The painful reality of beautiful women 😔

[Etherial Cat]

2 minutes ago, aurum said:

The logical conclusion is that both men and women are essentially survival machines, just with different functions. Which is correct.

The point of this discussion should be to become aware of that.

I’m stepping in because the discussion here seems to have been misrepresenting femininity, and I wanted to offer some clarity.

I also disagree with the idea that we’re just survival machines. I believe we’re love machines—caught in survival mode because we’re still culturally unconscious. The end game, though, is to transcend the excesses of the survival mindset and return to love as our true nature.

 )

[aurum]

13 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

I also disagree with the idea that we’re just survival machines. I believe we’re love machines—caught in survival mode because we’re still culturally unconscious. The end game, though, is to transcend the excesses of the survival mindset and return to love as our true nature.

Well, that's why we got to have this discussion.

Awareness first, love machine second 

[Emerald]

34 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

What becomes problematic is using this reasoning to reduce men’s sole purpose to reproduction—just as Leo did with women.

If that argument held up, the logical conclusion would be that the main purpose of both genders is reproduction. Yet, this is rarely said about men. The underlying implication is often that a man's purpose transcends reproduction, while women are reduced to the role of child-bearers. In some cases, this narrative is conveniently framed to allow men to prioritize their own ambitions while women are expected to sacrifice themselves—often in the name of love or an idealized version of the 'Madonna".

Metaphysically speaking, the purpose of the Masculine isn’t simply to thrive and accomplish for itself like it's the Chad gender. Its deeper role is to love, honor, and protect the Feminine in its full expression. And in it's human form, it also means recognizing and valuing the Feminine beyond its reproductive role and checking out of its current naval gazing tendencies. 

I was considering sharing something similar.

The idea that "women's #1 value is reproduction" assumes a male-centric viewpoint.

And it could be said that, from the female-centric viewpoint, the #1 value for men is reproduction... That is, if we're actually functioning from a Darwinian scientific perspective that boils human existence down to survival and reproductive functions.

When it comes to reproduction, males and females of a sexual species exist for this very reason. Without the sexual reproductive function, there would be no such thing as male and female.

But Leo seemed to be trying to play off of this Darwinian scientific perspective for women, while exempting men from the evolutionary lens and to see men as the exempted beneficiaries of Darwinian evolution but not as participants in it.... and to view men's value as non-relational and self-contained and women's value as purely relational... and specifically dealing with the reproductive element of relational value.

But men and women have always had most of our evolutionary value wrapped up in community connection and contribution. So, everyone's evolutionary value is relational... and reproduction is just one relational evolutionary values that we all possess.

And older adults who are past their child-rearing age don't lose evolutionary value. If it were the case, women wouldn't be living so long past Menopause.

Ultimately, the Darwinian lens only describes a fraction of what a person is and is just bad science if we try to scientifically reduce half of the population to a single function.

Yet again... perhaps those in glass houses should not throw stones.  

If we look at nature beyond the human species, the primary function of the males of many different species is literally just for the purposes of reproduction and nothing more.

Let's pull a Jordan Peterson... but instead of Lobsters, let's apply Praying Mantis logic to humanity instead.  

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, thinkingmonkey3 said:

I think what he means is that men should not expect unconditional love from a woman. Her love is conditional on your ability to provide the optimal conditions (emotionally, materially, and otherwise) to support her in raising a child, particularly when compared to other potential mates.

I don't really think that's why he wrote what her wrote.

It was more of a chauvinistic gripe about woke society forgetting that women's main value and role is reproduction... which is probably more of an anti-trans reflex than anything else. But he still seems a little annoyed that women are operating outside of the ways that he feels comfortable defining and understanding women.

He really likes to have a sense that he has a hard and fast understanding of women and how we operate, but he is often reductive and inaccurate in understanding basic things about women and Femininity.

And because being misrepresented and misunderstood is one of my biggest pet peeves, I often call him out on stuff like this.

Also, he was speaking a bit like Matt Walsh in his posts, so I figured he might have just been exposing himself to some right wing propaganda that's perhaps injected its venom and taken ahold of him a bit. 

So, I think he just mentioned that he was trying to educate men about women because he got caught being sexist and was trying to find another logical explanation for the sexist gaffe when I called him out on it.  

But I don't think he considered the full implications of what he was communicating because another guy on the thread was like "Then does that mean that women are lying to themselves when they pursue a career?"

I don't think he realized that his sexism was opening up that particular can of worms that he doesn't agree with himself.

[thinkingmonkey3]

@Emerald Ok…Maybe this is a bit off-topic, but I’d really like to hear your opinion on women’s preferences. I have this limiting belief that women don’t genuinely care about me or my spiritual interests they only care about my social status, meaning how I’m perceived by society. Is that accurate in your view? If a man is considered a ‘nobody’ by society (and doesn’t look like a male model) and is completely honest, does he have any chance with a beautiful woman, or does he need to climb the social hierarchy to be with her?

 

[Raze]

I’m tired of this trend of videos about how “hard it is” to be a beautiful woman.

The comments are full of women complaining and it’s clear they are just trying to brag about being attractive.

Its nonsense because anyone can make themselves less beautiful if it was that difficult.

[Emerald]

10 minutes ago, thinkingmonkey3 said:

@Emerald Ok…Maybe this is a bit off-topic, but I’d really like to hear your opinion on women’s preferences. I have this limiting belief that women don’t genuinely care about me or my spiritual interests they only care about my social status, meaning how I’m perceived by society. Is that accurate in your view? If a man is considered a ‘nobody’ by society (and doesn’t look like a male model) and is completely honest, does he have any chance with a beautiful woman, or does he need to climb the social hierarchy to be with her?

Some women will care about your spiritual interests if she herself shares them. You just have to interact in spaces where people who are interested in spirituality congregate.

That said, most people aren't very interested in spirituality. So, you may not find very many men or women who really have a passion for it. That's why it's important to find online or in-person groups where spiritual enthusiasts congregate.

But most women don't really care about status that much. 

That said, if you're in a financial of lifestyle situation where a woman feels like she can't rely on you and doesn't feel stable/safe with you... then that will be a deal breaker for a lot of women.

Like, if I started to get interested in a guy who didn't have his life together, it would still be a deal breaker because I don't want that kind of chaos in my life because it's something I've experienced before. And I want a reliable partner that I can live a calm life with.

Lots of women are like this. But few women need some big shot guy.

But lack of godlike looks don't tend to be much a deal-breaker. Women generally look for a guy who's got looks that are conferable to her own or in the proximal range.

So, if you're a 5 and looking for a 6... then I'm sure you can find a compatible woman as long as you socialize in spaces that spiritual people tend to congregate.

But if you're a 5 and looking for a 10... you'd probably have to have some kind of special celebrity status to make that happen. And I don't know if that would even work as well on spiritual girls who are a 10.

Now, this is important... if you're a 5 who's only interested in 10s, you'd just be doing the thing that you're terrified women will do to you (only valuing the opposite sex for their looks and status). And this may be why those fears and insecurities are there in the first place as you may be fearing that women are evaluating you in the way you're evaluating them. 

But generally, women tend to gravitate to men that match them that they feel chemistry with. There's less of a focus towards landing a 10.

[Shane Hanlon]

8 hours 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?

Ok Leo, this is a rough take. Because you care about truth so much, are a genuine earnest thinker, and a lot of people look up to you, I will fully break this down for you.

Firstly, the premise that underpopulation will lead to collapse is entirely true and a serious threat to society in its current form. Without major reform almost all global societies require exponential growth. However, this take breaks down when we say that it is a larger threat than overpopulation.

Planetary Boundaries
Both overpopulation and underpopulation pose risks of collapse, but their consequences differ significantly. Underpopulation threatens the collapse of human society, while overpopulation endangers not only human society but also the Earth's life-supporting systems. In essence, the fate of all life on Earth hangs in the balance.

We know this because planetary boundaries (This site is rich with good information on our planet) are breached. Meaning that if we continue to extract and destroy ecosystems at the same rate we are now, we will threaten and ultimately collapse the life giving systems of the planet. Think of it like maintaining a 50% calorie deficit for months. Eventually, your human system will fail and collapse. You are taking more than you are giving.

And what drives the destruction of planetary systems? To make it simple but still relatively accurate, you can think of it as destruction =  average consumption/person x human population. 

Global GDP is over 99% correlated with energy use and materials. I know. It seems hard to believe given how almost no one knows this. But it is true. I ran the numbers myself.

You can download the datasets and use chatgpt to find the correlation coefficient if you want to check yourself. (Has to be global gdp and global energy use because all of the economic value captured by selling the iphone goes to Apple in America but so much of the supply chain is elsewhere. however, not all of the energy use in the supply chain is captured by America).

The data I used:
Global GDP - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/national-gdp-wb?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL
Global Energy Consumption - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution
Result - https://chatgpt.com/share/67622af1-0dc8-800c-a87e-c62af50dca8d
 

Technological advancement and energy.

If we refer back to the global energy consumption chart:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution
We have increasingly created more green energy (which costs a lot of upfornt energy and materials to create) but that has not stopped fossil fuels to continue increasing exponentially. It has just slightly lowered the exponent. Green energy has been more like energy addition rather than energy replacement.

And whats worse, is that the first things technological advancement (especially AI) is being applied to is:
- How to drill more oil more efficiently. This means more emissions.

- How to create more synthetic chemicals.

- Enhancing military tech

- Accelerating mining and deforestation and resource extraction

- developing more addictive products

- Creating more effective marketing

 

And to fully debunk the claim that more technology will save us, we must look at jevons paradox. The Jevons paradox is an economic phenomenon that describes how technological progress can lead to increased resource consumption, rather than reduced consumption.

Further Jevons paradox reading:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julius-Mcgee/publication/285643149_Understanding_the_Jevons_paradox/links/5bdb72704585150b2b982762/Understanding-the-Jevons-paradox.pdf?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-024-05766-0?


Example of Jevons paradox:

Imagine you’re heating your home. Old heaters are inefficient, so they use a lot of energy to keep your house warm. This makes heating expensive, so people try to use it sparingly—maybe they only heat one room or turn it off at night.

Now, let’s say someone invents a new heater that’s super efficient. It uses way less energy to do the same job. Sounds great, right? You’d think this would mean we’d use less energy overall because each heater uses less.

But here’s the catch: because heating is now cheaper to run, people start using it more. Maybe they heat their whole house instead of just one room. Maybe they leave the heat on all night because it’s so affordable. And on a bigger scale, businesses might start heating bigger offices, or new factories pop up in cold places because heating them is no longer so costly.

Even beyond that, cheaper energy costs make new markets and industries profitable. For example, a factory that wasn’t worth building before might now make financial sense because running it uses less energy per unit of production. So more factories are built, more energy is used, and the total energy demand goes up, even though each machine or heater is more efficient.

This is Jevons Paradox: improving energy efficiency often leads to using more energy overall, not less, because efficiency makes energy cheaper and easier to use, driving more demand across the board. It’s a bit counterintuitive, but it helps explain why just improving technology isn’t enough to solve our energy and climate problems.

 

Agriculture:

When we dive into the economic sectors that drive the most destruction of the planet, we find agriculture as the number one suspect. It isn't the most destructive in only emissions, but it is a larger driver of every planetary boundary that is currently breached. Most fresh water is diverted for growing crops, most land system change is for farmland, many novel chemicals are biocides for agriculture, phosphorous and nitrogen flows are disrupted almost entirely due to nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers and extracting nutrients from the soils without regenerating it, and it is top 3 emissions of fossil fuels.  Agriculture destroys thriving ecosystems with so much biodiversity in order to replace it with a single species of plant and then soak it in biocides to make sure no other organisms can exist there. Then it is littered with synthetic fertilizer to grow as much as possible as fast as possible. This converts nutrients into the soil which then is taken and shipped across the planet. This extracts from our soils and makes them desertified and lifeless.

Animal agriculture then multiplies the degradation - https://www.josephpoore.com/Science 360 6392 987 - Accepted Manuscript.pdf

Some points of reference:

Wildlife populations have declined by over 70% in the last 50 years. - https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/catastrophic-73-decline-in-the-average-size-of-global-wildlife-populations-in-just-50-years-reveals-a-system-in-peril

Toxic PFAS chemicals are in all rainwater across the world beyond safe levels. And it never ever ever breaks down. - https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765

Only 6% of US forests have not been degraded by human activity - https://wilderness.org/articles/blog/what-makes-old-growth-forest-it-depends-more-just-age?utm_source=chatgpt.com#

Humans and our livestock make up over 96% of all mammalian biomass on Earth - https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass

By 2050, there could be more plastic than fish in the ocean by weight if current trends continue. https://www.weforum.org/press/2016/01/more-plastic-than-fish-in-the-ocean-by-2050-report-offers-blueprint-for-change/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Atmospheric CO₂ levels are at 420 ppm, higher than at any point in at least 800,000 years, with the last time it was this high corresponding to a world where sea levels were 20 meters (65 feet) higher. - https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

Conclusion:

Human population and consumption are what are driving the destruction of our planet. Everything we rely upon whether food or water or shelter originates from our planet. If we continue to grow exponentially the whole planet and society collapses. If we stop growing exponentially, we may save our planet but risk societal collapse. The way through is by moving to a post-growth society. Where outputs/waste become inputs and we stop extracting.

You cannot have exponential growth on a finite planet forever.

 

And if you aren't convinced by me. Daniel Schmachtenberger agrees. I'm not totally sure which podcast it was but Daniel Schmachtenberger was asked a similar question. Paraphrasing:

Host: What do you think about declining birth rates? Elon Musk seems to be very worried about it.

Daniel: I don't think we should continue a society that demands exponential growth just to not collapse.

[Lyubov]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

How flippant.

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

A male professor and friend of mine who is my senior and not from a western post modern country one time explained to me when having a problem with a mutual friend of ours who is female that because of the magnitude of her ability to bring into existence new life that any emotional issue or problem with her should just be let go and consider this is the primary factor of why she is seeking conflict and to just let it go and it will pass. 

[Letho]

@Shane Hanlon there so many evil, delinquent, rubbish fucks in the world that I am definitely pro-eugenics and not even first and foremost concerning physical genetics, I just mean morally speaking. If you're a good person, you've gotta sometimes go out of your way to download that stuff off the internet otherwise you're like me and you'll walk around a bit blind as to the disturbing demographics we have in society. Let's have exponential growth of a cockroach infestation, yeah not the brightest idea and I don't trust Musk's tripe less or more than I trust his enemies other than to say you've just gotta call bullshit where there's bullshit in these situations unless you personally know someone and even then, where are the conversational lines of truth drawn. Regardless anyone if you're reading this, just tell someone to have a great day and genuinely mean it for Christ's sakes the world's more and more getting off on the dumbest stuff just looking into the Luigi Mangione rabbit whole a little bit.

Sincerely, have a great day yal! 🙏 🌍🎄

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Letho

[Emerald]

@Shane Hanlon 100%

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Lyubov said:

A male professor and friend of mine who is my senior and not from a western post modern country one time explained to me when having a problem with a mutual friend of ours who is female that because of the magnitude of her ability to bring into existence new life that any emotional issue or problem with her should just be let go and consider this is the primary factor of why she is seeking conflict and to just let it go and it will pass. 

That's the problem with reducing people down to a single function... The real motivations of the person get overlooked in favor of an over-simplified projection and it becomes impossible for that person to be seen, heard, and understood by others as that person has been put in a "don't listen to them" box.

This is exactly why misrepresentation is such a huge problem... and why I'm always getting onto people about it.

Once people have an explanation as to why they don't have to listen to you, they just don't listen to you anymore.... even at their own expense.

And once people think they understand you (especially if they think they understand you better than you understand yourself), they become unreceptive to genuinely understanding you.

And it's very convenient for those who would rather not listen or understand to come up with an explanation to hand-wave away someone's perspective.

And it has historically been the case that women have been viewed as simply irrational because of the way our bodies function differently from men's. And there have always been people calling us crazy, looney, etc. so that they don't need to listen.

And there is the old saying, "A woman is to be loved and not understood" that's so insidious because that which can't be understood won't be loved and no needs will be met. If a person isn't understood, they can only be projected upon.

Of course, operating this way makes the projecting party a lot more ignorant and unreceptive to wisdom and intimacy.. but it's a problem that they caused for themselves because of their arrogance. And they at least have control over fixing that issues.

But for a person who has a projection laid on top of them, it becomes impossible to be seen and heard by the one who projects. And if the entire society does that to you... you're totally fucked. It's why so many women were lobotomized in fairly recent history due to their "hysteria".

Specifically with regard to your professor... if a woman has an issue with someone, it's silly to write it off that the conflict is just coming from "the magnitude of her ability to bring existence into new life." 

Number one, I don't see why possessing that power to create new life would lead someone to seek conflict on those grounds in the first place.

Like, I'm a woman (and I have two children) and I don't even have a clue what it would even entail to seek conflict because of my ability to create people. Like, what's the function of the conflict? I genuinely don't understand your professor's rationale.

But more importantly, there's plenty of reasons why a person could have conflict with someone else. And conflict is usually based around being unable to communicate one's needs and/or being misunderstood by the other person.

So, what your professor suggested would just add more fuel to the fire of conflict because all the times she'd go to set boundaries or communicate her needs and feelings would be hand-waved off as just "reproductive power based conflict" when perhaps she's getting upset because she's not being listened to properly... or something else that she hasn't crystallized well enough to articulate yet.

[Letho]

@Basman just more crap.

[gambler]

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

I was considering sharing something similar.

The idea that "women's #1 value is reproduction" assumes a male-centric viewpoint.

And it could be said that, from the female-centric viewpoint, the #1 value for men is reproduction... That is, if we're actually functioning from a Darwinian scientific perspective that boils human existence down to survival and reproductive functions.

When it comes to reproduction, males and females of a sexual species exist for this very reason. Without the sexual reproductive function, there would be no such thing as male and female.

But Leo seemed to be trying to play off of this Darwinian scientific perspective for women, while exempting men from the evolutionary lens and to see men as the exempted beneficiaries of Darwinian evolution but not as participants in it.... and to view men's value as non-relational and self-contained and women's value as purely relational... and specifically dealing with the reproductive element of relational value.

But men and women have always had most of our evolutionary value wrapped up in community connection and contribution. So, everyone's evolutionary value is relational... and reproduction is just one relational evolutionary values that we all possess.

And older adults who are past their child-rearing age don't lose evolutionary value. If it were the case, women wouldn't be living so long past Menopause.

Ultimately, the Darwinian lens only describes a fraction of what a person is and is just bad science if we try to scientifically reduce half of the population to a single function.

Yet again... perhaps those in glass houses should not throw stones.  

If we look at nature beyond the human species, the primary function of the males of many different species is literally just for the purposes of reproduction and nothing more.

Let's pull a Jordan Peterson... but instead of Lobsters, let's apply Praying Mantis logic to humanity instead.  

All of what you wrote can be true without negating that women’s reproductive role far exceeds a man. All a man has to do is ejaculate into a woman. He can leave her without knowing she’s pregnant with his child.

But he does not spend months carrying a child, multiple times over in various pregnancies. He does not spend time feeding the child. He does not have the same nurturing predisposition as the woman. There’s no parity.

All of humanity’s primary function is to survive and reproduce, but a man historically shouldered more of the burden of survival, whereas the woman took on more of the reproductive burden. 

Edited 18 minutes ago by gambler

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, Etherial Cat said:

Framing women solely as ‘baby-makers’ not only diminishes our full humanity and capacities to do other things but also implies that men alone hold inherent value

Nothing like this was said. This is your own construction.

Edited 11 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

The idea that "women's #1 value is reproduction" assumes a male-centric viewpoint.

No.

Edited 9 minutes ago by Leo Gura