RendHeaven

You'll get to yellow one day, I know it

I'm personally conflicted by the paradox between conditional love (i.e. attraction) and unconditional love (i.e. ???) Can we unconditionally love someone that we have attraction towards? I don't think so. Our attraction corrupts our agenda. Can we unconditionally love someone, then, that we DON'T have attraction towards? I don't think so. Our lack of attraction means we will reserve certain aspects of ourselves from that person (i.e. no sex). And yet, unconditional love exists.

This doesn't seem realistic or authentic. Would you yourself actually do this? Spread your legs for a guy that you have zero sexual attraction towards? Easier said than done, I'd imagine. I admire your vision but it just sounds like buddy-buddy platonic friendship with a little bit of sex forced on top just to justify the "intimacy." The reason I smelled survival on your proposition at all, actually, is by the very fact that you said: By explicitly rejecting raw physical attraction, you have an agenda. Are Game B and Game A mutually exclusive? Or are they 2 parts of the same whole? Ah... So attraction does matter.

Ok so basically, "let's ignore the man's survival and talk about the woman's survival." I guess that's only fair after all the man-bias in the past few days/weeks/months/years lol

Guess I suck ass then, lol. I mean you've said it yourself countless times, neediness is to her as a dick in the mouth is to us. For a lot of us men, the focus on attraction goes hand in hand with getting rid of neediness. You know I've never had to think of this as I'm in my early 20s. I wonder if "older" women actually see their "reproductive value dropping every year" or if that's only visible to men your age

This rings so fundamentally true. I think there is a general misunderstanding that long term relationships = genuine happiness while short flings = hollow pleasure. Hence, people take the female survival agenda of "long fulfilling relationship" to be more spiritually pure than the male survival agenda of "raw attraction" (conflating the focus on attraction with short flings and hollow pleasures). In my experience though, the male survival problem of attraction is perpetually omnipresent. Even when I find myself in a long term relationship. She WILL leave if I lose my masculine sexual core. I must remain attractive if I desire to keep her. No negotiation. Women don't really face this problem. It's not their responsibility in a relationship to "remain attractive." In fact, it's hard for them to become unattractive unless a decade goes by without them exercising lol, but such an extreme is still categorically different from the energetic attractiveness of a man which can devolve in a matter of days if he allows himself to be complacent. That's just my biased male perspective.

@Emerald It's a stunning paradox indeed, that to truly help these men (or any struggling person) you have to slap them across the face and put them in their place; but also, to truly help them, you have to be 110% accepting of them with no will to change them. The best teachers, I believe, will manage to honor both sides of this coin fully. I understand. My heart goes out to you and all women here, truly. Sometimes I'm moved to tears thinking about how I could've/would've/should've listened to women more. And then I resolve to be better next time, and yet I still manage to not hear you guys with a totally open heart. And I'm well aware that my resolve is rare among men. If even I sometimes stick my head in the sand, then men as a whole are buried miles underneath land wedged somewhere within a continental crust

@Gesundheit She has a point. Your tone is highly aggressive and condescending. Why should anyone take you seriously when it seems like all you do is lash out in response? (not saying that that's actually what you're doing; key word = seems)

I agree. I know that it's not chastising. That's why I specifically said it APPEARS to be as such. Emerald is doing her job splendidly. My only point is that she is still deaf nonetheless.

@Gesundheit Someone's antsy

Gee what a great listener you are...

Wrong. There is your deafness right there. Men more then anything want to feel NOT-dismissed. In saying this, you dismiss the man's perspective (even if that's not your intention), and hence you are not really understanding/listening to their needs. Every time you find a man on this forum screeching about "nice guys vs bad boys," or just sex in general, the translation is: "Am I enough? Please tell me enough. Please." And every time, a barrage of women descend on these men calling them "not integrated enough" or whatever else. Rather than accepting men at their level, you appear to chastise them from your throne. Deaf. And these are just the less developed men, by the way. Do you really know what a fully self-actualized man wants from his partner? It's not so obvious. Now, me pointing this out to you will tragically come off as ME being blind to YOUR point against Leo (even though that's not my intention). Reading through my comment here may even in turn give you an urge to deconstruct all of my blind spots (no doubt there are many). And the cycle continues. Leo is spot on. I agree

we won't. watch leo's most recent blogpost

thanks preety

coca's joking

Oh boy. lol

^

lol poor boy

lol.

^

Horrible advice from the women in this thread lol. To be fair, they know what they personally like from a man, but they have no idea what the difficulty curve is like for becoming comfortable on first dates as man. They're not realistically honing their advice to your situation @machinegun Listen to Leo.

So many plant milks are fortified that it's disingenuous to say that they're lacking nutrients lol. I can tell you're judging before even having tried shopping for dairy alternatives.

real person or use your imagination

Wow. You really did the work in one go. Keep it up! P.S. So... are girls still attractive to you too?