Emerald

Yes, there is nothing to do with the subjective part of female sexuality other than to be yourself. There are ways to impact the objective part of female sexuality to spark attraction and avoid dealbreakers. So, that's has some leverage to work with. And I think it's wise to do so. But yes... meeting lots of women is a man's best bet. It's the soundest strategy with the least amount of gamble. But the personality is and isn't a construct. It is a construct in the sense that even your body and reality itself is a construct. But in a more terrestrial sense... if by personality, you mean the Ego... the Ego is basically the idea of ourselves. It's the parameters with which we define the self. But the personality in the sense that I mean, it is not the Ego. It's just the qualities of a given being. So, I mean personality as being more analogous to the word "nature". And that is something that's just inherent to you. For example, if you look at a given dog or cat... it may not have an ego. But it does have a personality. There is a nature inherent to every being that is beyond conceptualization and beyond conditionings/influences. The same way that a person's face just looks the way it does... the personality just is the way it is. And you can transcend your Ego but still have that personality. Like, if you look at enlightened people like Adyashanti and Sadhguru... they still have a personality, even if they have no Ego. And as a mom, I can tell you that both of my children were born with fully formed personalities... the same personalities that they have to this day. So in terms of changing your core personality it's 100% impossible to do. And people who believe you can change it are 100x more deluded than people who think gay conversion camp could turn someone straight. And a person would be very unwise to try to change their core personality. A geranium will never become a daffodil. And a daffodil will never become a daisy. Personal development is about working with what you have.

The man's core personality (and that alone) is what works with subjective attraction and bonding. And there is nothing you can do to change your personality in any real way... nor should you try to. If you're TRULY building rapport, that means that you're showing your authentic personality to her in hopes that there will be chemistry. And there is nothing objective about that process. The subjective element of attraction will make it to where your core personality will be attractive to some women and not others as just a matter of chemistry or lack-thereof. And it doesn't matter what you do to increase your objective level of attraction. Even if you max yourself out on all levels of objective attractiveness... if it isn't a match, then it isn't a match. And you could try to leverage as much as you want, and it's not going to change. It's not machine-like in how it works. And she'll be able to feel the chemistry or lack-thereof if she's in tune with her femininity. This is why pick up just tells you to move on. But they just attribute her lack of interest to other factors. But it's because, even a pick-up master is still going to get 4 no's for every 1 yes.... and that's a very generous estimate. And the reason why that is, is because feminine sexuality is subjective. The techniques and all the stuff you learn with pick up only works on the objective components of female sexuality. But that's not most women's dominant mode in searching for relationship. The subjective feels so much better and more meaningful.

See, I don't have any issue with pick-up. I'm 100% sure that if I were a man, I would practice it and try to get good at it. I'm sure that it works for getting laid and meeting women. But I would hope that I'd be receptive enough to recognize that pick-up is only presenting me with partial truths and that I'd still be curious enough and brave enough to embrace the mystery and explore deeper into the enigma of human sexuality without everything needing to be so practical, logical, and user-friendly. Also, I'm not calling anyone pathetic. Read back my post from before. It is very neutral and not meant as a condemnation... just an observation. Any way that a person is is always them doing their best. And if I were them, I'd think and feel the same way. So, this is literally me looking from the male perspective. There is a religion of masculinity that men are expected to adhere to to prove their worth and it makes sense that there would be so much male insecurity. The constant messaging is "be this particular kind of man or you're worthless." And that narrative enforces the idea that women's opinions are going to determine your worth. So, I'm sure I'd be very nervous to speak to women to. The story just adds too much in the way of high stakes because women become these goddesses on a pedestal judging objective male worth. And I'm telling you that it IS a very deeply engrained archetypal story... but it is a story none-the-less. And there's a lot of mercy to be had for insecure men from listening to the truths that I share.... because female sexuality isn't that objective or ruthless. There will be women who will love you and accept you exactly as you are. But I am saying that insecurity is why a lot of men aren't really receptive to really learning about female sexuality at a deeper level, which is what I'm presenting to you. To learn these things is scary to them because they feel out of control. And if they're out of control, they can't avoid the vulnerabilities of having that insecurity triggered. When there is insecurity and a proposed solution to that insecurity (like pick up presents), then there comes to be an attachment to that viewpoint. And anything that contradicts it will be resisted against. And I was just explaining to the previous poster on here why so many men on the forum are so much in resistance to the truths that I'm sharing. She said she didn't understand why, so I told her.

Thank you! It's quite common for guys on here to fight me tooth and nail on these matters... especially ones who are into pick-up or have been into pick-up before. And the reason why is because pick-up was what saved them from being in over their head with women. Many of the guys on this forum were virgins until they found pick up. And learning about pick-up and 'information' about female sexuality, has been a way for them to address the surface level problem of "I can't get women to sleep with me" without dealing with the root problem of "I have low self-esteem and thus feel like no woman will ever really love and accept me as I am." If you'll notice, most men on this forum are dealing with deep insecurities about their own lovability. That's why they're here and seeking personal development. They sense that they're unlovable and trying to fix themselves so that they become more lovable. And this is unconscious, so many men are doing this through the lens of pick-up and getting female validation through sex without being aware that that's what they're seeking. And so, if they can "solve" female sexuality once and for all in a very objective, formulaic, and repeatable way... it gives them a the illusion of being able to always be one step ahead of women in the understanding of female sexuality and to never feel vulnerable or unlovable again. The sense of ultimate leverage over female sexuality and love can help them ALWAYS avoid the pain associated with the feeling that no woman will really ever love them. And so, it's threatening to them when I actually share the non-linear (and more loving) nature of the real thing... because the deeper element of female sexuality isn't as user friendly and objective as the things they believe. It isn't a consistent machine. But for these men to believe me is to allow themselves to feel beyond their depths and out of control again. And they care much more about being in control and being invulnerable than they actually care about truth. And that's why I'm so persistent. It's a much more empowering story to imagine that men who learn these things will just be able to push the right buttons and pull the right levers that will work in a universal and objective way. So men who do pick-up have to be focused on the objective element of female attraction... which does help them some. There are objective components to female sexuality. But the deeper and more subjective element of female sexuality (which is the dominant part) is not user friendly at all because it's so intuitively searching for its match physically, psychologically, emotionally, and on so many levels.

That's awesome! I'm glad to see you break through the mental story. It can be easy to feel like the world is harsher than it actually is when we have a false understanding of how people operate.

I'm a Taurus... April 26th!

If I'm in a sexual scenario with an objectively attractive man, surely I will have that response. And this is the objective element of my sexuality at work. Yet again, I could get wet in a sexual scenario to a random guy who's a solid 4 on all levels whom I also have zero feelings for. So, I don't know if vaginal lubrication of any given woman is the most objective measure of male attractiveness. It's really just what the female body does when it's gearing up to get pregnant. At that point, the body knows sperm is sperm is sperm is sperm. The thing is, for me, the desire for sex isn't very strong by itself without the subjective component attached to it. And I'm going to guess from observation that this is true for most women. It's not to say that random sex by itself is totally unmagnetic to women. It's just a medium risk, medium/low reward activity. So, it's pretty lukewarm... even if the guy is good in bed. So even the most objectively attractive man won't necessarily compel me to want to sleep with him, if I'm not invested in him in a deeper and more personal level. But sure... if I am really lonely, I might bite and I'm sure I could have a good time with him. But that bonding experience probably won't happen no matter how objectively attractive the guy is because you can't really rush that. I have had several one-night stands and not gotten attached, even in the slightest. Random sex doesn't make me feel closer to a man. And every man I've ever gotten attached to, I was attached to before the sex happened from interacting with him in more platonic contexts. My hypothesis, at least with myself, is that if i have sex before I get attached that there probably won't be enough tension to sustain my interest enough for deeper bonding to happen. Basically, you start on a high note and there's nowhere to go but down. Now, sex DOES deepen the bond exponentially if I'm already attached. But if I have no attachment and I have sex, it's not going to magically make an attachment arise. Oxytocin isn't that strong of a drug if you have such little attachment in the first place.

There are objective components to female sexuality. And if a man develops along the lines of these components, he will have more mass appeal. But as you know, this is no guaranteer of attraction even if you max out on these components. So you can't guarantee attraction because game will only work on maximizing that which is objective, which is a smaller component of female sexuality compared to the subjective component. On the whole, there is an inherent subjectivity to female sexuality. This means that if two men who are identical in every way (including personality) a given woman will be able to see they are objectively equally attractive or unattractive. But subjectively, the same woman could be super hot and bothered for one guy and feel nothing for the other. And it isn't about female sexuality being "special". It's just different than male sexuality. Also, the hyper-subjecification of a particular man can cause distortions in the reality of things. It's the "rose colored glasses" phenomenon, which women are particularly susceptible to BECAUSE of the subjective nature of our sexuality. We can see the God in a man who is objectively pretty awful. And we may begin to feel like we can't get our relationship needs met by anyone else, when that's absolutely not true. For every women, there are probably close to 250 million suitable male partners on the planet that they'd be equally happy with. But that's not the way the female sexuality works. It's very subjective... so it will FEEL like the man is the one and only. And that's a feature... not a bug. It's just important to do some doublethink and also logically understand that this "one and only" idea is illusory.... but not to let that logical awareness get in the way of the arational instinctual "one and only" fantasy part of the pair bonding process.

Yes, that’s a part of the feminine. But the feminine is all about being… not doing. Pursuit and trying to win the guy over is about doing and is masculine. And that means that leaning forward and pursuing will repel a man who is in his masculine like two North ends of a magnet. The best thing to do is to lean back a little and let the guy do more of the approaching element. Basically, the egg doesn’t go chasing the sperm. When you create space in the relationship, it gives the man some room to miss you and to want yo and to pursue you.

If they are very masculine and heterosexual, then trans men will have similarly objective responses to that of cis men. So, yes… the colloquialism still applies.

One thing, from the female perspective, that I’ve noticed in one-night stands that I’ve had (but didn’t really want to have), is that the men interpreted my lack of boundaries as genuine interest… either that or they just didn’t care. In one experience, at age 20, I went over to a guy’s house for Christmas dinner expecting that it would be quite a lot of people. And it was just him and a couple other people. I agreed to go in the first place because my life had just fallen apart in so many ways. And I would otherwise spend Christmas completely alone. I knew what he wanted but I couldn’t really say no to company and I just rationalized that I’d turn down any advances. And I said no like seven or eight times of him being very forward and handsy before he wore me down. I ended up thinking in my head that there’s a slight chance that he might rape me if I don’t consent. So, I decided that consenting was the best way to feel in control of the situation. And my guess is that, from his perspective, his persistence got me in touch with what I actually wanted. Like before, I was trying to be a good girl. But his persistence helped me let go of my inhibitions so that I could give into my carnal desires. But it truly wasn’t the case. I was just very alone in the world and coming off of a very traumatic period in my life. And I just didn’t have the wherewithal to set my boundaries.

Yes

The thing to realize is that there are two facets to male attraction and one is shallow and the other is deep. The shallow attraction is mostly physical. And MOST women will pass this bar. And this means that he’ll probably be keen to spend time with a woman who crosses this low bar… go on a date, kiss, have sex, etc. Men are probably going to take the opportunity for low investment, easygoing female companionship if it’s offered to them. And if a woman’s interested, it will probably be flattering to him. So, the worst thing you can do is pursue him and make it too easy for him. The deep attraction is one where a man is deeply invested and wants a relationship. And when a man truly invests, he’ll even be more committed than the woman. So, if he feels less committed, it’s already a red flag. So if you’re doing all the legwork to make this happen, you’re probably in the first category. But you’re in your masculine trying to chase him and pursue him. But you should remember that you are the prize. And if a man isn’t realizing that and isn’t investing, the best thing to do is to move on. My advice here in this situation is to lean back and let him contact you if he wants to. The ball is in his court. But don’t wait for it. Get your energy up off of him and put it into yourself.

But there are objective qualities that cause that reaction. Nice breasts will cause that reaction in all heterosexual men. So it’s not very subjective. There are objective physical forms that trigger attraction. So when I say objective, I don’t mean rational. What I mean is… the opposite of subjective. This is why it’s much easier to please a man than it is to please a woman. For men, once you know how to please one, you kind of know what works universally… though of course there are some subjective elements to male sexuality as well. But for women, who are generally more subjective in their attractions, you could have two men who are identical in every way and the woman could be attracted to one and not the other. For men, who are generally more objective in their attractions, you line up two women who are identical in every way, and if a man is attracted to one, it’s nearly a guarantee he’ll be attracted to the other.

Absolutely. Like I said, there is objectivity woven into female attraction. It’s just that female attraction isn’t objective on the whole. Feminine sexuality doesn’t use a checklist. It’s about how the gestalt of a man’s looks, personality, and mannerisms create certain feelings of chemistry. And it’s to the point where you could take two identical men with similar personalities and mannerisms, and a woman could be attracted to one and not the other.

There are elements of objectivity to female attraction. There’s an objectivity to how handsome a man is. There’s an objectivity to how masculine a man is. There’s an objectivity to how socially graceful a man is. And men who are higher in these factors will have an edge on guys who aren’t. So, there are ways to optimize one’s attractiveness. But a woman doesn’t go along with a checklist of objective traits where she’s looking for a guy who’s maxed out on these qualities. Women will use their feelings as the primary metric for knowing if she’s into a guy or not. And it’s very subjective and non-linear. And those feelings are tuned into the full scope of a man’s personality… not homed in on his ability to fit some picture of objective attractiveness… though objective attractiveness does play some role in the overall algorithm of feminine sexuality.

PUAs may teach that there is an element of subjectivity in feminine sexuality when it comes to men’s looks. And that’s true. But when it comes to the interpretation of women’s response to the male personality, the same harsh objectivity gets projected onto women where the story is that women are super hypergamous and scrutinizing men for how objectively alpha they are or aren’t. And there’s the idea that she will always choose the objectively more alpha man. And this is why men try so hard to shove themselves into that box. But feminine sexuality is very subjective in its assessment of the male personality too. The more a woman orients to her sexuality in a feminine way, the more it works it’s magic and selects intuitively for a deep match… which is how you can most successfully select for a man who will love you. But women who orient to their sexuality in a masculine way will only be tuned into status and if the guy is the alpha. And they will be unlikely to find a good relationship. But feminine sexuality and feminine intuition is like a complex algorithm that works on many data points. And because there are so many data points, it’s not a job for the conscious mind or logic. It’s a job for the wisdom of the subconscious, which typically arises as a feeling… like something in the muscle memory. Like a centipede doesn’t have to consciously think which leg to move when. And the PUA guys would think the algorithm is only tuned into or mostly tuned into alpha male behavior. But in my experience, it’s far more attuned to the neutral intricacies and quirks of a man’s personality.

For men, the objectivity comes in in terms of sussing out the objective attractiveness of a woman in terms of her appearance and other traits. In the attraction phase, women are just a collection of desirable or undesirable attributes to men. But along with this objectivity (which often leads to objectification), men are also non-selective. So even for the pickiest of men it still doesn't filter out the majority of women. But there is an objectivity to his filtering process. It isn't about how he feels. It's about the pros and cons and the objective facts of the woman's ability to meet a standard. For women, there is a subjectivity to the experience of attraction because it's all rooted in feeling. And this means that she's capable of feeling significantly more attracted to a man who is objectively average than to a guy who is objectively more attractive across all or most categories. And even her girlfriends might look at the guy and say, "Really?!?!" But she can really see the man as more than a collection of his attributes, and thus subjectively can see him as more than the sum of his parts. Feminine sexuality is truly non-objective... unless she is choosing from her masculine energy. But along with this subjectivity and subjectification of men and seeing men as particular individuals that are as unique as snowflakes, the woman is selective in that she will filter out most of the male population from her consideration. Like, it has to be just that guy. There's only one special snowflake that will do. And she won't want anyone else. So, for men, they tend toward objectivity and even objectification in the attraction phase... but they aren't very picky. And for women, they tend towards subjectifying a given man to where she feels that it's only really that guy that can give her what she's looking for... but this makes women a lot more picky though not primarily on the basis of a man's objective attractiveness. So, men tend to recognize the selectivity of women... but fail to recognize the subjectivity of her attractions. And so, in their minds, they turn women into more selective men... especially men who are very objectifying towards women. So, there is a projection of hyper-objectification onto women, where they fear women are sussing out men the same way that men suss out women... only with higher standards and more selectivity. So a man whose objectivity has unhealthily fallen out of alignment and into objectification who sees women as merely an amalgamation of pornographic traits will be extra terrified that women are looking at him with the same level of objectification. And he projects objectification onto all women who he sees as constantly scrutinizing him for his masculinity and looking to poke holes in his manhood... and maybe they might even be comparing him to other men who are objectively more attractive. Like, "Oh no. This guy is classically handsome. Why would she like me?" or "That guy's dick is two inches longer than me. Surely she'll prefer him?" But this insecurity comes from projecting male objectivity (and even objectification) onto women, when our sexuality doesn't really work that way. And then hypergamy becomes this horror story that makes men harden themselves and always have to take women down a peg to feel less secure. And to have to tell themselves that they have female sexuality learned and under control for fear of being scrutinized and objectified. And again... it's much worse if that person has a tendency to objectify women.

Yes. Male sexuality and female sexuality all have one easy component and one difficult component. For men, their easy component is lack of selectivity. Their difficult component is objectivity. For women, their easy component is subjectivity. Their difficult component is selectivity. And when men view female sexuality through the male lens, they see the woman's difficult component of selectivity... but they project their own difficult component of objectivity. And so, they imagine that women are just hyper selective men who are constantly sussing out male flaws with an objective eye... when that's not the case at all.

That's a great point. TONS of people are profiting off of insecurities. And those who advertise in the manosphere are playing the same game that beauty and fashion companies (especially before 10 years ago) put on women. It makes men feel like trash by giving them a scary view of women. And then they sell them solutions to that problem.

Nice to see you too! Thank you

This might help you understand a bit. Basically, an orgasm is a discharge of sexual energy. And a trauma is where unprocessed emotional energy is stuck in the body. So if this dynamic is a trigger that brings your unprocessed emotional energy to the surface, then this creates a block (or more accurately a "squeeze") on your sexual energy. And the energy builds up quickly and with more pressure. It's like if there's a kink in a hose, and all the water pressure build up and the water comes out harder, faster, and stronger. And this is why, when our traumas get engaged and triggered, they can create a really quick and strong pathway to orgasm. And for you, it seems like your trauma might relate to feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, jealousy, and the like. So, to resolve this, you'll want to sit with the emotions that arise and meditate on them. Body scan meditation is a good option.

Thank you for recommending my video!

I do understand that most people aren't in a place to speak deeply or accurately about what they want sexually. But yes... it's always been my issue that the idea is that women specifically are deluded about what they want. And then, this becomes justification for them to shut their ears to anything women say on the matter, thus leading them deeper into the delusion that they do understand. And then, of course, it becomes confirmation bias when they get sex with the women who the Red Pill ideas/strategies work with. And the idea is that 'if it's effective for getting me laid with some women, then it must be universally true for all women.' And they just chalk the women who reject them up to not being interested in them specifically (or because they made a mistake and did the techniques wrong)... when in reality most of the women probably reject them because they've experienced these kinds of approaches a zillion times before since age 12, and they just don't get anything out of them. It's kind of like how the Nigerian Prince emails don't work on everyone... but I'm sure they do work on some people. And because it might make that man feel less insecure, it's a nicer story for him to imagine that these techniques are a magic bullet that will work on ALL women... and that he finally has the core tenets of female sexuality figured out and under control, once and for all. And furthermore, he knows them EVEN BETTER than women themselves and can always be in the empowered position. I can see why the mindset is very intoxicating... especially for men dealing with heaps of self-love and insecurity issues. And then, as you mentioned, because they're seeing female sexuality through this ruthless "zero sum" kind of lens, they feel plenty justified and emboldened towards all sorts of fuckery. And perhaps, in their minds, they even NEED to do this fuckery to make sure that they aren't outdrawn by the ruthless woman. He must match (and raise) the ruthlessness he projects upon her so that he isn't one-upped and brought back down into his world of insecurity. It's purely a survival game of fuck or be fucked. But as a woman who is mostly non-phallic in her sexuality, I can look at these "truths about female nature" and see that almost none of it is true for me... or for most women I know. And even the elements that are true are framed in a very distorted way. For example, with hypergamy, I am somewhat hypergamous with regard to age, as I have a slight preference towards older men. But this is such a background detail. It is not the defining characteristic of my sexuality. There's a lot more going on in me when I light upon a man that really considers him as a whole person and not just a collection of traits.