Search the Community

As discussed a lot in many of the Freedomain radio podcast In the realm of sexual market value men are desired for the resources they can bring in to the family and women are desired for their beauty and fertility. That's it generally, but how is a woman that has accumulated many resources of her own changed by being able to do what is desired for men to do. what does that do to the dynamic? Do they seek men with even more resources (Women dating up?) Does what they value in men change? Do they the tend to value something different in men other than security of resources, Do they tend to just desire men less because they can bring a sufficient or more than a sufficient amount of resources? WHat do you all think? If you are a woman who has accumulated resources like this what are your experiences.

My newest article about figuring out if your therapy is actually working for you or not. "Today’s question is extremely popular: I’m in therapy, and some people [my spouse, or parent, or friend, or coworker, or partner] say that it’s not working for me. I’m confused. Is it true?" Read it here: http://blog.selfarcheology.com/2016/04/q-is-therapy-working-for-me.html

I've recorded a few new videos. Here's one of them, where I talk about healthy ways of handling differences in personal relationships and of changing people's minds. Part two coming soon.

i was having a conversation with some guys about the anarchist principles and activism and we came to debate about how could social organization be any different. well, first we were talking about why it should change and what would we want to see. but then we were talking about what we'd like to see based on what is possible or not to happen. we changed the direction from philosophical priciples to practical matters. so i realized that often people don't follow a very straight line when debating (informally), and end up going through a variety of subjects without much objectivity, not even realizing they are doing so for that matter, which is not very productive. anyway, I'm bringing this up because i think analysing debate itself is very illuminating because we can have clear view of where its heading. so we should address it directly. my main point: if we want to have good communication we have to be aware of how it's happening (to say, of course, we must study it). so, while we're at it, let's take the situation above. did you ever have simmilar experiences? do you think this change of subject in a debate is frequent? what makes a good debate and a bad one? P.S.: 1- i think that changing peoples minds relies much more on how we try to do it than the actual content our ideas 2- one of the guys said something like other countries wouldn't tolerate a stateless society, people wouldn't let that happen and i wasn't very sure how to respond to that. it's an abstraction of course (and i think it's a very misleading direction to take) but if you could help me out here with some posts/links suggestions so I can study that, i'd appreciate it