The painful reality of beautiful women 😔

[Princess Arabia]

5 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

@Sugarcoat @Princess Arabia All i said is that dressing is essentially a process of seduction in a social context, even if it is unconscious/repressed.

Discussion is not possible because you are not trying to understand but rather to twist what  am saying for passive aggressive purposes. Trying to convince yourself that the world is against you.

I wish you a lot of fun.

 

That's a bit extreme to think that the world is against me. I think no such thing. People trying to control the masses and succeeding, yes, but I don't take it personal. The world doesn't see me, it sees commodities and consumers.

Edited Monday at 11:35 PM by Princess Arabia

[Lyubov]

Everyone is racing to occupy the victim role. Everyone to some degree faces challenges in life. Whether you’re beautiful or not you’ve got it pretty good if you have a relatively stable life. My heart goes out to anyone affected by violence in a war. Free Palestine and stop these wars for good!

[Emerald]

On 12/15/2024 at 10:55 AM, Leo Gura said:

Women themselves value this. Which is why they are obssesed with cosmetics, clothes, hair, eyelashes, botox, and depressed from watching Instagram.

A woman's #1 value is reproduction. Not according to me. According to biology. People have completely lost touch with what a woman's function is: to raise children.

Again, not according to me. According to 300,000 years of human history.

People have become so post-modern they are now stupid. Can't even understand what a woman is.

There is an issue of over-population that is creating a lot of large scale issues like climate change. And this is a problem that humanity has never faced with before.

And if every woman still saw their primary value as reproduction and focused on having a 5-10 babies like women have been made to in generations past to have more farmhands, it would cause the population to expand when it needs to contract in order for humanity to avoid huge global problems.

This is why Stage Green movements like Feminism have arisen at this juncture in history in the first place... to offset and balance out old survival adaptations that are now counter-productive... and having a ton of babies is one of them, as is having women's sole life purpose as motherhood and only men in positions of societal influence. 

Before, it was always man vs Mother Nature. And we needed to be hyper-Masculine as a society to survive against the powerful forces of nature. 

But now, the Masculine power of our species' societal and technological development matches and threatens to exceed the Feminine power of nature. And we have become cancerous to the planet because of our excessive Masculinity.

Because of this, the things we've always done to survive in the past will now backfire because our societal technology .

So, women need to gain more societal power beyond motherhood in order for society to adapt as a patriarchal species cannot survive long in a post-industrial world without totally destroying itself. And both male and female leaders must learn to govern in a way that integrates the Feminine.

So with what you said, how are we even defining what "value" means in this context? Value isn't static, it changes as our society changes.

If value means survival value, then we're much more likely to survive and thrive as a species if we're having fewer babies.

If you're looking from a Darwinian perspective, then it's all about adaptations that make us more fit to the enrironment. And that changes as the environment changes.

Up until the industrial age, it was evolutionarily advantageous for women to have as many babies as possible and to dedicate all their time to that.

Once you get to the industrial age, you have technological changes that enable and even necessitate women to individuate. And with individuation, the toothpaste can't just go back into the tube because there are people who don't understand the macrocosmic societal changes that are happening now.

[Leo Gura]

13 hours ago, Emerald said:

There is an issue of over-population

A much bigger problem will be under-population. There will be bad economic collapse if developed nations don't breed more.

The entire global economy assumes constant growth. All that will come crashing down without more babies. More babies means more technological innovation to fix the climate problems. Climate will not be fixed by cutting back but by better tech.

Without babies, who is gonna mine the cobalt for your phone battery?

Edited 14 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Schizophonia]

17 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

That's a bit extreme to think that the world is against me. I think no such thing. People trying to control the masses and succeeding, yes, but I don't take it personal. The world doesn't see me, it sees commodities and consumers.

You and sugarcoat like to complain about the pressure on women to tacitly explain why you can't find the Prince Charming.

This is femcelism, reverse incel ruminations; it's about complaining about not getting the soup you don't give.

 

 

[Sugarcoat]

13 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

You and sugarcoat like to complain about the pressure on women to tacitly explain why you can't find the Prince Charming.

This is femcelism, reverse incel ruminations; it's about complaining about not getting the soup you don't give.

 

 

Not having the Prince Charming is the least of my concerns 😹

 

Edited 51 minutes ago by Sugarcoat

[Emerald]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

A much bigger problem will be under-population. There will be bad economic collapse if developed nations don't breed more.

The ebb in the population will likely cause some economic problems... but it's also a short term problem that we will have plenty of time to adapt to as it will take several generations for that to happen.

So, I have serious doubts that the declining birth rate will lead to economic collapse because most developed nations are pretty close to the the 2.1 replacement rate.

But any short terms problem caused by a declining birth rate will lead to a better prognosis in the long-term for our species and all the other species on this planet.

So, even if there is an economic collapse (which is a big 'if'), it's better and more survivable to have an economic collapse than an ecological collapse.

The current state of our economic system is reliant upon constant expansion.

But you simply can't have infinite growth and expansion on a finite planet without causing extinction for our species and others. 

This is what I mean by excessive Masculinity.

The Masculine principle is all about expansion while the Feminine principle is about contraction.

And we see all expansion as good and all contraction as bad because we are out of touch with nature.... and we prefer only the Masculine principled polarity.

To keep going as we are will eventually cause the quickly burning star of capitalism to use 'up all its fuel' and collapse into a black hole... and we will get swallowed up by the powerful forces of nature.

So, we need to ebb as well as flow. And if we allow space for integrating (Feminine) ebbing... Mother Nature won't swallow us entirely.

The population is naturally ebbing. So, let it ebb. It is the intelligence of the feedback systems of nature acting within us that's causing us to have fewer children.

Also, if it's such a huge problem in your opinion... why haven't you had kids?

Why finger wag at people for forgetting that women's "#1 value" is reproduction when you're 'part of the problem' by your own definition.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Emerald said:

most developed nations are pretty close to the the 2.1 replacement rate.

They are getting way under that.

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Why finger wag at people for forgetting that women's "#1 value" is reproduction when you're 'part of the problem' by your own definition.

I am not telling women to have kids. Do whatever you want.

But to understand what women are requires understanding their survival function.

My role here is not to tell women what to do but to help make sense of them. If you want to understand a creature you better take its survival functions seriously.

Edited 14 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Schizophonia]

6 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Not having the Prince Charming is the least of my concerns 😹

Of course it is, you spend a lot of time ruminating on the physical and tacitly sending peaks here on how "yes we can easily sleep with someone it does not mean that we can have quality men", sometimes more targeted and mean stuff.
Now you protect yourself for some reason by bringing the question back to your main problem, as if that would make all that disappear.

[Princess Arabia]

15 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

You and sugarcoat like to complain about the pressure on women to tacitly explain why you can't find the Prince Charming.

This is femcelism, reverse incel ruminations; it's about complaining about not getting the soup you don't give.

 

 

Lol. You live in fantasy land my love. I don't know who told you I was trying to find Prince charming. I never said I was looking. You interpreted my words as meaning such. Oh poor dear you, I wonder how much more of life have you misinterpreted in that handsome little head of yours. Us women can get so misinterpreted as the pretty little princess looking for the prince on the white horse and the sweet little nurturing kind and loving feminine doll. Oh no, don't be fooled. Some of us are witches just looking to tear the house down and break up the silly game of finding Mr prince and being the frog instead.

[Sugarcoat]

6 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Of course it is, you spend a lot of time ruminating on the physical and tacitly sending peaks here on how "yes we can easily sleep with someone it does not mean that we can have quality men", sometimes more targeted and mean stuff.
Now you protect yourself for some reason by bringing the question back to your main problem, as if that would make all that disappear.

By physical you mean physical appearance? Nowadays I don’t worry too much about it all. It’s very subtle for me. I’ve told you I’m trying to loose a little weight (although I’m already slim) so maybe I give of that impression but once again it’s quite subtle for me not something big. 

Me writing about for example our looks obsessed society is not a complaint, I don’t feel anything about it when I write it. It’s just discussing a point.

In the same way me writing about how women can easily sleep with men but that doesn’t mean she finds men of quality is also not a compliant . Once again I don’t feel anything about it when I write it. It’s discussion. 

I don’t have an emotional relationship to these topics. And it is true that I don’t worry about finding a partner at all. 

 

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I am not telling women to have kids. Do whatever you want.

But to understand what women are requires understanding their survival function.

My role here is not to tell women what to do but to help make sense of them.

I'm pretty sure that most people over the age of two already know that women are the ones that have the babies. And I don't think anyone's in disagreement that women are the ones getting pregnant.

So, what is the rationale here?

What are you even trying to help men understand about women when you say women's #1 value is reproduction? How does that help men?

If anything, it could harm them if they come to see reproductive value as women's sole value as they won't be able to have a relationship with a fully well-rounded female human being who is far more than just her reproductive value. That's the issue with scientific reductionism.

Also, what qualifies you as an expert in these matters? Reading books? Doing pick up?

It honestly (even if it's not your intention) comes across more as a schooling women about their role and value in society... and as a way to say that modern society is making a mistake and going too woke by allowing women to have roles and values in society outside of motherhood.

[Schizophonia]

11 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Lol. You live in fantasy land my love. I don't know who told you I was trying to find Prince charming. I never said I was looking. You interpreted my words as meaning such. Oh poor dear you, I wonder how much more of life have you misinterpreted in that handsome little head of yours. Us women can get so misinterpreted as the pretty little princess looking for the prince on the white horse and the sweet little nurturing kind and loving feminine doll. Oh no, don't be fooled. Some of us are witches just looking to tear the house down and break up the silly game of finding Mr prince and being the frog instead.

 

1)My message was a bit aggressive, i was "in my anima" as @Emerald would say lol, so sorry if it offended you.

2)I still think what I said, but you don't see it because you are not used to contemplating your psychology and that of others.
There is a reason why you end up on this forum instead of elsewhere.
There is a reason why you post on dating instead of elsewhere.
There is a reason why you insist on what men think and that kind of thing, usually with negative emotions.
Etcetc.

Everything has an emotional reason that drives you to think and declare an opinion, a belief, and act on certain ways.

Then it's about asking yourself

"why would I complain that there is too much pressure on women (tacitly on "me")"

and the answer that comes automatically is :

"because I'm afraid of not being pretty enough".

And then "why am I afraid of not being pretty?" :

"because I would like to have someone that i estimate good enough for me".

And so on.

Edited 13 hours ago by Schizophonia

[Princess Arabia]

11 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

so sorry if it offended you.

No, I wasn't offended. I don't think my response showed I was even bothered by it, only a bit entertained.

As far as the rest of your comment, it's just your mind making up stories and making sense of reality. It's all empty reasonings and a way for us to feel human and to matter. Life don't give a shit about our explanations and storybook land. All that explaining was cleverly put together by the cunning mind and take all that away, you have raw truth of what happened and it was just letters on a friggin screen that means nothing. Love you.

Edited 13 hours ago by Princess Arabia

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I'm pretty sure that most people over the age of two already know that women are the ones that have the babies.

How flippant.

Understanding how a woman's survival functions shape her behavior and psychology is a very non-trivial matter.

[Xonas Pitfall]

@Leo Gura Hmmm... What are some key insights into the correlations between women's survival functions, trends, and preferences, and modern and general female behavior? What are the insights for men in the same manner?

Edited 13 hours ago by Xonas Pitfall

[AION]

58 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

A much bigger problem will be under-population. There will be bad economic collapse if developed nations don't breed more.

The entire global economy assumes constant growth. All that will come crashing down without more babies. More babies means more technological innovation to fix the climate problems. Climate will not be fixed by cutting back but by better tech.

Without babies, who is gonna mine the cobalt for your phone battery?

AI will solve this problem. It will create unlimited wealth. This tech will be madly advanced in 50 years and blow everybody’s mind. Literally. 

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, AION said:

AI will solve this problem. It will create unlimited wealth. This tech will be madly advanced in 50 years and blow everybody’s mind. Literally. 

Fantasies.

The wealth from AI will be hoarded by a handful of elites while the majority remain wage slaves serving the AI overlords.

Edited 13 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

@Leo Gura Hmmm... What are some key insights into the correlations between women's survival functions, trends, and preferences, and modern and general female behavior? What are the insights for men in the same manner?

That would require a whole book to explain.