Hulia

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? I would never-never have a date with somebody instructed by dating coaches. And I would very soon loose any interest towards a guy who doesn´t know what he wants, who is not sure, if he wants to see me, to hear me, to feel me. Like Leo instructs teenagers here - try with one, try with the other, with the third, with the forth, tills some desperate chicken gives you waht you want

:))))))))))) Thank you for laughing!

Obviously there are different kinds of ATTENTION. Selfless attention is not needy, since it´s not looking for a reward, it´s just there for the sake of itself - Attention (capital letter!). In fact we made a loop and landed at your quote in the initial post.

I still insist that a lack of confidence is a prior problem. Leo should teach how to be confident and not how to show masculinity. Unconfident man is focused too much on himself during the date - is he masculine enough, does he say the right things, checking a girl only for reaction on himself and planning his next steps. A confident man would forget himself and be interested in a women, be full of ATTENTION. That is what would make him irresistable and not being a shell or similiar bullshit. In fact we are completely at Leo´s area - abandoning the SELF and living effortlessly. I don´t know why he deviates in the matter of relationships and sees it as a separate part of life.

a Belgian cow.. they looked so clever and beautiful that I almost spoke to them

Let´s agree on that. I have nothing against confidence. But some guys here, including Leo, mistaken confidence for dominance (this language makes me crazy, why not "dominEnce" or "confidAnce"?). Dominance is disgusting. Confidence without dominance is the most delightful character trait!! The quiet introverted and confident guys are the best!

I think they lack confidence. If the poor guys try to be masculine without confidence it will be ridiculous. Waht they need is confidence. And not masculinity.

Me personally... I just hate this division into strong and weak, because it´s so useless. I don´t understand what others understand under "strong" or "weak". Not a hint. I couldn´t tell who is strong and who is weak. Maybe in another context in my understanding: the less conditioned/ biased, the stronger (irrespective of gender). But it´s not Leo´s understanding when he praises masculine strongness. I don´t understand, how they define who is strong and who is not. That could be a request for a new video from Leo: What is strong and what is weak

No suggestions, its so damned complicated - the relationships I know only what is wrong (Leo is wrong) - neti-neti

Please not!!! Let him do his wonderful videos about enlightenment, nothinhness, wisdom, love, yes even love. But not dating! His perspective here is disgusting. P.S.: good quote!

Honestly I don´t understand what we are here speaking about. What this Teal suggests in her silly video might work for a relationship of 1 month or so. But if you have a long-term relationship, are you serious about that rubbish? really?, everything will change thousand times - her role, his role, the life circumstanses, the relationship itself. There will be moments when you´ll have to be shell for him and vice versa. The more open-minded and flexible you are the helthier the relationship.

Of course it is!

It feels good because it has been done for thousand of years and not because it´s the only right thing. We are always awkward to try something new. That´s all.

OK, I watched the first 5 minutes of the video. And again I cannot beleive, that people on this forum take this rubbish seriously..

I heard that people on the first trains fainted because of high velocity, wich was about 30-50 km/h. And today? Here we are. Rushing with a speed of 500 km/h or even flying in the sky and feeling good. Never thought that people on this forum are so conservative.

You misunderstand me. It definitely feels amazing to provide containment to somebody you love and get containment from somebody who loves you. No argument here. But why it should always be IN THIS WAY? Why not experiment with DIFFERENT ways?

For me the boundary is more than clear and distinct: 1. The relogion is static, hence the sience is dynamic. It´s the very essence of religion to preserve the believes. Nothing changed since 2.000 years. And if they don´t burn the witches and scientists, it´s not because they recognized their mistakes, but because they´ve lost their power and are subcect to a humanistic civil law. In the countries where it´s not the case, they still burn the witches and scientists. 2. The science is very well AWARE of its LIMITATIONS. The religion - not. Scince tryes to overcome the limitation as far as possible, e.g. by building the teams out of experts from different fields, by repeating experiments under different conditions and always leaving a room for doubts and checks. 3. The science RECOGNIZES its mistakes. It´s the very essence of development. And science is a development, otherwise we wouldn´t be where we are now. Religion sticks on dogmas which are not allowed to change. 4. The purpose of science is the TRUTH, it may be not the quickest and not the most efficient way to get to the truth. But it´s the best way under GIVEN CONDITIONS. The purpose of religion is inner peace, harmony, love.. theoretically. But pracically it´s a tool of control and manipulation, causing violence and wars.

It´s a question of time. It´s not that long that the society works in this way. And the changes are already in process. The modern heros are no longer Rambo or Terminator but Neo or Harry Porter.

You still need some basics, which you can polish with a superficial stuff. It can be really delightful. But a supeficial stuff without basics is disgusting.

If we speak in materialistic terms, and so we do, because that is what "protect her and kids" means, than a woman should be attached to a shy and unconfident IT guy or a scientist, because in our epoch and in our society they have more chances to earn good money to protect her and kids. Stronger and healthier men might have been good in protection 100 years ago, not today. And when we think further a modern woman in a western world doesn´t need a protector any more. She is free to fall in love with any kind of a man! The world is changing! Don´t you see it? A "healthier and stronger man" is a snow from yeasterday.

I mean, some basic qualities of a human being or in this context of a man. As for example open-mindedness, compassion, good nature, ability to observe to love...

There is no guarantee that a secure confident man will be a better father than insecure and unconfident one. None. Besides confidence is a soft skill which can be learned and developed. Much more important is the hardware. I cannot grasp, that Leo is teaching you such a superficial stuff here.

It`s an illusion. No human being is perfectly reliable. Somebody as strong as a rock may collapse tomorrow under the pressure of internal or external circumstances. Who knows.

The same with the women. It´s just a matter of experience. You are always more confident wit the things which you do frequently. Women have less experience of taking decisions than men, that´s why they might be less confident. And not because of the difference in brains or genitals.

No human being likes to take all decisions and bear responsibility for all the possible mistakes but would rather prefer to sit on a couch and relax. But the half of human beings, called men, is forced to take decisions because of gender role allocation. That´s all.