. I am not saying it is wrong. However, it is not objectively true and it is not holistic. To me, what you have been writing is very heavy on a male perspective and would resonate strongly with males that are sexually struggling, depressed or just want to get laid. And it is very light on a female perspective - which females have been trying to communicate. My impression is that the forum is very heavy on male-centric views. Especially the dating subforum. Many women have complained and many women that were great contributors have left, or rarely participate now. One reason is the hyper male-centric views. I think it is important to keep a balance. When 90% of the views are male-centric, there can be an intense energy that can be antagonistic to women (which women have expressed). When the vast majority of views are from contracted male-centric, I often ask to consider things from a female's perspective. Very often, I get a very strong backlash from that. Notice how the women have been supportive of my posts on this topic. And I regularly get positive feedback from women for trying to express how a female may see or experience things - on a forum that is hyper male-dominated. If the forum was 90% contracted female-centric views, I would be asking to consider things from a male perspective a lot more. Yet those are not the demographics and dynamics on the forum. Overall, I would like to see more female-oriented perspectives, female participation and female moderators on the forum. I think it would make the forum more balanced and healthier. Yet it's not easy to do. One reason is because the forum is hyper male-dominated. To me, this was a good opportunity to ask the men to consider their impact on women from her perspective. Did I over-react? Well from the perspective of some men, including you - yes. From the perspective of some men and women, no. Did I handle it gracefully? From your perspective and another user, no. Did I disregard the positive aspects of closing and how it can be helpful to struggling incels? Yes, I can see that. The thrust of my posts where more toward male players of game that sexually objectify women and don't consider the welfare of the woman in their sexual pursuits. Are all men like that? Of course not. Yet many are, including on this forum. The forum is very heavy on male-centrism. This imbalance is probably the most difficult for me to deal with. I'd like it to be more balanced, yet not everyone wants that and I often get a backlash from men on the forum.

I have not been referring to the OP. I have been referring to responses to the OP. No I shouldn't. I am concerned about both depressed incels as well as women that are sexually objectified and used for sex with disregard for their wellbeing. If depressed incels end up committing suicide, it does not justify objectifying and using women for sex with no regard for their welfare. I would try to help the man in pursuing women in a way that involves mutual consent and mutual desire. If an incel is not in this place, he needs to work through his issues. It is not right to use women as sexual objects to treat one's own depression. You are seeing this from the male's perspective, not the female's perspective. Yes, you have said this several times. I understand. I actually think we have quite a bit of common ground, yet our communication is not on the same frequency. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I am a full supporter for mutual consent and desire. To me, sentences such as this do not sound like a place of mutual consent and desire: "Even once you get her panties off, it's still not a lock. You can lose her at any point. You can even lose her while you're inside her!" You might interpret that as having full mutual consent and desire from the woman. I don't.

We agree here. My main point is the orientation that doesn't care if it is healthy or unhealthy. If some asks "How can I close in a healthy way?" or "How can I close in a way in which there is mutual genuine consent?", or "How can I close in a way in which I am mindful of whether sex would have a negative impact on her?". These are very different orientations than simply asking "How can I close?" with no regard for why she might be resisting and no regard for her welfare. That is my concern.

There are different orientations and intentions. You keep adding in qualifiers that assume mutual consent and mutual desire. I am not referring to that. If a couple is at a party hitting it off and they say, "let's find a place alone together to better get to know each other". That is a different situation because there is mutual consent and desire. I have no problem with that.

This is another recontextualization. If we re-define "reluctance" due to logistics or external factors - that is another context. If I am out in forest with a woman and she wants to have sex and says "I really want to have sex with you, yet I am uncomfortable doing it outside in nature". If I respond "Ok, how about we get a hotel room?" and she says "Let's do it". That is a different contextualization. You keep creating situations that remove the critical components like genuine consent and adding in concerns for her welfare. There are paths toward sex that are healthy and paths that are unhealthy and can cause harm to the woman. I am referring to women that are reluctant and just don't feel right about it. I am talking about misleading tactics that do not take into consideration the impact on her. If you add in qualifiers that recontextualize reluctance, tactics that are honest and consider her well-being - that is a different orientation, imo.

it is not either / or like that. Transparency does not mean overtly saying "will you have sex with me?". There are other ways to reveal intention. What I am talking about is refraining from dishonesty and hidden agendas. Imagine I go on a date with a woman and she starts talking about how much we have in common, that she would like to find a guy with both a physical and emotional bond and something long-term. If my intention is a one-night stand, it would be misleading for me to respond "Oh yes, I am emotionally available and I'm open to something long-term". That is misleading and manipulative. . . Or if I try to isolate a woman into a situation in which it would be harder for her to resist, that is manipulative and unhealthy.

This is another recontextualization. I did not say it cannot be "win-win". What I said is that it is a "win" for the male and can be "win, lose or draw" for the female. The unhealthy point is the disregard for the woman and the impact on her. In the original context, the male doesn't care if it is win, lose or draw for her. Framing the question as "How can I close on a woman in a way that I ensure it is a win-win for both of us?". This orientation is a conscious level higher. However, that was not the orientation of the original framing. The critical point is not on the "closing". The two issues is that the woman is reluctant and the disregard for her welfare. If you add in qualifiers about how we are sensitive to her reluctance, want genuine consent and want it to be a positive experience for her - it recontextualizes the original framing.

As I defined above it is manipulation because it is an effort to persuade a reluctant woman into sex, with non-transparent tactics. If the woman was not reluctant, things like "compliance" and "closure" would not be necessary. To me that is a key ingredient. And what was written early in the thread absolutely talked about tactics to get a reluctant woman to sex. I would say this has an unhealthy aspect to it. The other unhealthy aspect is lack of concern for impact. The orientation early in the thread is to persuade a reluctant woman to have sex with no regard for its impact on her. The impact could be positive, negative or neutral - yet it does not matter to the male with this orientation. He is hyper focused on achieving his own self-centered needs. The term "unhealthy" is relative to each person. To a male with this orientation, he may consider it "healthy". However, when both the male and female dynamics are considered, I would say it is an unhealthy orientation. You may disagree and that is fine if you want to hold the view that it is ok if you want to believe it is healthy for a guy to behave in this manner. My view has been shaped by my direct experience, yet also speaking with many men, women, psychologists etc. It is not something simply projected by a past experience. Imo, to dismiss it as such is another avoidance technique to not look at one's behavior and impact. Again, you may disagree with me and that is your prerogative. . This is a recontextualization. This was not the original context. The question of "How can I close in a way that is genuine/authentic and has connection with the woman" is a very different contextualization. You have added in qualifiers that recontextualize.

@DrewNows Ime, understanding how our behavior impacts others is an important process of consciousness work and personal development. I agree. Context is important. Here is the context of how I am using the term "manipulation". 1. There is a desire to have sex with a woman. 2. The woman is reluctant to have sex with the man. 3. The man attempts to persuade the woman to have sex with tactics that are not transparent. 4. The man is not concerned with the impact his behavior has on the woman. He is only concerned with achieving his self-centered desire for sex. Two of the key points is that the woman is reluctant. If there is no reluctance, the desire for sex is mutual and "compliance", "closing" etc. in not an issue. The two people are on the same page and they are working together to find a time and place to have sex. No manipulation is needed. The other key point is the lack of concern on the impact of manipulating a reluctant woman. From the perspective of the man, this manipulation has a good connotation. The man gets the sex he wants and the impact on the woman is irrelevant. From the perspective of the woman, the manipulation could be "good", "bad" or "neutral". This is a jump up in consciousness. A lower conscious man will not care about impact and does not understand or empathize with potential impact.