Chew211

Your dad actually sounds pretty dope tbh

@Preety_India I don't think his definition of healthy relationship can boil down to sexual satisfaction. Obviously sexual dissatisfied is an automatic bad. But I know plenty of people who are satisfied sexually, but the relationship is an impediment to their growth.

An individual can't have a general consensus. But I'll give my take on it. A healthy relationship, by the definition your provided, could look like anything. In fact, your question itself answered your question. Relationship (s) that don't get in the way of spiritual development. I have non-committal sexual relationships. I don't own the other person, and the other person doesn't own me. We just have a good time and do the didily. ^ this is what works for me because societally sanctioned relationships (girlfriend-boyfriend, marriage, and fwb) come with extra bullshit. The way I see, once my relationship is labeled, then it's screwed. Labels are for how to orient ourselves for others. I.e. once there's a label, your relationship is public, and thus subjected to societal rules. The draw back is that I can't be as open about the nature of my relationships with just anyone. Which works for me where I'm at now. I don't need "society" (the Lacanian Psychoanalytic term is the big Other), involved in my sex life.

Desperate men make me cringe hard. I used to have the same mentality as them, though I never did anything. If I was the object of their desire, I'd be afraid. I dealt with a really desperate chick too. I wanted to maintain things casually, but she more, so I decided to break things off. She became a stalker after that. Had to straight up threaten to call the cops, twice. I'm personally a lot more detached now. (Romantic) Love is either too much or not enough, which is why I maintain a fine balance with girls I'm involved with.

Spittin' the real deal here

Sometimes things don't work out and it's no one's fault. It seems like you aren't fullfiled in this relationship, and as a result, neither will he. Longer this lasts, the worse it'll get. Right now it seems you're holding onto the relationship out of fear.

@PureRogueQ OP is saying that women have it more difficult because men can become more attractive by developing themselves, whereas women primarily only have looks going for them when it comes to attraction. His one experience was sufficient enough for him to have that epiphany.

@RendHeaven I sorry to feel that a lot of guys don't get it. I've felt that cut-throatedness many times... pretty much every time. It's always there, whether I "succeed" or "fail" with a chick. The thing is, out of all the chicks I've been with, and one's I'm with now, I'd do the didily with them and enjoy hanging out with them, but they don't have a chance when it comes to a committed relationship with me. I do my best to get whoever I'm with that I'm not going to give commitment nor expect commitment on their part. I've felt the other side of the cut-throatedness back when I would be enamoured with someone-- like I was preparing for a committed relationship if it came to that-- and every time it was like that, I failed. I'm on a tightrope. If I like her too much, I lose/fail with her. If she like me too much, I want to break things off. It's not really a problem unless viewed from the lens of mainstream romance/ views on relationships though.

@Godishere Did you already do the didily with her? If not, then likely she lost interest. If so, then maybe it's a temporary loss of interest. I'm a guy, but even I would get tired of hanging out with the same chick several days in a row. Right now I'm only seeing one, but only once a week. If I got a lot of stuff going on, or if I'm stressed,etc then I wouldn't want to hang out with any chicks-- either I want to be alone or with my friends. There's plenty of reasons why a girl could be acting some way, either communicate upfront and/or don't worry about it. There's not a lot to be gained by trying to figure out why a girl acts a certain way.

Move on. We're biological apparatuses that only have a limited amount of energy per day. An SO draining you of that energy is only going to worsen you in all aspects-- including your endeavor to elevate your consciousness.

People need to stop diagnosing OPs sexuality. To the OP: noice

I got a rather controversial answer. GirlS will go with what/who is popular. I capitalize S because this is mainly in a social context. This is why I prefer meeting a girl one to one instead of a group setting. That way she'll be more of an individual and less of a shill for the collective. That being said a lot of guys nowadays would also be shills for the collective-- lack of masculinity after all. Oh, and yes, obligatory "I'm just speaking generally, there are exceptions." disclaimer.

The media people consume shape how they interpret the world, their desires, etc. She just seems like a girl who consumed a lot of mainstream romance stories, and she unironically believes in those tropes. From my experience, generally speaking, the more experienced women don't unironically believe in what the mainstream would call love. They have their real experiences to go off of. They might act like they do believe it though, just because it'd be socially unacceptable for them to act otherwise. I personally find it suffocating if a girl thinks I'm her soulmate or whatever. Happened to me twice. I have a natural urge to distance myself, and become not attracted to them, despite me being highly attracted before. That being said, before figured out the whole dating stuff, I was a lot like your friend. I had a lot of naiive notions about how love works. Or rather, how it "should".

Gotta grow from approaches, and also keep things sustainable, i.e. don't over approach in a particular area. Spam approaching is shit. Will it work eventually? Maybe. But why not actually get better?

It's not the age difference that matters so much as the fact that they met online. If they had met in person, then she'd get an instinctual feel for the guy-- if there's something off about him, it'd be detectable.

Yo. This is Lord Krishna, boyo. He's very much masculine-- protofascist, and also a chad. Yeah, he's showing a bit of a feminine side in this image, but he's savage. You're not looking at the whole picture here-- and perhaps in regards to yourself too. You're conceptions of masculine and feminine are shallow, and that's probably the issue you're having.

Why don't you try talk about the things you want to talk about with your friends? One big factor that got you on your path was exposure to the concepts and teachings related to spirituality. Be open to giving your perspective on things and whatnot. I started learning critical theory and continental philosophy a few months ago, and I would just talk about what I was learning with my friends. Now I run a reading circle where we meet once a week to discuss the book we are reading. And recently a new friend, someone who I never really talked with much before until last week, got interested in joining just because I just talked to him about the concepts we were learning. Obviously he's one of the few people who has that intellectual curiosity in him, but no relationship would have been built, nor his intellectual curiosity stirred up, if I hadn't talked about what I was learning and extended an invitation for him to join. ^ but that's my way of dealing with it. I tend to end up being a leader-- and if I don't take up the leadership position, I don't get what I want, and nor does the other party involved. If you don't want to "make" these higher level relationships, and instead "find", them, then you can keep looking online.

I would talk to them about them. People like talky about themselves. And then you can relate certain points, and then connect it to you where relevant, and then reveal yourself that way.

Feel the fear and do it anyway. Expose yourself little by little to social experiences and intimacy.

@Surfingthewave Thanks for the chat. Let's hope that all the cringe men on this forum can get over themselves.

@Surfingthewave I do agree that theory must be transcended. The more and higher quality theory to transcend the better. Much like how renunciation only means something if there is something to renounce. Will theorizing get you a date? The theorizing itself won't, but having a better understanding of the world let's you take better action, and orient yourself against the world world better. Also, as a side bonus, on my most recent dates I have been talking to them about theory, and they were interested in it. It's good conversation. I am certain about my way of thinking because I am also certain that I don't know much-- I'm always learning, and I do indeed have a lot more to learn, so much in fact I can't learn it within my lifetime perhaps. But that doesn't mean I need to lack conviction when I express my thoughts. I also agree that radical open mindedness is need. Studying theory opens one's mind. For me there overanalysis is when thinking hinders connection. When you're with another person, yes, you want to be present and connecting with them, not trying to filter the interaction through the framework of theory. Theory is a map, a map you can improve on through study of theory and experience-- but when you're on the territory, you should be present. Did you read the Quora answer linked in the OP? It's not about dating, which is why he was curious as to why it got moved to this subforum.

Or mute him and ignore the messages. You can do whatever you way. You have no obligation nor moral incentives to communicate with him at all.

@Twega I've only had experience with "open" relationships. I put it in quotations because I have had it where the girl was only seeing me, but I had made it clear that I won't restrict her freedom, and nor will my freedom be restricted. (I've had no issues except with one person who pretended to be okay with it but was trying to secure my commitment-- even after I said she shouldn't be spending time with me if she wants to find someone to marry.) I don't think that it being open or monogamous necessarily implies depth. I think it depends on the person. For me, I think that romantic relationships are fetishized. Once I removed mainstream media influences from my life, I no longer was "romantic." I do care about the girls I am seeing, and I do contribute to their growth and vice versa, but for me I don't think that there's anything more than that. Thinking that the other person is somehow special is fetishisization. The romantic paradigm is fetishistic-- as is hook-up culture, which fetishizes sex. Monogamy is convenient for marriage because it's valid under current social structures. I personally think if children are involved, monogamy (or at least so far as the kids can see) is preferable.

@Surfingthewave I'm not "bogged down" by theory. It's called being educated. They're complex models for understanding the world-- much like Spiral Dynamics, Spiritual Doctrines, etc. We're all talking theory here, I'm just bringing in more sophisticated theory. In this particular case, I can see the whole problems people face with dating from an economic perspective-- a perspective no one touches upon, and instead deal with more superficial details which are an effect of the economy. Universals don't change. If they change they are particulars. Enlightenment let's you have a deep understanding of the Universals because the ego (a particular manifesting) is dissolved. Ghandhi and Martin Luther King (or rather their movements) did in fact "use" the system. They created change in their material realities and thus had to interact with it. The only time theory hinders someone is if they are all theory and no practice. All the theory I've learned has given me a new way of looking at the world which is helpful. Stage Yellow is about aquiring many perspectives, and that's where I'm at in regards to my study of theory.

@Surfingthewave I didn't mean to imply that the OP was posting about winning. He was talking about how to create a space for male instincts, like aggression. I responded to that in my first reply on this thread. The rules are indeed different-- and on top of that they are changing fast because of technology. The solution is two part. First is to learn universals that won't change. For me this is Lacanian psychoanalysis. For Emerald it's Jungian psychoanalysis. There's no one way of going about this, obviously. For me Lacanian psychoanalysis gives me a good framework as to how desire works. Second part is to see what's happening in thr world at present, and go about trial and error. Playing the game as far as I am concerned is dealing with physical reality. Ideally I'd like to create a self sustaining infrastructure to be as distant from the economy as possible-- but the intial Capital required to do that requires me to take part in the very system I'm trying to escape. Which is fine-- things build off of each other. ---- "media/education/systems/capitalism/dating" The Althusserian term for these are ideological state apparatuses. Recommended reading: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm ^ he advocates for revolution, which I think is impractical, but his analysis on ISAs are spot on. And their purpose is to reproduce the means of production by reproducing the relations of production. Obviously it doesn't care about consciousness. The current economy benefits by having so many men have issues with dating. Both the Red Pill and mainstream Blue Pill are both ISAs. ---- Just cause someone did something bad doesn't mean that a particular thing they said was wrong. I came across lot of great insights reading works of people who did morally questionable things. ---- Disclaimer, my views aren't representative of the guys here that are complaining.