Eating Psychology. Nutritional Science. Weightlifting. Yoga. Writer. Aesthetics. Paradoxical.
Arizona, USA
Joined July 2017
- Tweets16.5K
- Following289
- Followers3.6K
- Likes51.6K
Pinned Tweet
I’ve spent the last couple of months waiting to hear what I thought was inevitable news.
I was in a state of disbelief.
I still am…
I don’t think anyone can fully understand what repeated pregnancy loss does to your brain until you’ve lived it. After hearing, “I’m sorry, your baby doesn’t have a heartbeat anymore,” over and over again through the years, you stop expecting good news. Every ultrasound becomes something you dread. I walked into every appointment expecting history to repeat itself.
But it never did.
This perfect little boy just kept growing!
The craziest part is that we were genuinely absolutely done trying.
After years of infertility, numerous pregnancy losses, many rounds of IVF, and the emotional roller coaster that comes with all of it, we had finally made peace with moving on. Alex and I had already started working on what we jokingly called our next “baby,” a project we were both incredibly excited about. I also put a large nonrefundable deposit down on something I couldn’t do while pregnant. We were done, done.
We had surrendered.
Then life had other plans.
100% natural conception was not in my book of possibilities. That said, our lifestyle and supplements are always dialed all the way in, even when we are not actively trying. Many of the things I recommend in my giant fertility article are simply things I take/do anyway because they maximize health, energy, and resilience.
For those who are newer here, we’ve both had our own fertility issues throughout this long journey, and I’ve written at length about what we’ve done to correct each of them. It seems like it’s been one thing after another. Lifestyle choices and genetics drive a lot of fertility struggles. You can do a tremendous amount to improve the lifestyle component. That was easy for us. Genetics… not so much. You get what you get and you learn to work within those boundaries. Fortunately, my AFC has remained very high and my hormones have stayed perfectly perfect, so that was never our limiting factor.
Since we stopped IVF last year, I’ve actually gotten pregnant every three months without fail. Getting pregnant didn’t seem to be my biggest problem once I started ovulating consistently.
Staying pregnant was.
My main issue has always been recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). Mine is immunologically driven, and I carried Lux on what I call my miscarriage cocktail.
In immunological driven RPL, the body can become increasingly primed to identify pregnancy tissue as foreign and respond against it aggressively. So every positive pregnancy test stopped feeling exciting. It felt like walking back into a pattern my immune system already knew how to execute. And was getting more and more efficient at.
That was one of the biggest reasons we decided we were done.
I’ve been pregnant nine times, not counting biochemicals, and have been through three complete first trimesters.
Only one baby.
It felt like an increasingly low probability outcome for an extraordinarily high effort pursuit.
We were tired.
This miscarriage protocol was largely the same as before with a couple key changes: LDN, prednisone, Lovenox, H1 and H2 blockers, progesterone, and baby aspirin. This time, we doubled the prednisone in the first eight weeks and used more targeted antihistamines for the RPL. The peptides I was taking in the months leading up to conception probably helped too, since I was ovulating consistently without induction for the first time ever. I do think we’re going to see some really interesting data emerge on these compounds in immune related conditions over the coming years, beyond their effects on raw fertility markers.
We are incredibly grateful.
Immensely happy.
We still have a long way to go. Just had my first second trimester appointment today. And I almost lost Lux during birth, so there is still that we have to work through.
But for the first time, I feel like this pregnancy may truly end with us bringing our baby home.
Briana Theroux retweeted
"Has it backwards"... What? No, absolutely not.
Fasting absolutely eats muscle. Your body requires EAAs to function and they come mostly from skeletal muscle when dietary intake is inadequate.
Oliver Owen did the classic fasting research on this and found that 21 days of fasting in obese men led to half of their weight loss coming from lean mass, of which 60% was structural protein (PMID: 9665093).
And yes, his research showed it takes about 5 days for protein sparing mechanisms to kick in (see first image), but even at max capacity your skeletal muscle is never "protected" or "spared" in the sense that you can prevent muscle loss.
And muscle loss is substantially worse the leaner you get. Abdul Dulloo did a lot of work on this with data from the Minnesota Starvation Experiment and others, finding that the ratio of protein losses to non-protein losses increase exponentially with lower levels of body fat (PMID: 10673906; see second image).
Another study observed the same thing and found that protein contributed 2-3 times more energy in normal weight vs obese adults during prolonged fasting (PMID: 10574520). In fact, they didn't even really observe an adaptation in normal weight people like they saw with obese people, with oxidation being consistent for up to a month of fasting.
The worry that fasting eats muscle has it backwards, because the body raises growth hormone during a fast to spare protein. By day five of a fast in one study, 24-hour growth hormone was about three times higher than on a fed day, and between day one and day five free fatty acids rose almost fourfold and the ketone acetoacetate rose about fourteenfold. That's a body moving to its own fat for fuel while it protects muscle, and in my view it can do that because insulin has fallen low enough to allow it.
Briana Theroux retweeted
5 major things just happened in medicine this week:
1. A breast cancer drug more than doubled the time before the cancer started growing again in a Phase 3 trial (16.4 mo vs 6.8 mo).
2. The world’s deadliest cancer (lung) was treated with a new therapy that cut the risk of death by 58% in a Phase 3 trial.
3. Chronic Hepatitis B now has a functional cure for certain patients after accelerated FDA-approval.
4. Retatrutide put up huge numbers at a sleep medicine conference showing it cut the amount of sleep apnea events in half on the highest doses, in a Phase 3 trial.
5. The leading cause of cancer death under 50 (colorectal, here specifically rectal) now has an FDA approved therapy allowing certain patients to skip chemo, radiation, and surgery.
Briana Theroux retweeted
I think we need to stop calling foods, substances, and behaviors "addictive" because it carries some really erroneous conotations.
Like, what does addiction even mean in these situations?
1) It's rewarding and people want to keep using. Okay, that's a meaningless definition that accompanies all pleasurable activities.
2) People want to use despite negative consequences. Okay, this can again apply to virtually anything and is also completely subjective in terms of what constitutes a consequence.
3) It changes the brain in ways that compel people to continue regardless of conscious intent. This is basically the brain disease model of addiction, which has been largely discredited in addiction research.
Food companies try to engineer foods that taste good and provide pleasure to those eating them. That's it, and that pleasure contributes to motivation for many to continue eating them.
There is no circumstance where one's brain becomes "hijacked," and I actually find such wording to be quite defeating for those struggling to change their behaviors. It essentially tells people that they have no control and are victims to their food, drug, or behavior or choice.
@doctortro is right, the food environment we live in today is literally engineered to be as addictive as possible.
Turns out there's big money in hijacking our neurology.
All that said, can anyone explain how Berry's response is relevant... at all?
There’s always a cost, or a situational trade off with every decision. Being aware of what you’re trading is paramount because even a decision you’re completely content with can come with consequences you don’t particularly like. Understanding the trade off means knowing what you’re agreeing to and taking ownership of that choice.
For instance I can prefer to keep something private, while also knowing people may fill in the blanks themselves. I don’t have to like or agree with their assumptions to decide my privacy is worth more.
I think people get stuck not wanting the trade offs… like when they want to make their own decisions but also want everyone to be happy about them. Of course I’d prefer people understood me and respected my boundaries, but how much of my time am I willing to spend trying to get them to? I’ve decided not much. Especially people whose opinions I don’t particularly value anyway. There is no free lunch, and explaining yourself endlessly to people who have already decided they don’t like you has a cost too.
Personally, I’m fine being misunderstood by people I don’t want to spend my life explaining myself to. I’ve considered what I’m trading, and it’s worth it to me. Someone being unhappy with my decision doesn’t give me a reason to change it unless I actually value what they’re offering.
Briana Theroux retweeted
I'm highly skeptical of this finding. Need to see the full-text when published, but a few issues pop out to me based on the conference abstract (screenshots included for convenience).
First, how is reverse causality accounted for? One of the primary indications for TRT in women is sexual dysfunction, and a 2024 meta-analysis of nearly 150,000 participants found that cardiovascular diseases are themselves associated with sexual dysfunction in women (PMID: 38297501).
Second, what was the testosterone exposure? There's no info about formulations, doses, duration of treatment, serum levels, etc.
Third, composite cardiovascular events increases statistical power to detect differences between groups, but they aren't interchangeable. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I'd want to see the individual outcome rates and whether any association was driven by less severe diagnoses.
Fourth, how is surveillance bias accounted for? Women on hormone therapy are more likely to be part of the medical system than those not receiving it, so the likelihood of documenting something is higher by this alone.
Fifth, what is going on with their data table? There were supposedly 3164 women in each group (testosterone vs control), but in the second row, 305 events at 3.2% would be over 9,000 participants in the group. Maybe they meant to put 105. Could just be a simple error.
Anyway, these are just some things off the top of my head. Might be more. Sucks that such findings can make the rounds and strike unnecessary fear before any meaningful review of their study is even possible.
It takes a lot for me to get to the point where I no longer want someone in my life. I can have substantial disagreements with people and still respect them and care about them. I don’t need everyone around me to think like I do. In fact, I’d prefer if they didn’t so we could have more meaningful dialogue.
And I think there’s a certain privilege in conversations about boundaries where the worst behavior anyone seems to be imagining is a difference of opinion. If that’s the extent of what you’ve had to navigate, I’m happy for you. But it’s a very limited basis for judging why someone else might decide to end a long term relationship entirely.
A lot of the boundaries I’ve had to set have involved highly dysfunctional people with constant chaos in their lives. Lots of excessive substance use. Lots of centering themselves entirely. People whose passive aggressive comments amount to constant insults, and whose open hostility and endless conflict make even an ordinary interaction fucking exhausting. You leave feeling worse almost every time, wondering why you continue putting yourself in the same position when the outcome is so predictable.
I’m super content with my life now, and there’s so much joy in it that I didn’t know was possible when I was younger. I grew up surrounded by chaos, so I didn’t realize how much of what I considered normal was simply what I was conditioned to see as normal. Now that I know what it’s like to live without constant dysfunction, I’m far less willing to make room for it.
I can understand how someone became the way they are. I can have compassion for their circumstances and recognize that they’ve had a shitty life. But understanding someone’s behavior doesn’t give me a reason to keep volunteering to experience it. In the end, what they repeatedly choose to do with the people around them is more important to me.
At some point, I have to look at how this person actually treats me and whether they’re willing to change the behavior that keeps causing problems. If there’s constant jealousy and resentment and I rarely even enjoy being around them, what am I maintaining the relationship for? Our history can mean a lot to me, but I don’t see the value in continuing something that has become almost entirely unpleasant.
I don’t see any virtue in putting up with someone’s hostility just because we’ve known each other forever or share the same bloodline.
There are people I can wish well and have absolutely no desire to hear from again. It takes a lot for me to reach that point, but once I do, I’m comfortable with it.
The biological argument is the dumbest. Especially considering humans evolved the capacity for lifelong pair bonding, which helps support the enormous investment of time and energy required to raise human children.
I’d have more respect for men who simply said they prefer not to form strong attachments. At least that would be honest.
Everyone wants an easy life, but I don’t think people develop much when nothing ever requires them to. It’s easy to believe you’re resilient, emotionally mature, or in touch with your mortality when those beliefs have never been tested. And by tested, I mean by things you would not choose.
When I was younger, I used running to run from my problems. Literally and metaphorically. I could accomplish something measurable while leaving other parts of my life completely unexamined. I was willing to exhaust myself physically in one very specific way. Dealing with what I was running from was another story. Took me years to understand what I was doing too. And only after a forced break (health issue) did I see what I was doing.
I see this in people constantly reaching for greater extremes. More exercise, more restriction, more deprivation. They assume that because something is physically difficult, they must be developing resilience. Au contraire. You can get very good at tolerating one kind of discomfort because it allows you to avoid another. Resilience has to extend beyond the discomfort you get to choose.
You can manufacture hardship you know how to manage to avoid the hardship you don’t. And when everyone admires your discipline, there’s even less reason to question what you’re using it for…
Obviously, I’m not talking about everyone who trains hard. I still do. But I can take breaks as life needs me to. A competitor who cycles in and out, with adequate food and recovery, is doing something different from someone who cannot tolerate coming out of a state of constant deprivation or overtraining. Being able to stop is super super important here for actual evolution of the mind.
Can you move between fasting and feeding, exertion and rest; without treating one as evidence of your superiority and the other as a personal failure? If your worth depends on how much you can deny yourself, being adequately fed might confront you with more than another period of restriction ever would.
You already know how to push harder. You already know how to restrict and deny yourself anything pleasurable. What happens when your perfectly controlled hardships cannot resolve what you actually need to deal with?
To lead the decision making, you have to demonstrate competence. There is no other way. You cannot just demand that people follow you without proven competence. That’s toddler behavior.
And you shouldn’t even want a woman who follows anyone indiscriminately anyway. Do you really want a teammate who sinks the ship?
Submission isn't something you can (or at least should) feel like you're forcing a woman to do
Submission should feel like "Hey, want me to drive?"
You can't have two people driving a car
The one in the passenger seat can (and probably should) give input on directions, hazards, and of course where the heck you're going, but at the end of the day someone needs to have the final say about the gas pedals and the steering wheel
Asking a woman you barely know "Will you submit to me?" is like "Will you get in my van?"
The answer from her SHOULD be "I don't know yet! Are you a good driver? Where are you even going?"
A major purpose of dating for her is figuring out whether it's worth getting into your passenger seat!
If you're a good driver and you both agree on where to go though, submission should feel easy, it should feel preferable most times
And yeah, this means she shouldn't be yanking the steering wheel away or being an unproductive copilot, backseat driving and constantly offering criticism
But in an ideal world, you don't need to get her to promise to get in the car, put a seatbelt on, etc., it just seems like the obvious choice
Briana Theroux retweeted
A newborn's blood has more than double the adrenaline of the mom who just gave birth to him.
So when you see a baby lying there minutes after delivery with his hands behind his head like he's at a cabana in Cabo, you're watching a kid come down off the biggest rush of his life so far.
A Swedish pediatrician named Hugo Lagercrantz spent years measuring this, and he's the one who coined the phrase "the stress of being born." His group found that babies born vaginally had about 10 times the noradrenaline in their cord blood compared to babies delivered by planned C-section. Every contraction squeezes the baby and briefly cuts into his oxygen supply, and his body answers by dumping stress hormones. He needs that flood to survive the next few minutes.
Here's why. For nine months his lungs were full of liquid. A baby's lungs actually pump fluid into themselves in the womb because that's how they grow, which works great right up until the second he needs to breathe air. The adrenaline from labor flips a switch in the lining of the lungs, and they start soaking that fluid back up right before the first breath. Scientists bred mice missing that switch, and the pups died after birth because they couldn't clear their lungs.
The same rush breaks down his stored fat and sugar for energy, since the umbilical cord just stopped feeding him. It even keeps his pupils wide open under bright hospital lights.
Once all that's done, babies settle into what researchers call the quiet alert state, where the body goes still and the breathing evens out. In one study that tracked newborns minute by minute, they spent about 40 of their first 60 minutes in it. Then comes sleep, and babies get more deep sleep on the day they're born than on the day after, which researchers think is recovery from birth itself.
And that white stuff in his hair is called vernix. As far as scientists know, only human babies make it, and almost a third of the proteins they've found in it attack germs directly. So he came out wearing his own antibacterial lotion, and now he's sleeping off a hormone rush that kept him alive. Honestly, he earned the pose.
Told the little boys at our party last night that there was a spider baby in there, and they kept asking to feel my belly lol. So cute! 😂💙
Briana Theroux retweeted
The normalization of casual sex destroyed our comprehension of what sex is, and what it has to do with healthy relationships.
Women have one reproductive strategy: high investment. Men have two strategies: high investment (which is collaborative, and has everything to do with love) and no investment (which is predatory, and is the antithesis of love).
That may sound like an exaggeration, but it isn’t. The ‘no investment’ strategy of men attempts to stick a woman with a child to raise alone, or with a cuckolded partner. It has a consensual form, and a non-consensual form. Does any of that sound loving to you? I didn’t think so.
For men, producing a child with a trivial effort is the ultimate evolutionary bargain. It’s something like winning the lottery. For women, being stuck with a baby and no partner is the inverse, like being maimed in car wreck.
So men are predisposed to be on the lookout for fertile women who are gullible enough to go to bed with them without locking down a commitment. And women are predisposed to avoid such encounters at all costs. Or at least they were before birth control + abortion changed the stakes and the culture.
Women, who have always been the gatekeepers of sex, have been lured into embracing men at their worst. And they’ve started behaving and thinking like them too.
There is actually a lot of truth in the idea that “rape culture” has been normalized. Casual sex is not rape by any stretch, but it comes from the same predatory branch of the tree. And before you jump down my throat for saying that, notice just how commonplace “consensual con-consent” has become. That IS normalized rape culture. It comes from the idea that sex is a kind of play. Just like kids playing with toy tanks and soldiers, it’s harmless because the stakes are low and no one actually gets hurt.
But it turns out that’s not true. Casual sex is like playing with fire. Actually, it’s worse. Many who play with fire get away with it. They may even learn how to wield it to great effect. The exact opposite is true with sex. If you play with having sex with people that you don’t love, you are damaging the very architecture you will need to form a healthy romantic partnership. Even worse if they bring the same selfish mindset to the alter and the bedroom.
For young people participating in their generation’s culture, sex now IS antagonistic and predatory. Most of them don’t know there is any other kind. It’s just some story, like Santa Clause.
Not only has this shift in sexual culture obliterated the tools to forge and tend a healthy marriage, but it has also broken the motivational structure that built civilization.
—-
Exhibit A bellow. Please don’t jump on her. She is voicing a false sophistication of her era. And although I believe what she has said is wrong, exactly why it is wrong, and to what degree it is wrong, requires careful thought.
The problem with random dumb men thinking they can hold women accountable is that they invent reasons to be upset, then abuse women over those made up reasons.
A story old as time…
These are the men women should stay away from. If you’re screaming accountability at women you don’t even know, but cannot identify what they’ve actually done wrong, why would I trust your judgment in a relationship?
I’m specifically talking about their inability or unwillingness to understand nuance or even what’s being said. They respond to what they’ve decided you mean, even after you’ve clarified the misunderstanding. Your explanation changes nothing. They’ve already decided their interpretation is proof that you did something wrong.
Saying you can’t force someone to sincerely accept responsibility becomes saying women shouldn’t face consequences. Explaining yourself becomes making excuses. Refusing to agree becomes avoiding accountability. How fucking convenient. Every response confirms the accusation. You’re just expected to confess and accept whatever treatment they’ve decided you deserve.
That’s what makes this behavior dangerous in a relationship. They can always invent another reason to berate you. You end up defending yourself while their treatment of you goes unexamined.
You don’t get to invent the offense, appoint yourself the authority, and call your abuse accountability. Your refusal to engage with what I actually said is not something I need to apologize for. And I sure as hell won’t take accountability for existing.
So many men in my comments today proving the point that they don’t even know what they want to hold women accountable for.
I think it’s mostly just a Bat signal for low IQ men who all share the same victim mindset. Women are the perpetrators, and men are the victims in their worldview.
As I said yesterday, a lot of people use the word accountability without thinking about what they’re asking for. Taking accountability means acknowledging what you actually did, accepting responsibility, and making an effort to repair what you can + change the behavior. Someone having their feelings hurt doesn’t automatically establish that you have something to take accountability for. And having no relationship established means it’s very unlikely they will even care about your personal grievances.
You cannot make another person take accountability anyway. You can demand all you want, but you cannot force sincere acceptance of responsibility. Something that seems to be lost on many.
You control your participation with another person, not their interpretation or behavior.
This becomes especially ridiculous with strangers online. What exactly does ✨holding them accountable✨ fucking mean here? You can challenge what they said. Sure. You can decide whether to engage with them. Sure. But you cannot demand remorse into existence or make a stranger value your approval. Being angry with someone doesn’t give you authority over their conscience or make their human dignity conditional on your approval.
You all are literally acting insane, believing you can demand what you want like a toddler and somehow make it so.
Then there are the men and women holding the entire opposite sex responsible for what an ex did. Sometimes they just felt rejected or unwanted, and now billions of individuals are one homogeneous group, all somehow tainted or damaged. How is that accountability? You’re blaming people who didn’t even do the thing.
It would be like holding all men responsible for one man’s abuse or rape and treating violence as inevitable in every future relationship. You could destroy your chances of love by treating what happened to you as something that must always happen to you.
Being more in alignment with reality means making those distinctions and being able to spot your own cognitive distortions. A painful experience can be real without every conclusion we draw from it being accurate. Feeling certain that everyone is the same doesn’t make it true.
So many men in my comments today proving the point that they don’t even know what they want to hold women accountable for.
I think it’s mostly just a Bat signal for low IQ men who all share the same victim mindset. Women are the perpetrators, and men are the victims in their worldview.
As I said yesterday, a lot of people use the word accountability without thinking about what they’re asking for. Taking accountability means acknowledging what you actually did, accepting responsibility, and making an effort to repair what you can + change the behavior. Someone having their feelings hurt doesn’t automatically establish that you have something to take accountability for. And having no relationship established means it’s very unlikely they will even care about your personal grievances.
You cannot make another person take accountability anyway. You can demand all you want, but you cannot force sincere acceptance of responsibility. Something that seems to be lost on many.
You control your participation with another person, not their interpretation or behavior.
This becomes especially ridiculous with strangers online. What exactly does ✨holding them accountable✨ fucking mean here? You can challenge what they said. Sure. You can decide whether to engage with them. Sure. But you cannot demand remorse into existence or make a stranger value your approval. Being angry with someone doesn’t give you authority over their conscience or make their human dignity conditional on your approval.
You all are literally acting insane, believing you can demand what you want like a toddler and somehow make it so.
Then there are the men and women holding the entire opposite sex responsible for what an ex did. Sometimes they just felt rejected or unwanted, and now billions of individuals are one homogeneous group, all somehow tainted or damaged. How is that accountability? You’re blaming people who didn’t even do the thing.
It would be like holding all men responsible for one man’s abuse or rape and treating violence as inevitable in every future relationship. You could destroy your chances of love by treating what happened to you as something that must always happen to you.
Being more in alignment with reality means making those distinctions and being able to spot your own cognitive distortions. A painful experience can be real without every conclusion we draw from it being accurate. Feeling certain that everyone is the same doesn’t make it true.
Briana Theroux retweeted
Unfortunately I used to think people who talked about modesty constantly were virtuous.
Then I joined this app and women started letting it slip that they WOULD wear that dress when they were younger and slimmer. But not today.
And I was like wait a minute… you’re not modest because you’re virtuous. You’re “modest” because you’re a glutton?? Like?
Briana Theroux retweeted
Greater appreciation for dark humour is also associated with a higher IQ.
A 2017 study found that people who most enjoyed dark humour scored higher on IQ measures, showed lower aggression and better mood. The opposite trend was found for those who liked the jokes least.
Dark humour demands extra cognitive work to hold conflicting emotional frames while resolving incongruity.
This fits broader findings that intelligence predicts stronger humour production and appreciation.
Briana Theroux retweeted
Some men seem absolutely desperate to believe that women take them into consideration when choosing clothes and even more desperate to believe that this is the only possible motivation women could have.
Women can literally tell them over and over again that this isn’t true and instead of just readjusting their narrative to fit the new information, they insist we are lying because I guess it gives them some kind of existential angst to acknowledge that we don’t think about them as much as they want us to.
Sorry, guys, but not everything is about you. Girls, even as babies, are attracted to what is beautiful and this desire to be beautiful ourselves starts very young.
We have our dress-up boxes, we have our fashion dolls, we want to wear mom’s make up, we’re obsessed with princesses and ballerinas, etc. Anything pretty interests us and much of our girlhood play is centred around the exploration of beauty.
As we grow up, we are also interested in making our homes and gardens beautiful, decorating for every holiday or carefully curating the furniture for a room. Girls dominate art classes of all kinds. We spend hours on things men will never even notice, like painting intricate designs on our fingernails.
We like to be surrounded by beauty and we most especially want to feel that the body we live in is also beautiful. This is primarily for our own enjoyment. We know men don’t really care if the house looks nice and that men pay so little attention to our carefully chosen outfits that if we were abducted, our husbands wouldn’t be able to tell the police what we were last wearing.
It’s ridiculous on its face to suggest that adult women are consciously and exclusively making all their clothing choices with men’s desires in mind. There are so many examples throughout the life of any given woman that point to a longstanding interest in beauty simply for beauty’s sake. Why would this suddenly emerge as the lone exception?
The fact that men get distracted by what a woman is wearing isn’t sufficient evidence to declare that to be her motivation. It may still have that effect, but it’s much more like the choice of an artist to evoke a certain mood in their song or painting.
If I write a song that is sad sounding, you might feel sad upon hearing it (if I did my job well). But my goal isn’t “I want to write a song that makes people feel sad”. My goal is “I want to express something inside of me and give it a beautiful form, and sadness is a component of that self-expression, so into the mix it goes.”
Likewise, a woman who dresses sexy is most often just choosing that as a form of self-expression. She may want to deliberately attract male attention or she may not. That’s secondary to the enjoyment she derives at feeling like she looks good. Male attention might validate that she looks good, but most of the validation she gets is going to come from her own mirror.
As I said previously, don’t underestimate the degree to which women worship at the altar of their vanity. When it comes to beauty, we tend to be very self-focused- how do these clothes feel on me? Am I comfortable and confident in this? Is this outfit really “me”?
Very far down the list are thoughts like, I wonder if John will like this? Men’s opinions of our clothes don’t factor in until we’ve already decided we like an outfit for our own selfish reasons. We know you guys won’t notice or appreciate any of the little details we include in an outfit.
To reduce the Venusian nature of women down to something so banal as sex appeal shows a poor understanding of the feminine principle and everything that it encompasses. Purely biological explanations for this behaviour fall short.
lol. True. Under every one of my posts over the last year, I have some dork screaming “women need to take accountability.” They never can clearly say what women need to take accountability for. What action? What harm? It’s just a projection imo. Having a preference or making a choice they don’t like isn’t a moral failure women need to answer for.
Masculine energy is responsibility, and you can’t have responsibility without accountability. So when they get mad at women for not being man enough, they cry about it. Instead of, you know… manning up themselves. They want women to take responsibility for their disappointment, their resentment, and their inability to get what they want in life. Always looking for a way to abdicate responsibility. Childish.
Accountability is something a person has to be willing to take. Man or woman. You can’t do that part for them. But if you’re demanding it, you should at least be able to identify something they did beyond having a preference you don’t meet or an opinion you don’t like. Your frustration alone doesn’t establish that someone wronged you.
Their version of accountability is basically “you made me feel this way by saying mean words or doing XYZ, so you need to make me feel better now.” While taking zero responsibility for what they do with their own feelings…
