Posts by copperfox22

Nicholas King said:Brutal honesty is really just selfishness wrapped up in a thin layer of self-righteousness.

Maybe if you weren't holding such a rigid stance, you might actually be able to look at things from a different angle—a third, or even a fifth perspective. If you could step into someone else's shoes for a moment, you might realize that people often act based on their own internal compass, simply trying to treat others the way they themselves would want to be treated.

That's how you end up with all sorts of types: you have the manipulators who lie just to gain leverage over people, then you have those "empathetic" liars who can't stomach hurting anyone's feelings so they lie out of pity. Then there are the ones who claim to be empathetic but don't actually care about anyone else; they just lack the backbone to tell the truth, so they sugarcoat everything. 🤣
And let's not forget the people who aren't even aware they're lying to themselves, which inevitably leads to them unintentionally deceiving everyone else.
At the end of the day, you've got all kinds of people driven by all kinds of motives. 🙂

Try swapping out "lie" for "truth" in all of this and see if that broadens your perception a bit.

(To be blunt) It’s all pretty situational, depending on how you choose to frame it. 😉

Do I know? 🤷
Honestly, it's not like I spend my days obsessing over that question.

I see myself more as a traveler who just stays quiet and leaves it at that. Just sliding along that trail without making a fuss. No heavy-handed judging, no sweeping conclusions.

I don't really have goals. Truthfully.

You know that art is found in every single step
You know that failure is actually every goal
If you can just find the right rhythm
That’s who you are (are, are, are)
😍

mistygull1 said:In a way, yes... one of my seven personalities is constantly laughing at the others. It’s actually quite amusing, and since we’ve all grown accustomed to the laughter, we live together in complete harmony. 😁

I couldn't have put it better myself.🤣

And it's not just about being funny—I can hold my own in just about anything else, too.😁

Morgan Gonzalez56 said:Personally, I think there is something truly beautiful about a person who refuses to let negativity stick to them—someone so composed and gracious that playing the victim simply isn't in their nature. Maybe you see it as an act or being pretentious, but trust me, there is nothing more graceful than being completely unshakable. 🙂

I have to sign off on this one. 🙂

Donna Lopez4 said:How on earth can the ego be the source of all evil?
The ego is the "glue" holding every other part of a person together—without an ego, there is no "you."

All this talk about denying the ego that I see floating around here is like refusing to open a single room in a house; it’s just pure delusion to think it doesn't exist while the dust and lack of airflow make the whole damn place stink.

Watching people debate whether the ego is good or evil is honestly hilarious to me... this constant demonizing of the ego is like arguing: is a knife a good tool or an evil one? Is it better if it's red or yellow? .

Instead of wasting time on why don't we focus on how to master the knife and what it's actually meant for?.

The ego is nothing more than vanity. 🙂

It isn't actually about self-love; it’s more of a narcissistic obsession with oneself.
Essentially, it acts as a brake on a person's ability to grow and move forward through life.

Susan Price30 said:This is interesting, 😁 though the tricky part is—how do you remember without harboring resentment? How do you actually separate the two? It’s incredibly difficult.

In my view, as long as we remember, we haven't truly forgiven. We might say the right things or mean well, but unless we forgive from the depths of our soul as Jesus taught, we haven't achieved it.

The true sign is when we stop dwelling on it—when there is no longer an active memory of the sin inflicted upon us. Only then have we found peace with ourselves and everyone else.

That's a pretty interesting way to look at the brain—sort of like a "write-erase" function.

Forgiving without forgetting—not holding a grudge, but moving on—is essentially an emotional detachment from the act itself. Emotions are just ego, by the way. Once you detach your true "self" from the ego, it becomes invulnerable, "untouchable," and indifferent, which means there isn't even a need to forgive. In other words, you forgive, but you don't forget, because in this dimension, what you are includes your physical body, which includes your brain. The brain doesn't just delete information, but the spirit forgives because, fundamentally, there is nothing to forgive when nothing was ever truly threatened or damaged at its core.

The ego: the absolute root of all evil.
It’s a pure narcissist.
Think of it as an ego as massive as a mansion, yet just as fragile as a thin sheet of glass.
The ego won't even let you experience forgiveness, because once you forgive, the ego dies.
Destroy that ego, and you will literally gain everything.

Ever since the moderators mistypanther and Brandon Castillo4 took over the US subforum, the whole vibe has shifted. On one hand, you’ve got a specific group of users practically throwing a parade for the moderators' unique "style." On the other hand, a lot of people were pretty blindsided by how they actually carry themselves—which mostly involves insults, belittling others, and throwing around slurs. Naturally, any posts calling out this kind of behavior were scrubbed immediately, so that part shouldn't come as a surprise.

I’ve been around the US forum long enough to notice that you, mistywolf17, have really started acting like you own the place ever since you got some guys backing you up. Don't think for a second that people are blind or stupid; even if they don't feel comfortable posting publicly or just don't want the drama, the frustration is definitely being voiced in private messages.

The US forum used to be a space dedicated to i venting about being a lonely heart, but it has morphed into a playground where certain users basically just tear apart anyone who doesn't fit their mold.

That said, after a few pointed comments were made, there has been a noticeable shift. The language and the general attitude have toned down slightly, becoming somewhat more civil. It's telling, though.

Personally, all of this just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I haven't felt personally insulted or targeted, but still—just so we're clear—shit is shit, no matter how much people try to sweep it under the rug.

A little less ego and a little more self-awareness wouldn't hurt anyone.

aqua 🙂

No way. You've already changed your username once before.

signature

Lawrence Bailey77 said:And we’re discussing the psychology of genitalia... I suppose if that is where you intend to take things, there isn't much room left for any truly profound subjects, is there? 🤣

Come on, admit it—this is way more profound than anything involving actual sense or logic. 😁

restlessviper5 said:Honestly? It just comes down to a lack of... well, let's call it masculine presence. Both literally and metaphorically. In the bedroom and out of it. Women end up suffering because of this perceived deficit, which then turns into resentment toward men. And if we're being real about why women feel so physically and socially sidelined, it traces back to a long history of male chauvinism—men degrading women simply to compensate for their own insecurities. So, what do we get? A massive pile of frustrated women and a bunch of idiots for men. Real gentlemen wouldn't cause any of this trouble. Just something to keep in mind. 😁

Oh boy, how did I miss this incredibly profound intellectual discourse?!

I think I might be a lost cause, honestly. 😬

I’m with silentnomad23 on this one. She’s a real woman through and through, with all the right equipment down there. 😁

If you ask me, the core essence of things always stays the same. Everything else? That’s just subject to change—whether it's an upgrade or just tearing down what was already there.

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose when you say a "male" world, you mean a sphere of power dominated by attitudes of opposition and dominance, whereas a "female" world would be characterized by submission and resignation. Even though Western Christianity established submission as its fundamental stance, historically—following the Council of Nicaea—it functioned through dominance and opposition. In the last 300 years, it has leaned mostly toward opposition, which brings it closer to Judaism and Freemasonry, both of which foster an oppositional stance. Nazism was essentially a failed attempt to force Christianity and the West back into a purely dominant posture. On the other hand, Islam has historically occupied both dominant and oppositional roles, though today the dominance seems more pronounced; meanwhile, Eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism tend to develop a resigned attitude, which I guess is necessary for controlling large, impoverished masses. Secularization and the modernization of society just seem to strengthen this oppositional drive, so secular feminism remains stuck within that same loop, unable to trigger a true paradigm shift. It stays stuck on that line of thinking regarding power versus powerlessness, rulers versus slaves, and so on. Since resignation as a stance can't really bring about any renewal, I assume that when you talk about liberating the world through feminine values, you see it as a restoration of a submissive stance—something calling upon the "eternal feminine" within us all, much like how Taoists perceive it, but perhaps without too much dualistic hair-splitting between yang and yin. Taoism really emphasized the importance of a spirituality where a man develops his inner feminine qualities to become more complete. Since everyone carries both "masculine" and "feminine" traits, maybe a new spirituality would assume gender equality where everyone develops their inner submissiveness. This could liberate a civilization currently mired in dominance and opposition. It would lead to a total reversal in thinking where letting go of power and refusing to exploit others becomes desirable, encouraging altruism to such an extent that exploiting anyone would be viewed as a crime. The evolution of human consciousness would likely lead to biological evolution too, where an altruistic human (perhaps *homo sapiens altruisticus*) non-violently displaces—or if I may say, "eradicates," since that is an old-fashioned 😁 paradigm—the old violent and egoistic *homo sapiens*. This would probably happen through a combination of natural talents (like intuition or higher intelligence) and advanced technology, via "emergence" and networked IT systems using a bottom-up principle rather than top-down planning and enforcement. That would be some kind of "brave new world" where there are no wars or crimes, and perhaps even no sex or reproduction as we know it today (sex might mostly be tantric, maybe even without physical contact or perhaps via computer terminals, while reproduction would happen in vitro and in incubators, just so women aren't used as mere biological machines). But then again, people (including women) who have been satiated by their own prosperity following centuries of technological progress without war would probably end up keeping some examples of the former human species—mostly men, I guess—in natural island or "rural Midwest" preserves, just so they could occasionally experience the pleasure of primal, raw passions and physical sex, where unrefined opposition and dominance still prevail.😲🤣

I suppose a man, given his current spiritual state—which seems so heavily built upon this rigid, sharp dualism—might find himself unable to truly break free from isolation. In fact, I suspect his sense of being alone might even deepen. It feels like he’ll eventually end up in a sort of reservation, much like how Native Americans were moved, though perhaps more as a conscious choice within a liberated society. It would be a place where the physical differences between the sexes no longer carry the oppressive, highly ideological weight they seem to hold today.

Man, I've been sounding the alarm for ages about how the traditional man is practically extinct at this point. 🤣

So, where exactly are these reservations supposed to be? 😳

You really went on a roll there, didn't you?😬

dustyskipper3 said:I guess I have remembered you from quite some time ago, too. Maybe.

Quincy:

I suppose I’ll respond to this, just like I do with everything else... I don't really know how to put it, but I'll just be honest and stay true to myself, I guess. So, here goes: I suppose I am looking for spirit, primarily... not just some specialized "intellect" or raw brainpower. What I'm really after is character and temperament—true personality. As for what I bring to the table? Well, I guess I'm giving everything. 🤣 Once I finally track down what I'm looking for, naturally... regarding everything you just mentioned... I suppose one has to wonder if surrendering the body might actually cause the spirit to suffer? Or perhaps perish? As for my own physical self, there isn't really anything particularly remarkable or significant about it that would allow such a level of spirit to be perceived, I guess.😁So, yeah... I suppose that solution is out of the question. It just doesn't seem to work. Maybe we should look at this other thing... I suppose... they might think I'm an easy target. Or maybe just someone who's too soft. I guess it's possible they'll see me that way.I mean, honestly, whenever I hear someone using that specific phrase, I can’t help but feel like they’re trying too hard to sound "spiritual." It just feels a bit off to me, I guess. As for those options you mentioned... well, they don't really apply to how I operate. For me, it's more simple than that, maybe. Once I finally stumble upon what I'm actually looking for, I just sort of let go. I give everything—my whole self, my energy, all of it—completely spontaneously and without any filter. And at the same time, I'm absorbing what others are putting out there. If our energies happen to bleed into one another, then we just kind of become one, I suppose. 😍It isn't really that deep, I suppose. There isn't much philosophy to it, honestly.

I suppose you should be looking for spirit above all else. If someone is only focused on the physical aspect, then options two and three just... they don't really work for me. I guess that’s the best way to look at it long-term, anyway. I mean, bodies tend to fade pretty quickly, and even a strong mind can crack under enough pressure or just eventually wear down. But a spirit? Once that spark is lit, it stays lit forever. It doesn't just go out. At least, not in people who actually possess that kind of extraordinary soul—the kind of thing you're searching for. Though, I suppose you can't exactly see that from a distance or at first glance. You sort of have to experience it to know. And there is always that risk, I guess, of being disappointed if you realize too late that what you found isn't actually what you were after.

I guess I should probably start by saying that... well, maybe it's just me, but I've been thinking quite a bit about what was said earlier. It feels like there's a certain weight to these discussions, though I might be overthinking things. Perhaps. I suppose one could look at it from another angle, if they wanted to, but I find myself stuck on this particular point. It’s all very complicated, isn't it? Anyway, I digress. I really do.

I suppose solitude is a bit of a relative concept, isn't it? Some people seem to handle being alone much better than others do. Personally, I’ve always felt more like a lone wolf type, I guess, so being by myself doesn't really sting as much as it might for someone else. And when it comes to relationships... well, why get into one just for the sake of it if I'm perfectly fine on my own? It's not like I'm looking to be swept off my feet. I don't exactly think I'm some unique, one-of-a-kind woman who needs constant company to feel complete. Maybe that's just how I am.

It doesn't bother me all that much, I guess. If you don't end up finding exactly what you're looking for, you just end up being on your own, or maybe you just keep experimenting until you find something that actually clicks—if you're even in the mood for that. I suppose if you're someone who believes in astrology, some people are just born with harder combinations in their charts, like those difficult squares, so it can be pretty tough for them to stay in a long-term relationship. Or, maybe they just need a lot of breathing room in a partnership to make it work.

silentridge8: I guess... maybe if we look at what was said... I mean, looking back at the discussion... Quincy:

I suppose... they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Or something like that. I guess it’s true, though. Maybe. 😬 You explained everything so beautifully, you know, but... I guess I just can't quite bring myself to believe that every woman who isn't particularly striking spiritually or physically stays single just because all those stunning women exist. Why? Because, like you eventually pointed out, a lot of them are just pretty on the surface, and maybe you just wouldn't be their type, or perhaps they're looking for something else entirely... and so on. In practice, I suppose there are many more combinations and possibilities than what you find in theory.

Well, I suppose in practice, anything can happen, really.

True enough. But then again, what is life? It’s a collection of experiences and realizations. Disappointment—or even suffering—is just part of the journey. Whether you view those moments as setbacks is entirely up to you. Personally, I tend to see them as progress. To me, they're usually just stepping stones that open up new doors.

If you buy into astrology, some people just have tougher aspects in their charts, like squares, which makes it pretty hard for them to stay in a relationship for very longor requires them to have a lot of "breathing room" in their partnership.

😁
That's basically the Achilles' heel for every Aquarius.🤣

Anyway, feels like we've drifted a bit off-topic here.🙂
Good luck finding those spiritually enlightened women.🙂

wearyowl29 said:We are totally on the same page here. I truly believe that when a person becomes more self-aware, they start taking better care of themselves. They aren't going to go overboard with booze or those kinds of wild parties—they become more responsible. After all, your body is a temple, and you have to keep it in shape!

But, if the body becomes the *only* goal—if every single bit of attention is focused solely on physical perfection—then something is definitely off. It's like some strange, glitchy program has taken over our spirit.

You're probably right. 🤷 But honestly, looking at our conversation... personally, I am incredibly irresponsible when it comes to my own body. I put in the bare minimum to maintain it, mostly because I don't really view it as a temple; it feels more like a beat-up old shell. If I had to rank my priorities, it would look something like this:

- spirit
- mind
- body

By the way, regarding this idea of a temple, isn't it actually the word and the work that "lives" inside it? Purely from a logical standpoint—it's about the content, not the container, right? Whether it's a meadow, a shack, or a cathedral, does the setting really matter for the spirit, the word, or the deed?

What is it that gives things vitality, radiance, and soul? Is it color and shape, or is it the inner gaze? What good are bright red lips without a genuine smile? Or hands that don't move? (I could go on, but you get what I mean, right?)

Oh man, and I was just thinking about heading over to the forum 😁you always know how to pique my interest

dustyskipper3 said:silentridge8: I suppose... if one were to consider the implications... maybe? It seems quite possible that the situation is evolving. I guess I am just thinking out loud here, but perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye. Or maybe not. It is hard to say for certain without further evidence, I suppose.

Not exactly. But I suppose if you happen to be physically attractive, there are plenty of people out there who don't actually want *you*, they just want your body. Though, you seem like a spiritual person to whom the physical side isn't really the priority. In my view, you basically have a few paths you could take: 1) you give them your body because you actually like them; 2) you give them your body as a way to try and reach their soul, hoping they eventually see the real you; 3) you don't give them anything because you worry they'll label you as "easy," and you're looking for something deeper; or 4) you decline because you find them repulsive—it’s hard to be with someone who only sees the surface and ignores the spirit. I wonder, which of these options feels the most spiritual, and which feels the most feminist? Which ones would be considered traditionally feminine or even more of a femme fatale move? It seems to me that beautiful women, perhaps more often than those who aren't, run into this situation where men only crave their looks. Because of that, they might react more like "traditional women" or "temptresses." On the other hand, maybe women who aren't conventionally attractive tend to react in a more "feminist" or "spiritual" way, simply because they have fewer options and, when given a chance, they have to aim for a serious connection if they don't want to end up alone. So, I guess it's quite a challenge for us men to figure out if a woman is truly spiritual, or if she's just being spiritual out of necessity because she lacks other options. Personally, I think I prefer the spiritual types, so I tend to go for the beautiful ones. If a woman is both beautiful and deeply spiritual, then I assume it's because she actually is—not just because she's performing spirituality to secure a serious relationship. And on top of that, she happens to be stunning. It’s a bit of a dilemma... it means that women who aren't conventionally attractive might end up either alone or strictly married. Or perhaps they stay within female circles. It seems to imply that for them, spirituality takes on the role of a "Mother Teresa" type—the devoted wife, the nun, or perhaps someone like Martina Navratilova. But beautiful women? They can express their spirituality through so many different roles—from the sinner who finds redemption and renounces the flesh, to a humanitarian angel, or even a Tantric Goddess of sex. I guess it all depends on how you look at it.

Quincy:

I guess I'm just a bit surprised by that take... why does a woman necessarily have to identify as a feminist just to be immune to those unwanted societal pressures? It seems like a heavy requirement to place on someone, I suppose. Maybe there are other ways to navigate it, though I might be wrong.

I suppose I'm just joking around a little. It isn't strictly necessary to take me seriously. But, I had this thought that maybe even someone like Serena Williams wouldn't be immune to those kinds of pressures, so she eventually started leaning into that whole image too. It seems like it happened with Monica Seles as well. And then there are so many other female players who transitioned into modeling, like Anna Kournikova and Martina Hingis. I guess one of the few people I feel truly didn't care about their looks was Martina Navratilova. Though, if I'm being honest, men aren't really her primary focus either, at least not when it comes to sex or long-term relationships. 😬 It’s almost like the exact opposite of what happened with Anna Kournikova—you know, when the athlete pivots into modeling? I mean, just imagine if someone like Goran Ivanišević decided to trade the tennis court for the runway. It's a wild thought, I guess. Maybe it could actually work, though I'm not entirely sure how that would play out in the fashion world. Just a random thought that crossed my mind, I suppose. 😉 It’s a really rare phenomenon... I suppose maybe Bjorn Borg had to do something similar once, though I suspect that was only because he was facing some serious financial struggles. But, looking at it objectively, society feels quite patriarchal. It seems to place women in this position where they are treated primarily as sexual objects—things that attract men mainly through physical appearance—whereas for men, physical looks don't seem to carry nearly as much weight. Personally, I find it quite unsettling, and I truly wish there were more equality in that regard, but then again, who am I to try and reshape the entire fabric of society? Or even you?? I guess. That being said, I have actually started diving into feminist literature lately, just to get a better sense of how women view these issues, and I suppose I’ve become a male feminist in the process.

Well, I suppose it is precisely because she doesn't care. Her vanity is, I guess, kept to a bare minimum. Whether you believe it or not, it really is possible. In certain beginnings, perhaps it seems impressive, but very quickly, you just don't pay any attention at all to that guy's admiration, and honestly, tossing it aside feels almost funny.

But if he manages to win her over, he might try to admire her spiritual qualities, though I suspect it is just a way to get to her physical self. It means you have to reduce both your ego and your spiritual pride to a minimum. Maybe it doesn't matter to you right now, since you are still young and beautiful, but once you grow older, you might see... Besides, looking at your avatar, I gather that physical appearance isn't exactly irrelevant to you, so I suppose you do want some level of attention, even if it isn't outright worship.

Forgive me, but I find this absolutely hilarious. I simply don't think in those terms. I hold a different view, which clearly irritates you, because things like this can't really cause problems for me.

I might be exaggerating a little, but beautiful women often deal with jealousy from other women because of their looks, mostly because certain doors open more easily for them. A beautiful woman can quite easily become successful in many fields without much effort, whereas someone with an average appearance has to grind, endure being stepped on by other women, and won't have some man rushing to help her, because they won't recognize her inner qualities as easily. But "Aquarius" women are truly special, I suppose, because they value equality and put universal humanity above gender, etc. So, it doesn't surprise me in your case, but the problem still exists for others who don't think that way.

Since I am talking to you (with the hope that you will understand what Auntie wants to say 😁)... the strongest doors are the ones that are wide open.

😁

I don't quite understand this logic either. What is silliness? Personally, I don't necessarily see silliness as a flaw. And what is self-esteem? In short, I guess it's viewing oneself as a valuable individual in a general sense.

So, let me give you an example. Marilyn Monroe had, I suppose, an average intellect. She succeeded primarily due to her physical appearance and the men who recognized that. If she had relied solely on her "spiritual" side, she would have likely failed miserably and ended up working as a high school teacher or a clerk in her hometown. However, I believe she had quite low self-esteem, because she wanted to be loved by one smart man—a director—who actually preferred a woman who wasn't such a bombshell but had a bit more going on upstairs. All she was left with was a fading fame. I feel that women who can be with men like that—men who only choose the beauties—must be either a bit silly or have low self-esteem... they can't really see themselves as fundamentally valuable individuals, except perhaps through a man's admiration or the financial benefits they get from him.

I’m going to answer this the same way I answer everything else: by being completely honest and true to myself. So, here it is:

- I look for soul first. I'm not specifically hunting for a certain "look." I'm looking for character, temperament, and personality. What do I give in return? Well, I give everything 🤣once I find what I'm looking for, obviously. To address your points... wouldn't giving someone your body be a way to reveal your soul? It's not like there's anything particularly unique about my body that would somehow broadcast my level of spirituality 😁...so that particular logic doesn't really hold water for me. As for the idea that people will think I'm easy ...come on, anyone using that phrase automatically loses "spiritual" points in my book. Since none of those options you listed really resonate with me, I'll put it simply: when I find what I'm looking for, I give myself, my energy, and my presence spontaneously and without reservation. If our energies mesh, then we truly connect 😍. It's not that deep
.

unattractive women will react more "femministically" or "spiritually" because they have fewer choices; when given the chance, they basically have to aim for a serious relationship if they don't want to end up alone.

Solitude is relative. Some people handle it much better than others. Personally, I'm a bit of a lone wolf, so being alone doesn't sting as much. And as for relationships... why enter one just to avoid being alone? That's not how I work. I don't think I'm so special that I'm the only woman out there like this

That's why it's such a challenge for us men to tell if a woman is truly spiritual or if she's just less attractive and forced into being "spiritual" out of necessity. Personally, I prefer spiritual women, so I tend to pick the beautiful ones. Because if she's both beautiful and spiritual, it's likely genuine and not just an act to secure a serious commitment. Plus, she's easy on the eyes. Consequently, unattractive women miss out on those spiritual types and are left with just the "average" guys.

But hey, they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder 😬and you've laid out your argument quite nicely, but... I refuse to believe that every woman who isn't conventionally beautiful ends up alone just because all the stunning women are taken. Why? Like you mentioned, plenty of those gorgeous women won't be a match for you, some are moving in different circles... etc. In reality, there are far more combinations and possibilities than your theory suggests.

Whether it’s about a sinner turning into a saint by trading physical vanity for spiritual depth (though if you aren't attractive, there isn't much to trade away).

We can all find ourselves in a position where we have nothing left to sacrifice... regardless of how we look physically. That’s actually one of the core tenets of spirituality, isn't it? 😉

So, basically, society is patriarchal and forces women into being sexual objects that men are primarily attracted to based on looks, while physical appearance matters far less to the men themselves.

Society might be patriarchal, but I truly believe—and I live my life this way—that as a woman, you can survive within it without having to become an activist or a submissive little housewife. It really comes down to your own mindset and how you perceive yourself and those around you. Look at it this way: right now, I’m talking to you primarily as a human being, not as some specific type of man, and I’m steering this conversation so that you see me as an equal human being too. 🙂

Personally, it bothers me, and I long for equality, but who am I to change society? Or even you? That's why I started reading feminist literature just to understand what women think, and I've become a male feminist.

To follow up on that, I also strive for equality 🙂 and that's how I conduct myself and live my life. My way of "changing society" (which is the only way I see it working) is simply by living this way. I view everyone around me as people (you can only be a "Man" in one very narrow sense 😁), and I treat them as such... I won't ramble, let me know if any of that is unclear.

Honestly, feminism is nonsense. Just like chauvinism is.

So you have to minimize both worldly consciousness and spiritual vanity.

Vanity and ego are the anchors that hold back human prosperity... I realized that even as a kid. Maybe that's why I always viewed my physical appearance as a weight around my neck rather than a benefit.

Besides, looking at your avatar, I'd conclude that physical appearance isn't exactly unimportant to you; you clearly still want a certain amount of attention, if not outright admiration.

That is a very common and completely mistaken conclusion. My avatar was actually a total accident (I have another photo that looks strikingly similar to this one), and I've always just preferred showing my "true face"—I don't care for masks. The persona of Angie doesn't play much of a role in why I chose this avatar. So, it has absolutely nothing to do with beauty, physical looks, or anything of the sort.
Before this, I had other images that were also reflections of things deeply tied to my actual self.

but the real issue remains for those who don't look at things quite that way.

I’m more than happy to help them work through that if there's anything I can do... what else is there to say?

Let me give you an example. Someone like Marilyn Monroe was essentially average when it came to intellect. She succeeded primarily because of her looks and the men who recognized that. ....... I honestly feel like women who end up with guys like Brad Pitt (and he only picks the beauties) have to be either a bit airheaded or struggling with low self-esteem... they can't see themselves as inherently valuable individuals, except perhaps through the lens of a man's admiration or whatever financial perks they get from him.

So, what exactly are you trying to prove with this example? That all beautiful women are just like her? That most of them fall into that category? That men are all walking versions of Brad Pitt, so we should just build a grand theory based on that? Look, I'll stick to my own perspective (I generally prefer not to use other people as case studies). Others tell me I'm attractive, even a "bombshell" sometimes (which is just an irrelevant, highly subjective data point to me), I consider myself moderately intelligent—though many have pointed out I have more potential there—and ultimately, I think I'm a pretty witty woman. Basically, I don't hold any grandiose opinions about myself, but I do have high self-esteem. And despite that, I still mess up, make mistakes, "find myself," wander off course... and yeah, I drink.🙂

dustyskipper3 said:Is it actually possible for her physical appearance to be completely irrelevant to how she sees herself? I mean, does she have to become a feminist first to achieve that, or maybe she just needs to be neurodivergent enough that society can't really get under her skin? If she doesn't care about being beautiful herself, how can she remain indifferent when guys are constantly hitting on her or tripping over themselves, or when other women might feel envious or try to undermine her? Maybe it's vital that she feels a bit awkward, or perhaps she struggles with low self-esteem for other reasons, so that her looks don't act as a sort of compensation—because, I guess, she wouldn't want to be viewed as just a pretty doll, but rather as a real person.

I’m pretty sure when you sayirrelevant you aren't being 100% literal, so looking at it from that angle—yes, it's possible. Am I my hair, my eyes, or... (my chest)? No. Those are just "irrelevant" parts of me when I look at myself, or when someone else looks at me. I was the exact same person even when my hair was shorter and burgundy (just a little callback there). So, we're back to the point: it really can be insignificant.

Does she need to become a feminist first, or does she have to be autistic enough that society can't get a grip on her at all?

Why does a woman have to be a feminist just to be immune to (unwanted) social pressures??? You're surprising me here.

If she doesn't care about being beautiful herself, how can she stay indifferent to the fact that guys are absolutely head over heels and throwing themselves at her feet?

Well, that's exactly why it doesn't matter to her. Her vanity is dialed down to the absolute minimum. Believe it or not, it's possible. In the beginning, it might be flattering, but very quickly, you stop paying any attention to that guy's admiration, and having him throw himself at you becomes almost laughable.

And what about all the women who envy her and try to set her up?

Sorry, but I find this hilarious. I simply don't think that way. I clearly hold a different perspective since these kinds of things don't cause me any trouble.

Since I'm talking to you (and hoping you'll understand what this old lady is trying to say 😁).... the strongest doors are the ones left wide open.

So, is it essential that she be a bit ditzy, or have low self-esteem for other reasons?

I don't follow this logic either. What even is "ditziness"? Personally, I don't necessarily see being ditzy as a flaw. And self-esteem? In short, it's just viewing yourself as a valuable individual in the grand scheme of things.

dustyskipper3 said:Even though we talk about post-feminism today, patting ourselves on the back because we supposedly live in a society where genders are equal, I guess many vital questions remain unresolved. For instance, introducing a female substitute for the male God—some kind of goddess, a Diana who hunts alone and such—it feels like it just deepens the existing dualism. These newer pagan movements or similar faiths that promote matriarchy and a dominant image of women are often perceived as "the other" compared to the religious mainstream, which, well, remains patriarchal. There is also the issue inherent in language itself; as Master John once noted, language is necessarily dualistic because, I suppose, "no one has invented a non-dualistic language yet," so even within our speech, the feminine is understood as the "other." Perhaps a new feminist spirituality should move away from symbolic language entirely as a means of communication and instead utilize other mediums to convey spiritual truth, like music, for example. It is interesting to note that even Chinese and Japanese Zen seemed somewhat averse to women, which is why we have so few female Zen masters or nuns. Even though Zen, in principle, should transcend the male-female dualism, it seems that sexual instinct is often too much of an issue in Zen monastery settings to allow them to be co-ed. There is that famous story about a Zen master who was only accepted into a monastery after she intentionally disfigured her beautiful face—not just to prove the sincerity of her devotion, but perhaps to ensure she wouldn't trigger desire in the other monks. And so we arrive at the fundamental dilemma of feminism, and indeed spirituality—can a beautiful woman truly be a feminist or a nun? Does it even make sense, given that, from birth, the earthly gates of admiration from the entire male population are essentially open to her? Does it make sense, despite everything?

Lately, we see Angelina Jolie stepping into the role of a human rights advocate fighting for abused children, and I suppose Nives Celsius has started following somewhat in those footsteps. But, in my view, it all stays at the level of attracting attention through a beautiful face and body, without much in the way of spiritual substance. On the other hand, it would be difficult to take them seriously in the role of Mother Teresa, who, God rest her soul, was a physically very unattractive woman, a real Yaga, though they might be more easily perceived as a Diana or a goddess of fertility. I wonder, does a woman's physical appearance dictate the type of spirituality she can realize? I suspect feminists would be quite incensed if that were actually true—but maybe it is. 😍

Not necessarily. I think it really boils down to a few different things:

- How she actually perceives her own physical self
- Just how much weight she gives her looks when it comes to her sense of identity
- What role her physicality plays in her life as an individual

Absolutely!!!! 🙏

Man, for as long as I can remember, I’ve honestly felt like I was meant to be born male 🤣 (and honestly, I think I would've been way happier that way 😬 ))

(So don't go being mean about it—I am, in every sense of the word, a woman 😛 😁))