eos_nyxia

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?