Emerald

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.

My recommendation is to go into social scenarios... like meet-up groups, farmers markets, festivals, etc. And when you're there, make a point to spark up conversations with 6 strangers (3 male and 3 female). It doesn't have to be anything crazy. You can just do some small talk about the weather and other such things. This will give you practice socializing so that you get comfortable with it.

Yes... this all makes sense to me from the female perspective. There's a ton of misattribution where nurture is viewed as nature. I can tell you from my first-hand experience that feminine sexuality is incredibly loving and truly not particularly hierarchical. But it falls on deaf ears because this kind of reading material boils female sexuality down to some cold and ruthless hypergamous status game. And all it does is freak men out about women and exacerbate their insecurities about themselves and their own masculinity. Essentially, it frames female sexuality as a projection of male sexuality and male fears about female sexuality... but there's not much female sexuality to be found. So, it is like you said with framing non-phallic sexuality through the lens of phallic sexuality. My experience of my own sexuality is primarily non-phallic with just a little bit of phallic sexuality. Like in the phallic range, I can look and see status and looks and wealth and there is a mild attraction factor to it. And I am more attracted usually to men who are a bit older than me, so I'm a bit hypergamous in that sense. But overall, it's very mysterious to me how my attractions arise. There really isn't much rhyme or reason. It's kind of like a Cupid's Arrow... or like something that surfaces from the bottom of a dark lake. And it's amazing and it's like you get to see the God in the man that strikes that chord. And it could be just a guy that hierarchically is nowhere near the top. It's honestly just really annoying that like 3/4 of the male population now-a-days project all this falsehood onto female sexuality. It's nails on a chalkboard level of annoying. And you tell these guys what you do like, and they just start regurgitating talking points to gaslight you out of your own desires and machination because they read "The Rational Male" and now they think they know better. Mind you, I'm sure it's useful with certain women. That's where the socio-economic, evolutionary, and psychological variants come into play. But I often look at all this red pill/pick up stuff and think about how ineffective it would be with me. The whole thing just highlights insecurities.

Honestly, it was just pretty normal back then. I even identified with being a person who enjoys solitude. I would be known by others that way too. It was always like me to be stealing away into my interests. I just lived in a small town where you'd see everyone pretty often. Also, I never had internet back then, and most people I knew didn't have it. So, we'd just hang out with friends a few times a week. Also, it helped that I lived with my boyfriend and his family at the time. He was a lot more social than me, so he'd kind of break me out of my comfort zone. And earlier than that, I mostly lived at my friends' houses on the weekend.

Says the man who spends a significant portion of his time on his forum... socializing. But it was really easy back then because I lived in direct proximity to them. It wasn't really overwhelming. They were just woven into my daily lifestyle because of school and having a very social boyfriend at the time, who I lived with for my last two years of high school. So, we'd hang out with a few friends several times a week together. But once I went to college, my focus got pretty singular with regard to working and growing myself. And I also started having some avoidant tendencies. And so, I'd ONLY have a romantic partner and that's it. And then I became a mom, and so I was pretty shut in at the point. But all throughout, I always enjoyed my solitude... even at my most social. But now that I have really experienced being cut off from a wider social circle (and not just my fun little hermity ways), I recognize how much I truly enjoy social interaction and need it to thrive. Also, I think it's really important right now to move from the atomization that Stage Orange causes to move towards the community focus of Stage Green. When we perceive ourselves as separate from others (and from the planet) we tend to behave in cancerous ways. So, regrowing a social circle and becoming more community-focused is what's wise right now.

I'm probably not the best example, because I have has some issues with avoiding friendship in the past 10 years or so. I've been very much a hermit because part of me fears loss of friendship enough, that romantic relationship has been mostly what I've been focused on. And I've been so focused on parenting my children. So, it's a current goal of mine to regrow a healthy social circle. Now, I have probably several hundred more distant friendships that I could draw from to develop deeper connections. And I have even more acquaintances that I know on top of these distant friendships. But I only have a couple of friends that I talk to regularly (at least once per week), both of them are male. One is a guy I used to be in a relationship with who I talk to a few times a week. The other is a guy friend of mine who I talk to once a week. Then I have a couple guy friends that I chat with every other month or so. So, I am seriously in need of closer female friendship. When I had a healthier social circle over half of my close friends were female. I had about 10 close friendships with people I'd regularly interact with. And then, I probably had about 50 or so people in my outer circle who were more casual friends that I would see here and there. But right now, I feel very cut off for the most part. I talk over Skype/Zoom with my friends that I mentioned above. We just chat because I live far away from each of them. Two live in the UK. One lives in California. And the other lives in Pennsylvannia. I live in Florida. I've met most of my friends (distant and close) that I have now through my YouTube channel. It connects me with a lot of likeminded people.

Like I said, I understand why it exists. I get it. I really do. Just from the female perspective, the thing in itself or the way that the guys on here are orienting to it, is very dry and boring. But I think it's good to learn how to escalate these things. Just don't intellectualize the things you learn from pick up. You actually have to embody them and try them out. Just knowing things will lead to more intellectualization and will be even drier to most women.

But being coy IS part of flirting. That's what Leo meant in his post. It's not a coldness or not answering texts or any of that stuff. It's like playing innocent for the sake of flirting. And it should be very obvious. It comes naturally. Like an example of it would be if a guy says something a little edgy/risky, the woman would open her mouth with shock and give him a light smack on his arm and say, "Oh my god! You're so bad!" But she'd be saying it in while smiling and laughing. She's be saying things that technically are discouraging of the guys behavior... but her body language and facial expression will be indicating that she liked it very much. Or if things are a bit racier and she's already decided that she wants to have sex with the guy and she's in his house/apartment. And the guy does or says something to inch things closer to sex, she might respond with playful shock and say, "What kind of girl do you take me for?" while sitting on his bed and giving him bedroom eyes that indicate for him to keep advancing. So, the coyness IS the flirting. It comes naturally when the feelings are there. And it's very playful and adds to the sexual tension.

Yeah.... the pick-up stuff on here honestly sucks all the joy out of what I consider to be one of the best parts of life. It turns an art into a cold science. Very efficient... but very boring. But yes... having fun and connecting with the other person is so good for creating a loving connection. This is how my relationships have typically begun. Just lots of flirting and having a great time together.

If I just met a guy and I was feeling some interest in him, and he said he was in an open relationship, I would immediately lose interest as well. I don't want to be with someone who's already in a relationship with someone else. So, I would move on to find another man who was in a spot more compatible to my interests.

Okay, sorry about that.

I definitely second Leo's advice on being flirty. Being flirty isn't the same things as being in your masculine or being forward. Being flirty means that you're peacocking and showing your feminine energy. That means to let yourself be silly an out of your head. And responding to him warmly and playfully. Basically, it means giving him the greenlight that says "I'm interested in you" without directly saying "I'm interested in you."

Ugh... that makes it so boring. It takes all the tension and fun out of it. I understand that you haven't had a lot of experience with women. And for that reason, you personally might want things to be spelled out for you exactly. But honestly, flirting is sooo much fun. And when you communicate your interest again and again in subtle flirty coy ways where there's still an element of plausible deniability, it makes for the best experience when it finally culminates into sex once you're alone. But honestly, if a woman is coy in the way that Leo is describing, you will be able to pick up immediately that she's interested because of all her flirtatious body language. The movement of her eyes, the laughter, the playing with her hair, initiating "innocent" physical contact... like her smacking the guy playfully on the shoulder when he says something a little risky that she really likes but pretends to be offended by. It honestly just comes so naturally. And when a woman plays coy, it should be super obvious that she's enjoying herself. It's not like she's cold. If that's the case, she's not interested.

It feels like your post is an advertisement for the book. It has a hook and a call to action. It also gives desired results. Perhaps I'm totally off here... but it has all the fixings of an advertisement.

Pretty sure this is spam @aurum @Nahm

I mentioned earlier on in the thread that the man in the video is an example of what I see as attractive masculinity. He seems like someone who is in touch with his virility but also has the insight and self-discipline to approach dating and sexuality in a mature and integrated way. I could see him being a very good lover.

I rather enjoy taking on the receptive role in a relationship. I love being able to soften and let go. And it makes me feel good when a man takes the lead sometimes. But I also have a strong masculine side, which also feels good to me where I like to have my own autonomy and goals and desires separate from my relationship. So submitting my will to a man in a relationship is the opposite of enjoyable (except sometimes in kinkier sexual scenarios). There’s honestly a chasm of difference between submission and surrender. If you were a woman you’d know the difference. But honestly, how could you possibly know that relationships were better in the past? They honestly sound horrible. My view is that healthy relationship is something that the human beings are evolving into understanding and embodying. It’s almost certainly not going to be found in the past… only in the future.

I don't get a vibe that he's being dishonest or predatory. There's always some chance of that, but he doesn't throw up that red flag for me. He seems to be sharing his perspective quite thoroughly from his experiences. Also, the things he's saying are just true and observable.

You really don't understand what attractive masculinity is... but the sad part is that you think you do.

I know that you're just responding to what the other guy was saying.

He's making a correlation between a woman giving up her sovereignty and her ability to keep the relationship together. And it's true, if you have a relationship where one person gives away all their power and boundaries and never complains and just goes along with whatever the other person wants, you can have a very long relationship... because it isn't really a relationship. If the understanding is that one partner sets the tone and the other partner obeys the tone, you can keep things together in a very shallow way because it guarantees no conflict as long as the woman can continue to submit. But it's not a real relationship because it isn't really about intimacy. It's a social contract... a very solid social contract especially if the society is very punitive towards the partner that's expected to submit.

Because women and men are given the choice to divorce without extremely negative social consequences. Longevity of marriage doesn't say anything about the quality. When two people feel forced to stay together, you can have an exceptionally long (and exceptionally draining) marriage. If those same two people are raised in a society where they don't have to submit to strict rules around marriage being a forever-union, most people will grow apart and eventually divorce... though some will stay together. My view is that a high divorce rate is actually a good indicator of how developed a society is. If a society has an extremely low divorce rate, the society is probably very Stage Blue and authoritarian in its control over the details of people's everyday lives. But if a society has a divorce rate of 50% or more, it's an indicator of how free the society is.

That man is very attractive and is a shining example of what connection to Divine Masculine looks like. I can tell by the thoughtful heart-centered way he speaks and the softness in his eyes. Masculinity is very subtle in its unpretended forms. And it's rare to find men who have tapped into it. But you can spot it from a mile away. I can see why women were magnetized to him. An attractive man is like a very fierce lion that has been tamed by a very skilled lion tamer. And he's got the combination down.

Submission is more of a Shadow Feminine trait than a Divine Feminine trait. Surrender and receptivity are the Divine Feminine qualities. Submission is a denigrated version of these two qualities, which has to do more with self-nullification and learned helplessness. It is a giving up of the feminine power. But the feminine power is much more akin to receiving and surrendering.

You break down your resistances to realizing the masculine and feminine energy that exists within your human intonation. It's the same way how a mystical experiences can break down your repressions so that more of your human self shows through. So, you ask what is the equivalent of saying, "How can a mystical experience help you let go of your psychological repressions when the experience transcends the notion of being human?" Psychological wholeness is a human thing. But there's definitely a correlation between the grounded human wholeness and integration of all your aspects and the ability to experience a perspective that transcends all the details of your humanity. So, the masculine and the feminine can be repressed. And experiencing transcendence of the human perspective can break down our walls that repress these naturally occurring energies.