Princess Arabia

Bingo. But not feminine looking, and depends on the feminine trait.

That's why That's right. There are two sides to a coin. People hate what they don't understand and people also hate what they do understand. That's why they hate it because they understand it perfectly well, and in this case, that men are about looks and that they are competing in that category. Men love beautiful women and women hate other beautiful women. Just responding to your meme here to explain why it has some validity and doesn't apply to all women and not necessarily how i view things, it's just the way it is and where some of the women disliking other women come in amongst other reasons but this is one of them. I know because I've been exposed to that.

That's not what I mean and didn't think you were referring to. Anyway, I see your point, even though I still think the second guy would blend in with the gays. Lol. Too cute. Even Justin Beiber ain't that cute looking and still has an air of manliness to him.

To me, masculine isn't just about looks but about demeanor and traits. We're just generalizing here and speaking off the top of our heads etc. I actually do like feminine men at times. Not feminine looking, but with the traits you mentioned above. I also like men who don't look overly aggressive and masculine like that ridiculous pic that funnyman @Spiritual Warfareshared of the Roc I believe is his name lol, but in their attitudes. Lots of masculine men out there don't look masculine as in muscles, height or deep voice, but they do have masculine traits and blend quite well with the feminine.

To me, it's not that he looks feminine and I don't see where, if he had a beard, it would change my opinion of him much. Feminine looking, yes, but put two masculine looking guys pic side by side, if one doesn't have a certain look about him, I'd still be able to say, and just from his looks, whether he matches certain criteria. Keep in mind, these wouldn't be Absolutes and just for conversation sake; and I wouldn't make any real-life decisions just from my opinions alone on how a guy looks.

Doesn't matter, even Emerald said the same thing. Guys will think differently, and that is ok. You're not a female and it doesn't matter the country. Put that second guy in a gay parade and he'll blend in perfectly - gay or not. Europe ain't got nothing to do with it.

I'm still explaining how a man's looks can influence a woman's attraction and decision-making. The second is obviously more physically attractive (most would agree, even myself). It's just I'm not physically nor sexually attracted to his looks. Not that I don't like good-looking men, but there are various kinds of looks out there. I'll tell you a Hollywood celebrity that I find physically and sexually attractive (just saying, I'm not drooling or anything, lol) and that is Mark Walberg. Ben Afleck, to me, still looks too soft and feminine. Mark checks off all the boxes on the "what kind of guy he seems like along with his looks" category. I can be turned on by him. Not the second guy here in the pic. Seems I'd be competing with admirers from the gay community - no disrespect to him.

You're right it's a pointless debate especially when the opposite sexes aren't really interested in asking how they see things. We're just projecting what we think is the case. To your comment here, though, the first guy is the one that looks adventurous even though the second is more attractive. Like @Emeraldsaid, and I agree, the second has more of a gay appeal and seems like he'd be in the bathroom longer than me, or wouldn't know what to do to lead the relationship. He's just cute, that's it; the other guy checked off more boxes even though he's not that attractive.

Good question. Certain things will only come out of feminine men. Certain men can only see certain things when they themselves aren't mature to see them and certain attractive looking men don't want to accept that women aren't just in for the looks. They actually get offended when women say it's not just all about the looks or chose a less attractive guy over them. That's feminine behavior.

Hollywood needs the looks. Ordinary women aren't being protected and provided for and lead by looks. They will admire from afar because that's feeding the visionary sense. When it comes down to it Hollywood men doesn't matter when it comes down to a woman's survival mechanisms and agenda. Like I said it also depends on age. All those teenie boppers screaming at those Hollywood performers are just being teenagers and are young and inexperienced. Those guys are cute and makes them feel a certain way at that stage. You won't find mature women doing that stuff. Hollywood is not real life.

I respect your opinion and you're entitled, and i love your takes on a lot of things; but I think you're missing the fact that a lot of this has to do with what stage that female is at in her life, her age, life experiences and personality. It's not about being normal, but a matter of taste and survival. Which one of those guys do you think looks like he would be able to provide and protect. Which one looks like he could tackle a bear if it came charging at us. Which one looks like he could make very difficult decisions and be more responsible if needed. Depending on a woman's survival needs the first one fits all those categories the best just from his looks. Not saying he will, but just from his looks.

Here, another female's perspective. These guys will call us liars before they try to understand the females perspective. A much older man especially if he's very attractive and has had a lot of rejections in his life would be able to understand this better. He thought his looks would get him the ladies until he had a deep awakening to the truth. Now he understand women better and that's one reason some women prefer older men. They are a little more in tune to what women like and understand them more. Let these guys keep talking while the men that understands how we think keep on raking in the doe. Shows how they really don't care about who we really are but more about what we can do for them. Generalizing here, guys so not all shoes fit.

The women in the study chose the first, both @Emeraldand I deselected the second even though we didn't really choose the first, and you guys are still sticking to your ideas of how you think women are. You could be staring at an apple in the face and insist it's an orange if that's how you perceived it at first. Even when the women on the forum are saying the same thing, in so many words, guys are still refusing to realize they know nothing about the female gender. They will tell you that you're lying just to hold on to their beliefs about women. Then you wonder why........I'll leave that to the imagination because I could insert numerous things there.

The problem is limited thinking. If no one addressed this post, and I mean absolutely no one, how do you think OP would feel. Not sure exactly, but not the same as if it's flooded with comments. Point is, it's still attention-based. Not saying he's SEEKING attention as in the sense of feeling lack, but it's still for some form of attention. A teacher teaches her students and expects their attention. So ilm speaking of attention in the broader sense. We don't see things in the not-so-obvious and like to only look at other's behaviors and tend to think we know why they do what they do. The only difference with that pic on Instagram and this post is the content; BOTH ARE SEEKING ATTENTION. I'm seeking your attention when I used the quote button in hopes that you attend to and read this comment. The difference is in the mind of OP and how he sees a scantily dressed woman VS a quote from someone on a forum. Now he projects that unto the world and make posts like these not realizing how he created the distinctions. If he realized it, this thread wouldn't exist because he would realize that he is seeking attention just like she is seeking attention; but to him there's a morality difference because one is in a bikini and one is behind a forum intellectually speaking.

Just curious as to who you'd choose based on the last sentence in my comment (if you can take a look) who would you choose in that situation. I gave my answer there in my comment. Just curious.

Neither one for me in the looks category; but also remember that even when a woman can only see looks and nothing else, her radar can scan the guy for more than just his looks. She can tell (or is assuming, because she's not always right) a little but about if he'll be right for her just based on his looks alone - to a certain degree of course. No one knows for sure before you get to know the other person so we're speaking about even just the idea of giving him the opportunity to get to know her and to date or go out or whatever. Guys judge women on their looks a lot and tend to think women are as looks-oriented when, they are, but it's the kind of looks that she can tell would be suited to her based on her age and level of development and not necessarily if he's hot or not. The first guy is a little bit too hard on the eyes and the second one a little too easy; not manly looking enough. If I was caught in a corner, though, and my life dependent on choosing one i'd choose the first.

Thank you. You got the drift of what I'm saying here. I don't really talk to people any more about Leo and his content. I did when I first discovered him until I realized I was really unto something here because people were disinterested or couldn't compute what the hell i was saying. I'm talking about before I even got so deep into spirituality. I was like a kid in a candy store. Now it's more engrained and first nature and embodied and who goes around talking about their hands. The topic at hand was more about human behavior and I figured I would try to explain the not so obvious, but to someone who was not so ready to hear it. I really don't see anybody else online discussing the topic at all in such depth as Leo does, so I couldn't reference anyone else; but the post was more about how I found myself having to explain away how I don't condone such behavior from tyrants more than them even trying to understand where I was coming from. This is a perfect example of you live and you learn; because it's not so much about Leo and his teachings, but topics that are metaphysically philosophical. I'll just stick to the "yeah, people are just assholes and this is just life" theories from normies when having a conversation with them.

This is the issue. Even with people here on this forum, it's hard for them to see the nuance.

Not necessary. Criticisms don't enlighten.

Remember this.

Why is it hard for you to communicate without throwing punches at people. You keep saying I don't mean to be rude and no offense. None taken. But the same way, you're saying trying to engage in any meaningful conversation is pointless I could say the same thing. You haven't once asked me any questions about what I truly mean in anything I said, Nor made any queries to ne about what I'm trying to communicate, to be clear yourself that I'm really misunderstanding what he's saying. I'm not saying this is nor isn't the case, but those are signs someone gives to communicate to the other that they are really interested in know clearly and without any doubt that the other person is obviously misunderstanding the message. Maybe it's you that hasn't understood the message, not saying that's the case, but a deeper inquiry and questioning the other is a sure sign that you even care to truly understand what they're communicating and that maybe you're just misunderstanding them. All this doesn't have to be done but to tell the other person with such surety that they are misunderstanding the message, to me, warranties this process. I rest this case thanks for your input.

Stop with this already. lmao . While we're at it he should change the name Actualized.org to Crocodilezed.net lol

Hard to communicate these things with words. People have different definitions for different words. Yes, bad is just an idea so is good.

Ok, you're right. Watch the video that @FlyingLotusshared in the link from his comment to me. It explains it better than I can. You don't have to but, I'm still sticking to what I'm saying and you can keep disagreeing. Nothing wrong with that. I already understood the depth of the message but these things are hard to communicate because they are so radical and profound. Certain points are just being misunderstood and i don't think I can fully communicate them to someone who thinks they already know what I'm trying to communicate.

How can God be selfish when it's formless. We are playing word semantics here. Good in this sense just means it cannot be bad if it's unlimited and infinite. Selfish can only be where there is form. Please don't ask me if a stone is good. A stone is not sentient, it doesn't have feelings.