Natasha Tori Maru

Agree - can I ask - does your book touch on this topic much?

I went with this initially - but then I recalled when I felt some of my actions did not align with my values, despite the expression feeling "good" (or maybe cathartic) at the time. An incentive to express myself in the moment run up against a value (no offending others). Lots of dissonance was felt.

Do you think it might be overrated for certain phases of relationship, like during initial dating? IE maybe the value of authenticity rises as the relationship progresses? I think the role of authenticity is a big step individually for people - how it manifests in relationship with a person is another layer of complexity. Cheers for your thoughts!

@Joshe it's the bass string instruments that do that to me, I find. Polyphonic contralto might do it as well?

Authenticity. I find it ill-defined. The word is tossed about flippantly. EVERYWHERE. It is spoken about on these forums frequently. What is Authenticity (in the romantic sense, and interpersonally)? Do you think it is overrated/underrated? Only appropriate at certain times or phases of connection? I find it paradoxical. Authenticity requires enough self-awareness to distinguish your genuine values from the forces acting on you (incentive structures). I think it is about congruence. Congruence between what is actually going on inside you, how you live, make choices and relate to the world. So for me it's being able to accurately know what I experience, owning it completely and acting in accordance with it as the situation deeps appropriate. I feel like it needs these clauses because it gets muddled up with just "expressing" without censure. Authenticity IS NOT just expressing the contents of your mind. "I say what I feel", "I refuse to change for anyone", "I do what feels natural", "I am brutally honest" or "I don't care what anyone thinks, this is who I am" - all of these are not it in my definition. Philosophy wise I don't think to be authentic we require a true fixed self. Values change. We change. What is authentic will change. Existentially I see it creeping toward "am I taking ownership of the fact I am choosing?" My closest definition: Authenticity is the constant, background practice of shrinking the space between what I experience and what I understand myself to currently value. What I claim to be, and how I actually behave... while remaining willing to amend my understanding of me. Would love everyone's thoughts around this loaded topic as it applies to dating, courtship, romance, relationships, attraction etc.

But that isn't what he asked. That is your interpretation to try to validate your points. Status re-enforcement. The aura points argument is more likely to say more about the person claiming it - namely that they aren't secure in themselves. Comparison based. Inter-male dominance hierarchy stuff. It reads as low status to me from here. In addition "that CAN come across". Yes - it can - it relies on interpretation. One possible interpretation of many. Many dudes won't interpret it in the way you did. Just as insecure guys will see threat. You seem very confused and upset about this topic. Based on the rhetoric you engage in.

Killing two birds there - developing yourself and attracting some ladies at the same time I find men who engage in a passion and share it very attractive. I think this applies to many people in general.

I didn't explicitly state the working mechanisms for healthy, genuine relational connection I experience & prefer. I just chose to answer OP's question around cold approach only (how I prefer it to be done, not if I do or do not want it etc). I read @Emerald's response and agreed with the mechanics as described. I just didn't explicitly make my agreement there clear I didn't mean to appear to be hedging or anything. I felt she nailed it and I had nothing else to add. I tend toward the conclusion that the sort of women to generate instant attraction (or just deeper feelings in a rapid manner) may be responding to some sort of internal, unconscious version of love learned from childhood that may not be healthy. I suppose my non-aversion to cold approach dovetails in well with my little project of resisting Ni compression/closure we have been touching on. I definitely compress and spearhead for closure as a default. I am going the opposite way as a method of meta mind exploration - and I feel like this insane experiment might appeal to you, haha! So far it has lead me down some unusual growth paths - namely in being able to cross pollenate and merge different frameworks together. Feeling and emotional based stuff. @Olaf If your goal is a secure, long term, healthy and mature connection with a women - in my opinion this is the optimal path. Connection through third spaces (or even second, but this has inherent risk, although it is time tested!) is great method.

I think I am open to novelty and new experience to a high degree. But at the same time, I am extremely discerning and know what I want. Someone approaches and I have a snap, intuitive read. I don't often roll with it, just to test it's ability and to ensure I am not needlessly misreading and losing an opportunity. But there is definitely a boundary there, if a guy is signalling any sort of disrespect, charged anger or violence it's an instant no. I suppose it's me testing my gut intuition by remaining open to collecting more data? Most often, the men who are more likely to approach are less patient. And although I might be okay with being approached, I am slow to build genuine feelings of deep attraction and emotional connection. There appears to be a hidden assumption with cold approach that making your intentions (sexually) prominent from the outset, that sexual contact is guaranteed quickly (or quicker). This has just been my experience. I've never had a successful connection develop from any man who cold approached me. All my relationships were vetted through social circle, or some other relationship that didn't involve romance initially (work etc). So the mechanics of attraction as Emerald described are very similar to my own experience. I chose to answer the question differently. Thanks for asking (or prompting) 😁

Even needing to ask what the point of this thread is (in the manner it has been done here) potentially points to a much deeper and concerning issue within these users.

Yes. Misandry. It often gets smuggled into the feminism rhetoric.

It definitely doesn't intentionally teach it. Or guarantee it. Not at all. But the movement did act to give women agency - which freed them to select. That in no way guarantees the selection is of higher quality or better. It does push women to evaluate mens behaviour. But because feminism isnt intended as a female dating strategy, there isn't a guarantee women would learn from it in the way described.

@ElvisN no low quality posts like that, thanks. Inappropriate.

Too much truth for some people 😃