Natasha Tori Maru

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.

@Rishabh R yes 🙏🏻 I think authenticity is a function of maturity and knowing thyself (but not limited to these things!). We can persue sex thinking it is our top value - and claim it is authentic. But when deconstructed we might realise we didn't want sex after all. It was a deception. And we acted out of authenticity as a result, unknowingly and unconsciously. This is where feeling and emotional intelligence come in. Sometimes we can intellectuallize a value, but the feeling tells us something isn't right.

I can see why you put so much emphasis on that topic. I see "authenticity", just be "authentic" etc thrown around commonly in dating and romance advice. But I feel like very little care has gone into explaining what is meant. And from my dialogues with others on this topic, overlap in definitions presents as a rarity. I didn't even really think about how the concept could be filtered through gender roles - which people would commonly load up the term with.

The impulse to express myself in the way I did dissolved naturally after I recognised the boundary I had crossed with my own value system. I didn't feel that "building up inside" of frustrated pressure and a need to express it - the pressure just wasn't there. Instead of trying to hold the lid shut to stop pressure release, I put the fire out from under the pot (crude metaphor, but it seems to describe how I felt the congruence) In the face of truly understanding how I was compromising a connection the expression of my behaviour changed. And I didn't feel it like it was a censure of myself or me inhibiting. It just felt like a drive toward connection. I feel like my overall definition (which is a work in progress) lacks the essence of spontaneity that comes with authenticity. I am fundamentally unresolved here!

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?

Do you repeat outfits? Exact same several days in a row? Find one or two that work and repeat? Or do you have a style that has essential basics but you rotate accessories? Or do you find something that works and purchase multiple of that item in differing colours? TELL ME! I am a chronic outfit repeater; I find a couple of items that work as a basic template and alternate one or two small elements. I am completely unbothered repeating an outfit 3 days in a row, exactly the same (provided it is clean). I don't want to think too much. Just slap something on I know works and go. I dislike shopping for clothes. I wear a lot of black. Special occasions I deviate. But day to day I don't give a shit if it's the same all week INTJ if that factors in

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 😃

Depends. Did I complete my assigned tasks, to be so rewarded with this confectionery?

My sister is like that 😬 Sorry for semi-derailing there. You provoked some insights for me. And reframes. Cheers for the tag !

Forgot to add to my points above this sort of dovetails with feminism. Some men's negative reaction to feminism may be (partly) explained by feminism changing women's mate-selection in ways that reduce mens control. It increases women's selectivity/sorting/screening through increased agency and make men's behaviour more subject to evaluation. The mechanisms behind feminism act to empower/teach women to screen more effectively, but as a byproduct.

I think ultimately with game/pickup everyone eventually moves on from dedicated, concerted practice due to it becoming (ideally) naturally incorporated into their habits and reflexes. I just view it in the most charitable way as men learning confidence through technique (there is more to it, I am simplifying heavily). That's not to say there aren't crude and exploitative forms of pickup. I don't view it as cringe. In general mens challenges are access and attraction generation; women's are screening, filtering and relationship calibration. This is just in general, as the more high value one is, these challenges can flip and change. Pickup is a structured method to teach the tools for attraction generation and access. Men use these tools. It is transparent. You can learn this also with social circle game. Women also need to learn screening and selection. But because women have access to different tools, how they learn to screen can be different. Therapy can be a way women learn screening, and we don't shitcan that - despite it addressing their challenges (and it isn't marketed as such, but it could viewed as addressing this issue). There are also mate selection training courses, books and coaches for women. There is a legitimate gap in the market here to assist women to select/screen better. Women in general have larger social reach than men, so they essentially have the opportunity to learn via social circle, just like men. This would be an intuitive learning. At the very highest level, both sexes are sort of heading toward "Can I perceive another human being, with accuracy, without projecting my fantasies, fears, desires and stereotypes onto them?" You can also break it down into symmetries for both sexes (again this is in general and can flip with high value mates): Men - Approaching women, Women - Recognising and allowing access to good men Men Creating attraction, Women - Evaluating attraction, not confusing it with compatibility Men - Flirting/charisma, Women - Reading men's intentions, character, social behaviour Men - Handling rejection, Women - Handling abundance without becoming indiscriminately cynical Men - Escalating, Women - Setting boundaries and observing how he responds Men - Getting dates, Women - Filtering dates efficiently Men - Game, Women - Discernment Men - Avoiding the friendzone, Women - Avoiding the manipulator/player Men - Learning female psychology, Women - Learning male psychology Men - Screening for attraction, Women - Screening for character, stability, compatibility I suppose I am attempting to reframe pickup and flesh out a female equivalent here! And just as pickup can give women the ick, I can perceive how the above dating points/advice/training for women can give men the ick also. Imagine a female dating course taking into account the above points - it could sound viscerally gross to men! Some men do not learn well how to attract and get access to women via social circle, so game provides a structural frame to apply. Some women do not learn to filter and select well through social circle also. They might end up in therapy which can, although not it's primary mechanism, assist here. Women are probably less likely to reach out for a structured training method to select, though.

Everyone makes mistakes, no stress! I have so many disasters going on in life, unless someone has lost a limb or has a terminal diagnosis I'm just gonna let it go. Plus you just got through a heavy breakup. Sounds like the sort of a sort of breakup where you attracted something so intense it broke your previous relationship patterns? We can play out a pattern in romantic relationships until it calls something into our experience that is so intense, we cannot ignore it. Breaking it. Just speculation peiced together from your posts. It's hard not to get paradigm locked after those sorts of experiences. I only have charitable and happy feelings when in dialogue with you 😀