eos_nyxia

I get that I and I do see the value in that part too, like making the personal public by making a declaration of intent in front of people. And I've definitely seen compelling weddings, but by nature, they tend to not be conventional. at the very least, the people getting married thought carefully about the symbolism of it all in relation to their values. For example, I would feel really daft getting married in a white dress because of associations with virginity/ "sexual purity" (lol), even though to my understanding, this is not why modern women started wearing white wedding dresses), and also white is just not my colour. Stuff like this never sits well with me even if it's not about weddings. If you just really really like white... well, whatever. Do you?

I was anti-marriage for most of my post-puberty life. (As in, not comfortable with the institution of marriage, as opposed to permanent, long-term LTRs, or "marriage-like"// common-law). It's a bit more open-ended now, but I still feel uncomfortable with the idea of throwing a fancy, expensive party making a spectacle of myself and my partner while having everyone around us agree how very awesome and important we are in this way. Personally, it doesn't feel a justified or worthwhile reason to be in the centre of attention. (Like... it's great that people would agree, but I would have done this if I was going to do it anyway, with or without anyone's approval; so there is that lingering association of seeking and expecting the approval of your family/ friends/ wider community, which I guess is the basis of many shared social rituals.) But then, this is normal rather than exceptional in my immediate family. My parents had a courthouse marriage in my mom's home city (then travelled), and my brother went to Hawaii to elope. So me not seeing the appeal of a traditional wedding as a spectacle isn't exactly rebelling against anything there.

A more direct and systematic approach is to keep doing what scares you socially, even if bit by bit, in a way that you find sustainable. (Check yourself before you wreck yourself!) Like... open up and share a bit more about your life than you would normally share, tell a joke that might fall flat. Potentially be a bit overshare and even potentially a bit "cringe" with your feelings. Risk embarrassing yourself a little. Say hi and start a conversation with someone that you would normally never talk to (but not even necessarily because you wanted anything specific from them, or that you expected or hoped it would go anywhere specifically...) Show up in feeling your body and your emotions a bit more than you might otherwise, give yourself permission to take up more space. Sometimes your current comfort level is not a great gauge of where you should stay at the moment... but no need to wreck yourself.

For me as well, there has been a balancing act that I haven't quite figured out, especially in practice. It fluctuates a lot for me. I've been on both sides to the extreme and many places in between. Wait.... you're talking about a sort of "love at first sight" but for friendships, right? Where there is a sort of chemistry or meaning that you feel clearly and possibly right away? Where you feel like you immediately just "click" or "get" each other? You also mean a person who is "highly developed" relative to you (specifically in ways that are meaningful to you)? I definitely relate to the desire. Are you open to the idea of growing with someone over time and developing "deep" chemistry and shared purpose and meaning, but over very long periods of time? If you're open and flexible, and you keep having win-win interactions with people, it may be more in your hands than you realize.

Extreme TLDR; shared perspective and mutual growth, shared projects. Win-win interactions across the board. what's wrong with one choice or the other? For the former, if that's all that it is, I think it's worth taking whatever's worth taking from that experience and from those people in the moment, even if that's all it is. Or otherwise... just don't be around people too! ...or have some walls up, if you need them? Sometimes being too attached to the idea of being non-attached is its own sort of poison. I guess it depends on how it truly makes you feel across the board (in this case, not having friendships). From personal experience though, fetishizing the ultra-deep soul connections has brought more grief than it has meaning and fulfillment. Like trying to sustain myself on foam and air. But a great deal of this was the place that I came from emotionally, and how that specific attachment and desire to meet amazing people ultimately was based on compensating for the love and care I never got growing up, and this deep need to be seen/ understood/ heard truly in a way that just felt profoundly good and right. I never lead with this expectation, but this is what I ended up getting.

For better and worse though, the people that I've gotten along with the best and trusted the most (and therefore ended up in relationships with, especially before the past handful of years), are people who "get trauma" because their lives haven't been very easy. To the point that they couldn't afford to be "spoiled" when it came to being too emotional and reactive in certain ways. Otherwise, they wouldn't even be here, as functional as they were, still talking to me, let alone able to have long-term, mutually beneficial relationships. But we tend to have our own set of issues beyond any flavour of "trauma is a problem and is ugly and inconvenient for everyone, get rid of it so you can feel worthy", etc. (in the way that you would feel self-conscious about having an ugly house or clothes) Also, it really, absolutely doesn't ensure that this person won't overtly abuse you or even facilitate your weaknesses by being overly enabling. (The latter thing tends to arise pretty subtly, and by the time you notice the unhealthy dynamic, you're at least knee or chest deep in it already... and also often has nothing to do with ill-intentions. In fact, it can come from the best of intentions.) It just means that this person is highly unlikely to be spoiled with very little grit, as well as clueless and lacking empathy and sensitivity about trauma.

I hope you find the healing and sense of freedom and peace that you deserve. Not so much anymore, but as a woman, my experience has been that it at times has made me a predator magnet (not saying the opposite doesn't happen for men too though, just pointing out a general trend). And at other times, it has made me a magnet for saviour-types for the few times in when I have worn my vulnerability more openly. Which in an odd, roundabout way seemed to revolve based on a sense of superiority, like fixing a sad, broken, baby bird (which can be an issue if you don't always want to actually stay this way). Usually, the latter isn't ill-intentioned though, but it does create a predictable codependency which I have preferred to avoid. In my case, it had been a good reason to cover too much emotional vulnerability (or alternatively enough, to lead openly with vulnerable but not with the intention of getting anything specific in return for it) until I could be sure enough that it was "safe" enough to be more open. Boundaries and such. I'm curious about the specifics of your pattern, or the types of women and interactions that you've tended to attract?

There are a lot of dichotomies that ought to end one way or another, for everyone's benefit. For example: getting really hung up on the idea of "unconscious" vs. "conscious" women (I guess more complex hierarchical systems like Spiral Dynamics do help people transition). The same thing with men too. As with all things, the spirit (intention, the quality of the emotions involved) with which you do something transcends the name/ label/ ideas associated with it. And along with it.... are you open/ relaxed/ willing enough to communicate whatever it is that you want to communicate, and show whatever it is that you want to show? But if you approach women in a structured way with a pre-set model vs. doing it in a more organic, spontaneous way from the outset (e.g. the type of experience that you tend to gain in your teens if you've been interacting with the opposite sex and ALSO haven't also filled your head with a lot of ideology), obviously you have a number of setbacks. Both in the sense of practical realities and societal forces working against you, as well as what is more squarely in your own domain. For example: the more attached you are to these labels, the more you are blindsided by everything which doesn't fit, and the more you miss about people as they are, as well as what they could be (in the best possible sense), and are well into the process of becoming. Because there is no space for that. You don't do a great job at doing people justice (or doing yourself justice either, for that matter). Humans being pattern-making animals and all... it's one of our biggest strengths and limitations simultaneously. We all tend to be too much up in our heads, overly attached to the ideas and outcomes that we are, in ways that can only limit us.

I agree with you on both points. It really does appear to be a raw deal even if NSA pleasure is what you're seeking as a woman. The kicker is men who need to feel that their hookup up wants "them for them", I guess (or the closest thing they can humanly get to it). Whether it's sexually, for their body, for their personality/ "charisma", etc. rather than their wallet. And this is somehow mutually exclusive from providing money directly to women. Men who don't have this hang-up can potentially get what they want from the opposite sex for free... but they might choose not to for various reasons. Or... maybe they can't, and still, the experience is worth it enough to them to keep paying for it. Men who don't care, for whatever their motives are, are free from this dichotomy.

....Does any woman actually find this genuinely attractive? I feel this is a pretty good and extreme example of what is attractive to (SOME) men vs. women... like this caricature of "manhood". He immediately strikes me as extremely brittle emotionally, and "brittle" is not strong. He literally doesn't even have to say anything; it's written all over his body language and in his eyes. "Brittle" provides you with no sustenance emotionally, and for me, nothing even in the short term. Like... there's just nothing to grab onto that sticks. Even when I was 14 years old I could tell the difference between "bad" with substance (you know... are there overall redeeming qualities to "not following the rules", is this an emotive person that has their reasons for rebelling?) and something less so. And a person who is brittle at the surface with very little to bolster them underneath is always a hair's length away from crashing and being left with pretty much nothing of their original personality which will survive the crash. I guess this must also be filling a cultural vacuum... for certain men? It doesn't make me angry (I mean, this is what people like this tend to thrive off of, attention and controversy)... just sad for people, if this is a step up from where you are...

Oh.... is this guy like the human GI Joe du jour who is winning the internet loudness war?