zazen

It can on a biochemical level, but there are different types of love. The english language is poor compared to others in defining love, for example arabic has 10 types of love, or latin has eros/romantic, agape/unconditional, philia/friend love. It is a thought, emotion, physical and metaphysical all at once. Hard to define and yet we must define it for it is always, in all ways.

Lesson in this: even if a man is of value, it doesn't matter to a woman unless the woman believes she at least has some access to it or chance of securing it. The essential value of men is strength in all its forms (physical, financial, emotional, mental, social etc). Women wish to secure that strength. As a guy, you must communicate and offer that value in the form of showing at least some attention, initiative, and that you wish to be strong for her. A woman who feels a valuable guy is too unattainable will stop pursuing and move on.

When interacting with women its best to be in the moment as its more a emotional / energetic affair and to not be trapped up in the head. Analyse after the interactions. As your logical you may want to understand human nature which will help dispel any grandiosity women may have and therefore help you to be more relaxed around them. Use your own proclivity of being logical, to study nature, accept it, and act accordingly to it. The following may help de-pedestalise women for you. Not to put down women, but just to see them for what they are, not below or above men. If you view them as above you, you won't attain them because they aren't attracted to weakness, but if you view them as below you, how can you healthily love that which you look down on or detest. ''A subset of high value men who don’t commit beyond sex, have a very rosy-perception of women because they’ve got their game down enough not to face too much difficulty getting laid. These men enjoy the best of what women have to offer without being subject to any of the bullshit attached to it; this gives them a positively skewed bias. Perhaps some men are bitter, but bitter rarely means wrong, if anything, bitterness is the unwelcome by-product of a hard learned lesson, it is neither unwarranted nor devoid of wisdom. This is not to encourage bitterness, but rather to give credit where credit is due. Instinct obscures truth when it comes to the study of women, men are overridden by idealism, lust and paternalism and feel if they accept the darker nature of women then they have to hate women and won’t be able to enjoy them. Therefore a man is prone to retain the myth of the idealised women rather than accept nature, because he wrongly believes acceptance of nature is tantamount to an inability to enjoy women. This is not true at all, sometimes one has to accept reality is not what they want it to be, that women are not angelic as so many men were wrongly taught, but that in fact women are flawed just as men. It’s about a recalibration of expectations to complement reality, rather than continuing to worship the unicorn myth that society has so deeply ingrained. In spite of this realisation, you have to make a commitment to your happiness and make the best out of the flawed nature of human kind. If you can’t or won’t do that, you’re going to go your own way and prove nature right: you need illusions to see women as worthwhile. The inability to grasp and accept nature, instead choosing to reject nature, indicates the person in question has to deceive themselves about the nature of women in order to be capable of enjoying them. Such a person is not at the stage where they can enjoy women, whilst accepting how flawed nature can be, or their idealism of it. Salvation lies in accepting and working in accordance with nature, rather than in denying it. Where woman idealism may stem from Nature plays a cruel trick on the psychology of man. It gives him a very pure, high quality love in his childhood. It gives him a template for woman’s love that he comes to expect as standard of all women. He is taught by his mother’s love that unconditional loyalty, noble character, gentleness, sacrifice and trust are intrinsic of the feminine essence. And so as he grows from a boy into a man he comes to the rather logical conclusion that if he is “a good man,” he can expect to be loved by his lover in much the same way. His mother, well-meant but quite incorrectly likewise affirms this notion to him. This is a wicked lie, but a man whose heart is yet to be broken does not realise this. He thinks woman’s love is immutable. He knows not that her love for child is different from that of her love for him. Women are incapable of reciprocating man’s love. They love differently. There is a hierarchy of love that trickles down. Man sacrifices for woman, and woman, for child. Rarely does the river flow upward. As such, if man is to believe that women can love to the same extent as he, then he is doomed to disappointment and misery when she invariably acts within accordance of her nature rather than his idealisation. Men who had mothers that never endowed them with the maternal bond find it easier to swallow the truth and understand female behaviour as adults. It is a recurring observation of mine that men deprived of maternal love are better adapted for dealing with women as mates in adulthood. The man who grew up as a neglected boy never foolishly believed that a girlfriend would love him as his mother would, he believed she would love him exactly as his mother did; with extreme conditionality. Essentially man has to be stronger, for it is security she lacks being the more vulnerable sex, and seeks this in man. Children rely on women, women on man, man on himself and his strengths. If I could pin point / generalise the nature of women and men it would be this: women seek to secure strength, men seek to express strength. A lot of male/female behaviour can be explained with these two principles. Love women for what they are, not what you idealise them to be. ''

Generalisations are more useful than nuance in grasping reality, reality is nuanced but if you try to take in all of the nuance you get noise, unless your looking into a specific individual. We have to find ways to generalise all of the information we receive to be able to understand to an extent and then act, otherwise there will be paralysis by analysis. Every man and woman has a hardware (their biology) which is the same for all men and woman, then there is the software (their psychology, individual experiences etc) which is on top and interplays with it and makes everyone unique, but not so unique some fundamentals don't change. Everyone is the same, and yet everyone is the different. Woman's baseline experience of life is from fear, even man is fearful. But woman more so for the other half of the population want to in seminate her, are stronger than her, and this handicaps her for months for child rearing only instilling further fear for she can't fend for herself even more. Woman had to depend on man and tribe more than men, this is why their more sociable than men. Heres a video of teal swan going into this experience of life as a woman also:

I may not be fully correct but will give it a shot at my current level of understanding. Its not impossible, but more improbable. Due to evolution men have a greater ability to abstract/understand/use logic, its not that it doesn't exist in women, just less so. Women are more emotion centric than men, generally in conversation you hear women say I feel rather than men who say I think. Women survival was based on securing the strength of men, mens survival was based on securing the hostile environment. For men to control the environment they had to be more rational/logical and understand the environment, this evolved logic in men over Millenia. For women to control/secure men for survival they require emotionality, social bonding, sexual prowess, their survival relied heavily on their ability to socially bond to the tribe and man. Women are more likely to intuit something, whereas men are more likely to reason something. Women's love is focused more towards themselves and their children, this was a necessary result of a feminine survival instinct that’s helped preserve women and their offspring in a violent, chaotic and uncertain evolution. Mans love for conquering the environment was his survival instinct, he had no one else to rely on except his own strength and that of other men. In general, love flows downwards from men to women, women to children. That is why mans love is more sacrificial/idealistic and the male (even in the animal world) sacrifices for the female. (ie certain male species die after breeding or men go to war to protect women and children). Woman must be protected because they are the life givers and the only way to fulfil the biological instinct to propagate the species. Woman's love is more opportunistic/conditional as it had to be in order to survive, although her love for her children is idealistic/unconditional. This is why the hero's journey or the hero who dies for his family resonates so much. We can see mans sacrificial/unconditional love in animal species, to man going to war, to the conception of a child (sperm dying to reach the egg), to the heroic stories/narrative in culture / hollywood, to him giving up his instinct to sleep with multiple women for the sake and security of one woman and his family, and now to the court system where it is sided to the woman who has more to gain than lose in a divorce. This idealistic/unconditional love men envision and live through comes from their first experience of woman being their mother, men project that this is the love he will receive from all women or his wife only to realise the true nature / hierarchy of love, and that unconditional love flows down not up. This is of course a more biological love than a spiritual love which is unconditional.

Women seek to secure strength. This is the same strength that can be used against them and be a danger, so using their femininity they wish to wield that strength towards their own security and that of their children. This is the underlying theme/attraction towards vampires, beauty and the beast etc. The taming of the dangerous masculine for their own protection and provisioning. This is the continuous conflict and tension in women. The man their with is strong, yet is that strength available to them for their security and will it be there tomorrow. They wish their man to become better in health and wealth for it means security in the wild world they are vulnerable to, and yet at the same time they fear the mans higher status and attractiveness will have other women (more younger/beautiful/charming) compete for him or steal him away threatening their very security. This is why marriage/commitment means so much to women. The man they married in courtship, can end up becoming a shell of himself in the relationship and what is promised in courtship isn't always delivered in relationship. For the man love induced and getting his manhood validated can relax into a weaker version of himself. Biology has done its job of pro-creating and so the sexual instinct is no longer there to drive him to be stronger, he must find a higher instinct, the spiritual instinct to keep on going on in his betterment. Subconsciously, the woman can also herself weaken the man to ensure less competition from other women taking him and so giving her further re-assurance and security. On one level this gives the woman security other women won't compete for him but at the same time she loses the strength of her man which gave her a sense of security in the first place. She knows the one thing that wielded the man to her needs (her beauty) is declining and so wishes to secure the men as it fades. This is why women are extending their youthfulness now days ever more through botox etc as people aren't marrying/committing as young as they used, thus giving women the security the desire. Love and relationship is a constant flux. You can see this ambivalence more clearly in women with daddy issues. The don't trust what they need most, which is the masculine in their life. They need it most as they lacked it, and because they don't trust it to be there due to fear abandonment this makes them very possessive, controlling, jealous which ends up sabotaging their relationships. This dynamic is in women, just not as intense as in a woman who experienced an absent father.

Women seek to secure (long term/commitment) strength (alphaness). Players signal strength but not security, nice guys signal security but no strength. The good guy/ideal for woman is someone who is strong AND commits. The irony is that the men who are alpha find it hard to commit because of all the options they have. Men seek love and pair bonding also, but their dick also seeks variety. Men can have sex without emotion and still come back to the woman they love. One way to cause less break up is to let such men, if they are unable to control that sexual variety drive is to let them slip out from time to time just for sex, nothing more (ie no dates, sleep overs, long emotional talks with other women, protection used etc, its why prostitution is the oldest profession). Alphas can be monogamous with their heart, and polygamous with their dick basically. Another way in the modern age to satiate that variety is porn, which can keep relationships together, although if not disciplined that same porn can dull the mans sexual response to his woman also.

Bando is right, its not just about the number of partners but everything in her life experience which could impact her psychology and current/future behaviour. It's not necessarily in their biology to sleep with many men, yet the current environment/conditioning/women's empowerment/women are equal to men and can do what men can do (equating and conflating equality under the law with equality in our biological make up) has a lot of women doing exactly that. Also, a lot of bad parenting / high divorce rates are causing un healthy coping patterns in the current generations. To show the complexity of each individual think about this. It can be that a virgin who was restricted by her parents, once out the clutches of her parents and with her first husband retaliates against the resentment of not having freedom in her youth and now wanting to explore it as she has more freedoms living with her husband or post divorce / having fomo seeing other girls/guys her age enjoying their freedom. Daddy issues don't just stem from father absence but also tyrannical presence. Another scenario can be a woman who has slept with a lot of people but who is working on herself and realised what she likes/wants won't have any regrets of missed experiences. Another question is if you are her best and she knows it. She could have been with 20 terrible men in the sense they were not as attractive/actualised as you and you just blow her away sexually/mentally/emotionally etc and so she's happy to be and stick with you as you've had the most impact on her emotionally than any of the many other guys in her past.

@TK2021 You get it man. Past behaviour is generally a predictor of present/future behaviour. Of course, people shouldn't be shamed or judged for their past as we all carry the past with us, but its good to know about past patterns if you wish to assess your future compatibility with your partner. If the past is discussed, its because they/you see you in their future. You have to see your partner for who they are now and today, and if their were red flags, or toxic behaviours in the past that wouldn't jive well with you, you have to see if they are conducting them self in that way currently or working/open to address it. Forgive the past, but also don't accept bad behaviour in the present that isn't conducive for a relationship. A red flag isn't a hard no to a person, just a signal to be aware of. Jealousy is a natural instinct, so don't be hard on yourself or let people make you feel bad about it. Jealousy originates generally in women from insecurity (to secure their partner for long term safety/paternity/provisioning) and for men for paternity (to know the kids are his and his resources etc are going to his genetic lineage), thats why mate guarding is a thing. Of course, how this jealousy instinct is played out are acted upon can be an issue and cause toxic behaviour. In the past women would be killed for cheating including the one they cheated with, which is a toxic barbaric reaction, and why harems would be protected from other men. The opposite reaction of weakness is to disown the instinct and put up with bad behaviour a women currently shows in the present, and allowing yourself and self esteem as a man to be disrespected in a relationship to appease your partner. This only builds resentment and a low sense of self woth (ie letting your partner go out with past ex's too much, messaging lots of people of the opposite sex etc). A woman and man should have boundaries in a relationship to ensure the health of the relationship or its no relationship at all. In the current day, a mans jealousy instinct is in over drive, due to women having a past (usually more experience than men except the player jerk types who bed a lot of women), also due to us being in an environment or having global sexual access via internet tied in with no stigma against sleeping with people causally , adding social media into the mix where women/men can have hundreds of followers. It is something men of today have to contend with and not what our brains are evolved for. For relationships to work in the modern day both parties have to protect themselves from over stimulating these instincts in un healthy ways sabotaging the relationship and having boundaries to protect their relationship and commitment with each other. If they aren't open to that, it shows either lack of understanding (which you can explain to them) or that they wish to keep their options open if they don't see you as their best option in which case its better to move on. Modern day relationships are a lot of work to maintain and more awareness of our own nature and the modern environment is needed to navigate it. Understanding men/women's nature isn't so we can be bitter or angry towards them, but so we can accept each other for what we are and love each other despite it, by having empathy.

Insecurity will sabotage the relationship if you lose the frame that your the leader and one who is looked upon for strength. Financial strength isn't all men offer but physical emotional mental. A lot of women who are with men for solely financial strength end up leaving if thats all the man is offering, and once they themselves don't need to rely on that man for that side of life. https://www.google.com/search?q=promotion+divorce&oq=promotion+divorce&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l2j0i390l4.5277j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Good points, also if children are being told in school now that if they feel more feminine they can become female or visa versa that is only fragmenting them even further. This must be the excesses of stage green (inclusiveness) ? Once problems start to crop up maybe society will then change their approach and come to a healthy green paradigm.. In the past we were told to disown/repress the opposite sex's traits within us (men cant be anything like women or women anything like men) but now we are disowning our own biological sex. The point is both are wrong for they disown the sex we are born into, or traits we have within ourself. Im guessing the way forward is integration.

I think there has to be a distinction between gender and sex. Sex is the physical form of which their are two, gender is the characteristics/traits predominant to each of those sexes. You can be male and have some female traits, and be male and have some female traits. In fact it rounds you off as a person as its integrative. The fact that a person has to change their sex because society makes them feel they can due to them having the opposite sex's traits is actually opposite of inclusive. You can be a man and include female traits and visa versa.

https://illimitablemen.com/2015/08/26/promiscuity-civilization/ @PepperBlossoms Thanks for your insight. Something to ponder over for sure.

These aren't my words but from another source. I found this piece very interesting and would like to share on this section which pertains to the bigger picture being society and civilisation / where we are possibly headed / how this possibly ties into spiral dynamics. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROMISCUITY & CIVILIZATION Contents: 1.) Introduction 2.) Individuals, Families & Civilization 3.) Freedom & Human Instinct 4.) Promiscuity Threatens Civilization 5.) Religion Subjugates Promiscuity 6.) In Closing 1.) Introduction: As is typical, I was browsing the forum when a gentleman’s question caught my eye:Monogamy isn’t the norm in the animal kingdom, by far. So why do we so hungrily desire this form of relationship? The questioner is, as is quite common, falling victim to the appeal to nature fallacy. The fallacy is the assumption that because something is natural, it is optimum. In this case: “promiscuity comes naturally to humans, therefore, promiscuity is a good thing.” Of course, such thinking is not only fallacious but solipsistic. It appears a given that the average mind conflates naturality to be synonymous with “good.” Such thinking is used to great effect in marketing to give the word “natural” a positive connotation. Objectively the word is neither negative nor positive, merely neutral. Therefore the ubiquity of the assumption that “natural” can be equated with “good” is nothing more than a culturally programmed memetic infused into the collective consciousness. We typically associate the word “nature” and its derivative forms with health, enchanting trees and lush green lawns. But such an association is an inaccurate synonymity for “good,” as cancer, manure and vomit are as equally natural – if not quite so appealing. To briefly demonstrate the irrationality of such an idea, consider you use a computerised device to read this. Computers are incredibly useful, but they are anything but natural. So why do we use computers if they’re unnatural creations that aren’t the norm in the animal kingdom? Well of course because computers, like all technology, confer benefits upon human lifestyle we would not otherwise reap. The unnaturalness of computers is considered, on the whole, to be a net positive, not negative. As such, computers have become a bedrock of civilization. They do not need to be natural to enhance our quality of life. They merely need be the most efficient in performing the duties assigned to them. In this regard, monogamy and computers have a lot in common. 2.) Individuals, Families & Civilization: The institution of family does for social dynamics what computers do for electronics. Both inventions revolutionise and dominate their respective spheres. Property rights, law, marriage – all these things were invented to stabilise civilization by exerting environmental pressure on human instincts. Without such things, we revert to a base tribalism: violence and petty territorial barbarianism. Although one may not see it, for an idea, social grouping or principle is less tangible than a computer, the family unit is a prerequisite for the functioning of more complex social order. One cannot have committees, courts, institutions, panels, religions or even nations without first establishing family. As the individual bonds with the family, the family bonds with the civilization it inhabits. But individuals deprived the bonds of family by outcome of immutable social factors are often at odds with civilization. Such individuals give up on community, opting for a more parasitic survival strategy. They are the shameless narcissists, the angry barbarians and each and every shade of dysfunction there between. Scarcely do such people care for civilization. And how can we expect them to care for something as grand and abstract as civilization when such individuals were never fully subject to the bonds of family? How does one come to love something as grand as nation when they had not even the love of kin? Far from statesmen interested in the public good, vagabonds and the estranged are typically apathetic to the plight of civilization. Make no mistake in thinking it is only the estranged who behave in such a manner, indeed, entire families have pillaged civilizations in pursuit of internal interests. However, I think this more an affectation of excessive power rather than a quirk of family. As such, this contention is a generalisation rather than an absolutism. Familial estrangement manufactures apathy. This is how promiscuity and divorce undermine social progress, and in turn, civilizational progress. The effects of such action cause pain, which in turn, promotes excessive individualism and a disdain for collectivism. And so the cosmic recurrence that is a need for balance is tipped too far in one direction. That is, an obsession with the self (individualism, narcissism) and a disregard for the whole (collectivism, abstraction.) Naturally, this is bad for family. And what is bad for family is in turn bad for civilization. Each family represents a building block in the construction of civilization. Families (in the traditional sense of the word) contribute more value to society than lone individuals. Generally speaking, they have better mental health, a higher sense of civic duty, are more productive, and pay more taxes than broken homes or one person households. And this seems only rational. Family is bound by blood, civilization forms around the desires and needs of such bonds. People work harder and produce more when they care for and are cared for by others. Familial social pressure urges individuals to excel, to make the family proud, not to disappoint. Of course, there are always exceptions. There are highly motivated self starters devoid of family married to nothing but narcissism and money, but such individuals are the exception rather than the rule. In general, the prevailing notion is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, that families achieve more as units than they would if their members were autonomously estranged. This doesn’t mean that family life is suited to all; it simply “is.” 3.) Freedom & Human Instinct: Rebels have always been attractive, as truth be told it is the not-so-secret desire of human nature to defy social order and do whatever, whenever. To have one’s cake, and eat it – to relish in the destructive aspects of human instinct without suffering consequentially at the hands of civilization. Civilization does not punish the individual out of sadism, but rather, it punishes destructive behaviour because that behaviour threatens the social order necessary to sustain civilization. Now of course, I realise in my statement of this that we endure a contemporary exception to this maxim. That is, the normalisation of adultery via the feminist spearheaded collapse of the traditional family, but I digress. It is human nature to be infatuated with freedom in spite of considerations pertaining to the stability of such. And so, the minority who manage to stylishly defy society and get away with it are near universally idolised by the masses who are less free. Rock stars, rappers and social butterflies looking to make a name for themselves all encapsulate such attitudes. In truth, if all enjoyed the near absolute freedom of the few, social order would break down. Civilization would be but a shadow of its former self. And then those left would quickly call for order and more conservative social mores. Indeed, boom and bust, rise and decline, the attitudes and social mores of a civilization’s people appears quite cyclical. It appears that with prosperity, comes the rise of the feminine. Like children with access to the cookie jar, this leads to excessive freedom, which in turn leads to destruction and general apathy. Then when collapse comes, the masculine takes over – leading to order, conservatism, creation and empathy. Civilization is a process of domestication, without it, we are more beastlike than man. For humans evolved far longer in a pre-civilizational state than in a civilizational one. One need only look at cases of feral children to see how without civil domestication a human becomes a beast. Your ability to indulge your curiosity and intellect to exponential heights, to grow, to expand your mind and to travel vast distances – these things are possible only by the discoveries and sustenance of civilization. As such, to enjoy the furnishings of higher civilization, we are required to, for better or worse, forgo some of our more primitive aspects. Unfettered hedonism is just one of these aspects, although it is popular to think this is a piece of the proverbial cake that can be eaten and enjoyed without consequence. 4.) Promiscuity Threatens Civilization: I would hazard a guess in asserting that promiscuity costs our civilization dearly. Indeed, in the pursuit of orgasmic pleasure, we have a higher national debt (welfare,) a burgeoning divorce industry, lost boys and girls growing up fatherless, increased mental illness, higher rates of crime etc. I could go on, but I think the point has been sufficiently made. This is more a statement of reality than it is a judgement on the behaviour of those who contribute to the decline. It is what it is and so what will be, will be. And even in spite of moral considerations, it is most apparent that promiscuity diminishes the quality of a civilization by merit of its societal consequences. Should promiscuity not undermine family it would be all well and good. And so it appears that families cannot insulate themselves with an open-door sexual policy, just as nations cannot insulate themselves with an open-door immigration policy. Civilizations that do no protect their culture lose their culture. In truth, a family is a micro-civilization. It has its own rules, customs, politics and opinions distinct from the larger culture. A strong family, much like a strong nation, is therefore selective rather than liberal in who it allows into its domain. And this is the incredible thing about the social engineers who compose much the intelligentsia of western civilization. They ignore the history of human social development in favour of pursuing ever-evolving obscurities dreamt up in the solitary detachedness of the ivory tower. A man’s innate power is in his bodily strength and logic, a woman’s, in her bodily beauty and cunning. The social engineers ignore such immutable human intricacies in their egalitarian idealism. The social contract is the set of social rules that makes civilization possible, social engineers create and perpetuate ideologies which alter the terms of said contract, damaging civilization by swapping what works with what is desired to work. Swapping what is functional if imperfect, with what is dysfunctional and even less perfect. Then, quite satirically, it labels this regression progress. 5.) Religion Subjugates Promiscuity: Almost every religious institution to ever dominate the hearts and minds of a society has preached quite mightily the importance of monogamy. Religion as untrue as it appears, is therefore not only a pre-science way of explaining reality, but likewise a civilizational mechanism for social order. It is the imposition of order on creatures capable of order, but lacking the self-discipline to exercise such order without theological arguments permeating the hive mind. Human instinct is not without fault, and thus by merit of its destructive aspects will undo civilization if left unchecked. Religion inherently acknowledges the flawed nature of the human character and so brainwashes humanity in an effort to reconcile human flaw with human ingenuity. Civilization is a construction that balances on the fragile precipice between human instinct and human imagination. Civilizational progress is therefore contingent on the balance of conflict between our instinct to seek what we momentarily desire, and the loftier pursuits of what our minds envisage. The trade-off’s one must make in the pursuit of either is a warring battlefield, one that permeates the root and core of all that we do. Civilization demands imagination, whilst instinct, the mediocrity of self-gratification. Without the subjugation and noblest oppression of the prior, the freedom-seeking of the latter has a propensity to win. And with that victory, civilization falls. 6.) In Closing: From time to time I like to diverge from the chatter of Machiavellianism and evolutionary psychological explanations of female behaviour to explore the grander picture. Indeed, the state of civilization aka “the decline” is of great interest to me. These pieces tend not to be popular because they imply judgement, self-sacrifice and collectivism. Excessive selfishness and apathy is the spirit of the time. And yet in spite of that, I think such pieces necessary for stimulating a more nuanced worldview. As such, I hope the article compelled you to think, which for better or worse, is characteristically the intent of this blog. In addition, I kindly ask the reader to note their opinion in the enclosed poll. Criticism is as ever, welcomed in the comments.

I was friends with a girl, which turned into dating each other over 2 months although we both knew we were looking for different things (her commitment, me something more casual). I had told her from the beginning and was honest, however we still had chemistry and attraction and ended up being physical. Every time we met it was physical although I was hesitant about sex due to knowing she wants something serious, she complied with just keeping it casual not saying anything which made me think its fine and so we ended up sleeping together once. Didn't push to sleep together again and then she was being cold at which point she wasn't comfortable keeping things casual and wants something more serious. The situation was causing her a lot of anxiety as she didn't know where we stand and wanted something more from me that I'm unable to offer. I only found out later after we talked and decided to be friends that she's been on some medication for depression/anxiety that was mostly caused by the stress of the situation. I said I can keep my physical impulse aside and be there as a friend for emotional support etc. She's agreed but a bit hesitantly saying she can't be friends with someone she liked a lot. In this situation, would you think its right for me to stay friends or would that just remind her of me again and again only keeping her more depressed or should I cut contact cold turkey, or slowly over time and let her handle her emotions? I'm not sure how she became so emotionally attached after only sleeping together once. Was it maybe the stress of what the friend group think or may judge her for sleeping without getting a relationship out of it?

Women respond to strength, whatever form that may be in. Unfortunately the negative form of strength (ie narcissists, arrogance etc) is more prevalent than in its positive form (confident yet caring). The same strength that excites women and gets them wet, also scares them if that strength is not entrusted to be in their interest. There are many caring guys but they lack the strength of being centred, grounded and confident to express their strength. Women seek to secure strength (in men), men seek to express their strength (to women and the world). In the absence of strong men, women will seek to secure strength themselves, or through larger government as they don't have strong men to be taken care of, of course this reliance on men also lead to men taking advantage of their position in the past. The player types show strength (although more in its negative form) but they lack giving women the security of being there over long term, and the ideal for women is to secure that strength over the long term. Today, financial/physical security isn't needed by men as society has developed (women being financially independent, government support, safer cities etc). Although, women still seek strength viscerally and emotionally, socially as we'r tribal and hardwired for social connection, that was our security over thousands of years. Gentle-men is the what men are striving for. The nice guy is gentle but not in touch with his masculinity, the jerk is a man but not gentle. The sophisticated savage, the human-being. Be human (which is our animal nature) but be in touch with the BEing (loving caring spirit) that animates us also, and that sets us apart from the other species. This is why women love stories like beauty and the beast (taming and securing the strength of the beast), or vampires etc its the strength that they seek to secure using their femininity. The play of masculine/feminine is for the feminine to round out the masculine, as water shapes rock over time. When such strength is secured and tamed, it validates the feminine essence and there is harmony of the two.

Yeah everyone has phases, the fun phase in youth say 18-23 , 23-27/28 is still fun but tones down as they are working now and more independent/finding themselves in the world. 27/28 when 30 is on the horizon and start to really consider settling down / having babies as signs of aging start showing and peer pressure around them doing the same. Isn't the college hookup culture / fun phase damaging though? Girls don't know any better and coming into this open liberal culture which promotes it as the thing to do only to damage them emotionally and make their future long term relationships suffer. What made the culture promiscuous and open like this. It can't be just feminism, that had its place but not entirely. I guess its a combination of things including technological advancements, social media, clicks/online attention driven by primal instincts such as sex, fear and base desires, urbanisation/bigger cities allowing anonymity and more opportunities to meet people. The world is progressing physically (safety wise/crime) socially in some ways (more green, inclusive etc) technologically a lot, but not sure if its offering us emotional progress in our social lives. We'r more damaged, isolated than before. Inclusivity is good, but it has its limited in that some actions can cause damage. I guess the right attitude would be to let everyone know, these actions will not be judged by society any longer like before (be inclusive of all and not to disown the shadow or any aspects of ourselves), but to also include that here are also the consequences of those actions, and then leave people with their liberal freedom and agency to act accordingly. It's not like we can go back to the old days with a restrictive society, so that seems like the balance. The problem is cause and affect, action and consequence isn't shown as easily as its politically incorrect or hurts peoples sensibilities.

What caused this? In the past people were too rigid, but now too much freedom, or freedom not being used wisely / responsibly is causing its own issues. People starting relationships young, and getting embittered towards the opposite sex after a few failed attempts/relations. How can one healthily bond to the opposite sex that caused them these past traumas and if they do bond it is traumatic bonding or brings its own issues both parties have to deal with. I guess the free love, liberation of the 60/70's was a needed shift from the past and marked the turning of the tide, but now society needs to come to some sort of balance as its clearly not working. Marriage has to become viable and not such a bad deal for men. Most men are at heart family men and have the instinct to provide and protect their woman and children. We have to also be able to speak openly about the consequences of casual sex without being labelled far right, prude, judgemental misogynists. " As the individual bonds with the family, the family bonds with the civilization it inhabits. But individuals deprived the bonds of family by outcome of immutable social factors are often at odds with civilization. Such individuals give up on community, opting for a more parasitic survival strategy. They are the shameless narcissists, the angry barbarians and each and every shade of dysfunction there between. Scarcely do such people care for civilization. And how can we expect them to care for something as grand and abstract as civilization when such individuals were never fully subject to the bonds of family? How does one come to love something as grand as nation when they had not even the love of kin? Familial estrangement manufactures apathy. This is how promiscuity and divorce undermine social progress, and in turn, civilizational progress. The effects of such action cause pain, which in turn, promotes excessive individualism and a disdain for collectivism. And so the cosmic recurrence that is a need for balance is tipped too far in one direction. That is, an obsession with the self (individualism, narcissism) and a disregard for the whole (collectivism, abstraction.) Naturally, this is bad for family. And what is bad for family is in turn bad for civilization. Each family represents a building block in the construction of civilization. Families (in the traditional sense of the word) contribute more value to society than lone individuals. Generally speaking, they have better mental health, a higher sense of civic duty, are more productive, and pay more taxes than broken homes or one person households. And this seems only rational. Family is bound by blood, civilization forms around the desires and needs of such bonds. People work harder and produce more when they care for and are cared for by others. It is human nature to be infatuated with freedom in spite of considerations pertaining to the stability of such. And so, the minority who manage to stylishly defy society and get away with it are near universally idolised by the masses who are less free. Rock stars, rappers and social butterflies looking to make a name for themselves all encapsulate such attitudes. In truth, if all enjoyed the near absolute freedom of the few, social order would break down. Civilization would be but a shadow of its former self. And then those left would quickly call for order and more conservative social mores. Indeed, boom and bust, rise and decline, the attitudes and social mores of a civilization’s people appears quite cyclical. It appears that with prosperity, comes the rise of promiscuity. In safe societies the feminine is able to flourish. But people become like children with access to the cookie jar, this leads to excessive freedom, which in turn leads to destruction and general apathy. Then when collapse comes, the masculine takes over – leading to order, conservatism, and ordered individuals in turn lead to a ordered, creative society once again "

So much clarity. Tough decision it is. Iv found that even just interacting with the opposite sex can be enjoyable if done consciously, enjoy the other aspects of women not just their body, but their mind, perspective, femininity. We don't have to try sleep with every one we interact with which can cause a lot of hurt, but can still enjoy them for more than just their body and feel revitalised by it. This is obviously not what most people are able to do, but more of us on this forum probably can.

Thanks for the feedback Leo and everyone! In hindsight it was wrong, the sex just happened in the heat of the moment. Its for this reason I personally haven't been dating the past year or so as Im busy focusing on my own development, work a job and building a business on the side etc and you can't get into a relationship when limited for time. At the same time learning about society and dating. I'm trying to figure what the right thing to do is, and that my individual actions don't contribute to a traumatic society in the long run. Guys are also being hurt by women as Leo points out. From the culture casual sex is pushed through media, empowerment etc and this is whats confusing/contradictory. Just one example: Demi Lovato who has all 117million followers (size of a country) of young impressionable girls from her Disney days following her, posted to sleep around be a slut etc. If anyone speaks against such things their deemed far right, judgemental, a prude or a Jordan Peterson puppet. As Leo said, decent girls want relationships. People would fight that and say, so what your saying is girls who sleep around aren't decent? Stop being so judgmental. Women now are sleeping with more men, then men are with women, minus the subset of the more attractive guys. The past extreme was complete rigidity of sex to one partner, the other is of extreme freedom to do what you want, but it has consequences. I started a thread of consequences of a unregulated dating market and its consequences which had a lot of interesting back and forth on it. Another thread was started by a woman on how to have sex without getting attached as a women, in another a woman was being told to give sex freely and not to be stingy about it, then another thread on this forum about having a negative bias towards men. Mixed signals are being sent but whats the middle way then. From the female perspective and now days especially what is pushed is follow your emotions, but this leads to bad emotions also. We have to love ourselves now,but also our future self by doing the right actions in this moment, and that takes consciousness and not giving in to certain emotions. Just yesterday a thread on war between men and women started as well. What caused this? In the past people were too rigid, but now too much freedom, or freedom not being used wisely / responsibly is causing its own issues. People starting relationships young, and getting embittered towards the opposite sex after a few failed attempts/relations. How can one healthily bond to the opposite sex that caused them these past traumas and if they do bond it is traumatic bonding or brings its own issues both parties have to deal with. I guess the free love, liberation of the 60/70's was a needed shift from the past and marked the turning of the tide, but now society needs to come to some sort of balance as its clearly not working. " It is human nature to be infatuated with freedom in spite of considerations pertaining to the stability of such. And so, the minority who manage to stylishly defy society and get away with it are near universally idolised by the masses who are less free. Rock stars, rappers and social butterflies looking to make a name for themselves all encapsulate such attitudes. In truth, if all enjoyed the near absolute freedom of the few, social order would break down. Civilization would be but a shadow of its former self. And then those left would quickly call for order and more conservative social mores. Indeed, boom and bust, rise and decline, the attitudes and social mores of a civilization’s people appears quite cyclical. It appears that with prosperity, comes the rise of promiscuity. In safe societies the feminine is able to flourish. But people become like children with access to the cookie jar, this leads to excessive freedom, which in turn leads to destruction and general apathy. Then when collapse comes, the masculine takes over – leading to order, conservatism, and ordered individuals in turn lead to a ordered, creative society once again "

It does come across that way, or thats how she feels although there was honesty from the start. In our liberal society with hook up culture around its easy to think you can relate with someone in different ways such as friends with benefits, open relationships, polyamory stage green getting traction etc. Thought by being honest it could be kept on that level, but I guess everyone is different. The friendship route afterwards is to make her not feel used.

Thanks everyone for the input! I thought the moral thing to do is be friends to take care of her through the process, but if she can't handle it then obviously need to leave. We'v spoken, the attraction is there but Im not ready for a relationship as have other priorities in life. I think that's the hardest part, is her knowing I like her but can't be with her at the same time out of practicality ( seems cold hearted ). Compatible in heart just not in situation. Would be easier if one of us just didn't like each other, as no one wants someone who doesn't want them generally. @aurum Yeah, everyone has their own agency over their emotions and actions at the end of the day. I think it's in us men to want to protect so that instinct kicks in also, especially people we care for. @Thunder Kiss That makes a lot of sense according to attachment theory, can be tied to abandonment issues. Thought that maybe its possible to show a new path forward and that not all guys can be so cruel. A lot of guys maybe scare away after break ups or the players ghost girls which in turn bitters them even more and makes it harder for them to trust men in the future. To avoid this and leave her better than I met her, felt i'd go this route to put her trust back into men. Usually men and women get to know each other sleeping together a few times before figuring out if their a match and ending things. These kind of experiences makes one feel bad for the emotional trauma it can cause just in order to find that relationship you eventually want to be in, and yet it seems the only way to get it in the end. Honesty is the best policy to help you sleep better at night when dating, knowing that at least we'v done our part morally, and if people get hurt that is their own journey to get stronger through. On a side note: If you logically tell girls your not looking for anything serious, but yet with your actions start to show boyfriend behaviours ie (buying gifts, daily calling/texting, overly affectionate and soppy) that triggers their emotions in such a way it can confuse them and start to mess with their heads. Guys can start to easily fall into this frame as it is enjoyable to do these gestures, but it does send the wrong signal, even if you've said nothing serious is wanted.

Yes, part of strengthening yourself is accepting/integrating parts of yourself and not being internally fragmented, this in turn allows you to actually be more relaxed around people which is a show of emotional health/strength. Disowning parts of yourself will leave you weaker.

Dropping off (leaving women better than you met them) is as important a skill as picking up if you want to do it more morally. Although in the dating game, isn't it harmful for women to sleep around anyway? I know there is social stigma and no one should be judged in these old ways as its politically incorrect, but is it actually factually correct that it can be damaging? Open sexuality is pushed now days a lot, what will the consequences be in our coming decades. The red pill has this concept of alpha widow where a women compares the past alphas or fun guys they used to sleep with and carry that emotional baggage to the next relationship ruining it and the pair bonding ability with the next guy, how much of this is true or pure scare mongering negativity? I guess as a woman ages and wants commitment from a nicer less fun guy but who has stability its a reality check and she goes with this type of guy out of need to mother children, but then ends up bored and divorces not wanting to feel the pressure of having to have sex with someone she doesn't get attraction towards anymore.

I think he means being real and genuinely yourself. If the real you is man of strength emotionally mentally etc then when you are yourself you exhibit that strength, and women can pick up on whether your faking it or not. The problem when guys are told be yourself, and them selves are their weak selves or awkward etc they can scare off women. Be your strongest self would be more accurate. A strong man can still have feminine traits that round him out, in fact only along side some feminine traits is he his strongest self.