Gesundheit

There's no absolute high or absolute low. It's all relative and arbitrary. "Value" itself is a relative and an arbitrary concept.

Ha! So, are you claiming that if you were blind you would still be attracted to them ? as much? + Where does that most authentic raw natural desire go after you ejaculate? Why does it not remain true at all times?

The highest value is the lowest one.

Most of it is conditioning/media brainwashing. Welcome to the unenlightened state.

Call me gross, superficial, or whatever you want, but I honestly can't be satisfied with only one woman. I'm not the biggest player, so I certainly don't claim a versatile sexual experience. But from what I've noticed from consciously watching porn, I am absolutely certain that I can't be monogomous. At least, I can't be happy in that kind of relationship. To be more specific, my sexual appetite shifts every few days to a week. I might find blondes incredibly sexy today, but then after a few days, they're just normal and they don't spice or entice me up anymore. Suddenly, I become attracted to brunettes. When I'm in a certain sexual mood, all other moods get closed off. No matter how beautiful the woman is and no matter how beautiful I thought she was a few days ago, if she's not compatible with the current mood, I won't be turned on by her. And in fact, an average-looking girl that is compatible with the mood will turn me on like crazy. I've been very watchful over my sexual mood over the past few years, and there's no particular pattern that I've found. It's an irregular circle at my best estimate. Sometimes, I get turned on by curvy girls, sometimes by skinny, sometimes white, sometimes black, sometimes a mixture of different things, etc... There's absolutely no logic for why I have these shifting moods. Eventually, I will find the same blondes sexy again. It just might take me a week, a month, or more.

Abso-fucking-lutely! What I'm saying is absolute truth. You either accept it, or you don't. And it will be true nevertheless. You simply can't defy mother nature. I challenge you to be happy while sleeping with only one woman for the rest of your life. Please don't use such silly examples. We don't need to state the obvious. We all know that celebrities fuck on the side all the time. It's just common sense. Or else, they would be called saints, not celebrities.

I don't know what that video means. In my view, it could mean anything you want it to. However, I think it's an indisputable fact that women generally tend to grow and mature faster than men. This is even the case sexually where females reach puberty at a younger age than males. For this reason, I think society still has it right when it comes to this specific issue. Women always look for older men, because men of the same age are not as mature. We can safely say that generally women mature younger than men. So, I definitely agree with you on this point. However, male maturity is not necessarily identical to female maturity. Men and women grow differently on different axes, each within their own league. There are different gender roles for each side, and we can't say everyone should be equal. For example, I can't imagine myself pregnant or giving birth. This is clearly not my role. As a general rule of thumb, I would say people who are interested in spirituality are more developed than the average person, whether men or women. And within this particular field, I would say women develop and reach maturity younger than men because of prior evidence of quicker development in other areas. So, it's always wise for a woman to look for an older man in order to match up with his level. I personally wouldn't want to have a relationship with an older woman for this particular reason. With an older woman, there's a huge risk of being easily manipulated because I'm not at her level. Ideally, I think all men should look for younger women, and vice-versa. I think that's how it should be and that our ancestors got it right.

I've noticed that every few days, a thread or two in this subforum get flooded with debates about the same topic: Attraction. I contemplated this phenomenon and why it happens regularly, and came up with a few explanations. They might not be true, but at least that's my take. I wanted to share it here to create awareness, not to invoke anyone. So here's my list of potential causes: Past traumatic experiences, which seem to play out in these discussions, as everyone seems to contribute with their share of insecurities/biases. Lack of action in real life, which probably makes us invest a lot of time in forming a lot of theories that might not have much to do with reality. This is probably reinforced by the covid-19 situation. Procrastination on taking action, again probably reinforced by the lock down. Solutions: I guess, a detailed Leo video on dating would be ideal. Otherwise, I don't know. I'm trying to integrate women's perspectives here alongside dating coaches advice. I find myself inclined to comment sometimes, but I take a step back and watch mostly.

I'm sorry, but this logic is silly and inconsistent. If I'm gonna question women's advice because of potential conflict of interests, then I should absolutely dismiss men's advice entirely, because a man will likely tell me something that doesn't get me laid, because if I get laid more, he will get laid less. And vice-versa. See, men have more reasons than women to fall for the conflict of interests fallacy. But let's be objective here and listen to everyone equally. Why not? Sure, we should take everything with a grain of salt. That is a universal rule, and certainly not gender-exclusive. Exactly! I agree and appreciate the advice, man.

It's not bad at all, actually. Some people simply accept reality, and others don't. It's only bad for the ego.

Theoretically, that's true, until tested. Again, the only reason a man will be monogomous is lack of options. Give him an opportunity and see how quickly he will cheat. Any man will cheat in a blink of an eye when presented with opportunity. The less abundant, the more likely he will cheat. And vice-versa.

@Emerald And that's the female paradox. On the one hand, you want a fully integrated man who embodies his masculine side, which means polygamous. Yet, on the other hand, you want him all for yourself, which means monogamous. That's quite a bind you're putting us in. This paradox is because of self-bias/ego. Drop your ego, and there won't be a problem. For a man to be attractive, he has to be desired by other women. Otherwise, he does not qualify as high quality. Right? However, you want him to be desired but not touched. Well, talk about unicorns. Trust me when I tell you that the only reason a man will not have a side relationship is lack of opportunity. There's no such a thing as a monoamorous man. He will either cheat, or become a lesser man. A man with options will never settle down for one woman, it's just male nature. That's just how mother nature designed us. I get the impression that you think we like being this way. The truth is not at all. Trust me, it's a curse, not a blessing. Think about it, why would a man go out of his ways to chase after various women if he can find satisfaction with only one? It doesn't make sense, right? But it happens. Why? Certainly not because men are evil. It's enough burden to spread our seeds everywhere possible that mother nature has put on us. A lot of males would choose to live without sexual desire if it's possible, that's why people seek transcending desire in the first place, because it's rather a shackle and a limitation. I personally prefer being free from all sexual desire and I know a lot of men and women are the same, because freedom is always better. We are discussing the reality of general population, not you or me or any person in particular. Each one of us is a unique expression and has different nuanced wants and needs. However, it seems like you're moving out of your feminine energy here, and instead tapping more into the masculine energy in order to preserve control/identity. And while I think that's absolutely your right, I also think it's the main factor that brought us here in the first place. This is feminism that you're doing here, and I'm not denying you your right to practice it. This is important for the next point that I will address below. This has not been the case until recently. Human society has always been accepting of polygamy until recently. Everyone accepted reality as it is, including women, until feminism. Men have to be polyamorous in order to create variety and expand, and women have to be monoamorous in order to bare children and nurture them. The ability to create abundance is what's most attractive about men. When repressed/demonized, it will either diminish, or go malignant. Do you not agree that ancient cultures were more intuitive and in touch with being than our modern culture? Does that not mean possibly higher wisdom? When you deny human's natural/authentic desires, you create a shadow. I really shouldn't be saying this because I originally learned it from you. It's not like either of us has a choice in this game. However, the woman has the choice to accept mother nature and then meet the man halfway by accepting male nature/polyamory, like the man has the choice to accept mother nature and meet the women halfway by accepting female nature/by taking responsibility and providing for his family, regardless of the number of wives. This the closest thing to a win-win scenario, imo. It's not like you can force a man to be monogamous with any kind of egoic manipulation. It doesn't work like that. Eventually, you will either have to accept male nature and flow with it, or you will have to settle down for a lower quality man, which still does not guarantee you loyalty from him if presented with opportunity. In fact, I can almost guarantee cheating every time a lower quality man gets the chance to, with less frequency with the abundant/high quality man. Finally, I want to ask you this: Do you recognize that all mating/sexuality is selfish/survival? This is like the most fundamental truth here.

Ego. Possessiveness. Blind selfishness.

Exactly! BUT, a man can have meaningful relationships with multiple women. He is not limited to one woman. This dynamic has existed throughout history and up until this day (now, it's called cheating). Society used to regulate polyamory into polygamy, which to me seems like the perfect middle-ground for both men and women. Everyone gets what they want. The man gets variety, and the women get stability. Very responsibly. Very straight-forwardly. No avoidance. No tricks. No manipulation. The masculine is satisfied, and the feminine is safe. In modern times, though, polygamy is demonized. And so men are not able to experience their full masculinity, because modern society represses true masculinity. Men are not allowed to experience their masculinity in its full potential. So, guess what? This will create a shadow. I think the shadow looks glaringly obvious with all the incels, red pillers, etc... Women nowadays want to keep their men only for themselves, and therefore unknowingly limit their masculinity. And then they complain and wonder why they're not satisfied with them anymore. "Why is my husband not man enough?" or "Why is he cheating on me?". Well, now you know why. That's because y'all ladies are too damn possessive that it eventually comes back to bite us all in the ass.

The wider the perspective, the better.

@Emerald Ever heard of condoms, safe sex, etc...? Yeah, of course, there are men with avoidant attachment style. But that's beside the point. Men are polyamorous regardless of attachment styles. It's just the way it is. It might not make logical sense from the evolutionary perspective, but it makes absolutely perfect intuitive sense from reality's perspective. You're the expert on masculine and feminine polarities, so you probably know better. This should be obvious to you on an intuitive level. Although, granted that your logical mind won't like it. But what can we do? It is what it is.

@RendHeaven You're confusing assertiveness with aggressiveness. Stop derailing the thread with this nonsense. That's assertiveness. Fuck off = aggressiveness.

@RendHeaven This is what I'm calling out: "Hey, are you trying to intimidate me with all that commands: be clear, think twice.. Otherwise, what? You won´t be available to understand my perspective?" If you can't see how it’s sarcastic BS and has nothing to do with topic (which btw is very similar to what you're doing) then please fuck off.

@RendHeaven Umm, fuck off?

What y'all might not know, though, is that most men don't even want a relationship. Most men mainly just want the sex so that they can go on with their lives. Males are fundamentally polyamorous by nature, and there's nothing we can do about that. That's how mother nature designed us for maximum survival.

Someone who is up on the horse does not feel attracted to anyone. That would defy the whole purpose of the horse. In my opinion and experience, attraction only happens when I'm not on the horse, fundamentally due lack of completeness/perfection, which makes me seek it in another. A complete person does not feel attraction. They certainly feel aroused, but attracted as in emotionally engaged or invested, no. Maturity is measured by how much we invest emotionally in others. The less mature, the more investment. And vice-versa.

In the women's league, yes. Because it serves a woman's survival agenda. Men are different. I don't think we can apply the same metrics on men to measure their growth and development, because it's a completely different league. Men and women are fundamentally different, biologically, esoterically, and culturally. @Hulia Stay on topic, or take your emotional reactions somewhere else. This discussion has nothing to do with your person or my person.

I've heard several dating coaches saying that the amount of time a man spends with a woman equals attention. If he spends too much time on her, that's too much attention, and it's perceived as needy and unattractive. And the evidence suggests that a lot of women are attracted to unavailable men who don't give much of their time to her. The more non-sexual attention a man puts into a relationship, the less sexual attention the woman will put. And vice-versa. So it's a delicate balance. No one likes someone who's 100% available all the time. The moment a guy becomes too much available is the moment his woman will lose respect for him and start giving him less sexual attention. That's what dating coaches say about attention, and I find it true in my direct experience. Sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you refer to something else when you use the word attention. Please be clear with what you mean. P.S. I prefer to stay clear and move away from terms such as selfish and selfless when discussing pragmatic issues. I don't think it's the most effective way to communicate ideas. If you feel that way, then maybe think twice before posting. I'm not here to comfort you. I'm here to understand your perspective. What you do with mine is up to you.

@Hulia I don't know. It seems you're conflating different things here. Confidence has nothing to do with attention, ime. In fact, most of the times, attention is interpreted as high interest, which in turn is interpreted as neediness, which is the biggest turn off. Confidence is something else entirely. It means being grounded in my own worth regardless of anyone else's opinions, including the girl/woman I'm interested in.

One day is not enough, not even eternity. Thank you