Emerald

These are some great points. It seems like our generation experienced a lot of formative social experiences with dating from an early age. And it seems like the internet and the pill-cultures have fed into young boys' insecurities in such a way that it holds boys back from having these formative experiences with female peers. So, the combination of a lack of communal social systems for dating in the early teens (because of how much is done online) AND the pill cultures themselves create a dynamic where the boys stew in the insecurities around approaching girls without the social support and peer pressure to encourage them to move past those insecurities. It's a lot easier to join a pill movement that validates and vindicates you in your non-action than it is to approach a girl you find attractive.

Women are all different kinds of ways, and they have different motivations for doing things. Like when I was 20 years old, I had a handful of one-night stands and brief flings. And none of this was based on deep feelings for the particular guy but came more from a mixture of loneliness and a desire for the experience of hooking up... as I had just gotten out of a 4 year long relationship. So, I was kind of making up for sexual exploration that I felt held back from in that relationship (which I thought would be life-long). So, I spent like 4 years repressing my desire for sexual exploration and not even letting myself admit to myself that I wanted to be single and date around because I was so attached to that relationship... and all of those repressed desires sprang back with a vengeance when that relationship ended. And for that, you just need a guy who's attractive enough to you at first blush. So, you have to find his looks and his mannerisms to meet the minimum standard for attraction. And these experiences can be wild and exciting for those who are looking to have a wild time. But the feelings are more situational and not about the person themselves. But these experiences won't yield very deep emotional results as it's more of a mutual masturbation situation... which doesn't really supply the feelings that women are really looking for in sexual interaction with a male partner as the experience is emotionally lacking. It's like having sex with a guy who's still in the neutral zone. So, the physical element is there without the emotional attraction... which is fairly high risk, low reward for the woman. So, it's not like those deeper feelings arise rapidly. It's more of a lowering the standards for emotional attraction because of a desire for the physical experience.

Thank you. Yes, I totally agree. This dynamic is not about creating something super exciting and passionate. That's often a byproduct of insecure attachment and the intermittent reinforcement of hot and cold. It's more about the deeper kind of bonding that's very stable and gratifying... and makes for a good foundation for a family (whether the partners want children or not). And the investment by the man winning over the woman is not frenzied or desperate on either partner's side. It's literally, just small things... like a husband fixing the leak in the sink and the wife appreciating him for doing it. Or a husband buying his wife flowers because he sees her as the prize and her expressing gratitude and showing him affection. I think the issue is that people who don't have a lot of relationship experience imagine something a lot more extreme when I say that the woman should be the prize and the man should be the leader. These are just subtle dynamics that naturally arise between men and women in a relationship.

That's not what hypergamy actually means in practice. It's not about seeking the best guy out of all the guys. That's too logical. And women are not logical about their attractions. Hypergamy is about a preference that tends towards wanting a guy who's older than her, taller than her, stronger than her, and maybe more financially abundant than her. So, hypergamy is relative to the woman herself... and not to the whole of men as a group. I can be very hypergamously attracted to a guy who's a few years older than me, a few inches taller than me, and a little bit stronger than me. And a middle class guy who makes a little bit more money than me could also be something appealing, though I am less financially hypergamous than I am with age, strength, and height. But I'm 5'2". So, it's not hard to find a guy who's taller than me. And I'm not more attracted to a guy who's 6'3" compared to a guy who's 5'10". They're all giants to me. For most women, hypergamous attraction is subtle. And it just hits those subtle Masculine/Feminine polarity notes where you can notice the difference within the similarity. To understand female attraction and hypergamy, you must understand this.

Just from the internal subjective experience of being a woman, I wouldn't say "pussy" is a good word to describe the subjective experience of delighting in a particular man in the way it actually is. That's more of an external male-centric way of describing the experience... and focuses more on the purely physical erogenous zones that are getting direct stimulation. And men are highly physically motivated towards sex in terms of the direct stimulation. But the desire is very emotional for the woman... rather than physical. So, I would probably use the word womb instead, as that's what wakes up when the heart wakes up. And it's much more emotional. The longing doesn't originate from the pussy. It awakens the heart, which then awakens the womb, which then creates the desire for the physical. And when you have strong heart-based erotic feelings towards a particular man that radiate from the center of the chest... and something he does or says pushes a particular chemical button, the womb contracts in anticipation of sucking semen deeper into the body and conceiving a child. And there are feelings of longing for closeness. So, it's far more about the womb than it is about the pussy... but all of that is downstream of the heart. In contrast, if you're masturbating... that's just pussy. It's all about getting the right stimulation... and following the path from A to B to orgasm.

I do think that's where the miscommunication is coming from. And there's a lot of assumptions that I mean a desperate chasing the woman or supplication of one's self to the woman. A man must have self-respect and boundaries as well or that will be repulsive. And he cannot make the woman the center of his life as he has to have other things that he's got going on. And a man should still be detached from her even as he sees her as the prize, and willing to do the right thing for all parties involved even if it means losing her. So, cherishing a woman as the prize doesn't mean making his entire life about her. In fact, it's the opposite. It's in him knowing there is no scarcity of "prizes". And being fully willing to let the prize go if that's the right thing. Non-attachment is key. And what the guys are talking about on the thread is also looking at this on too short of a timeline. And it's not surprising because I get the sense that none of these men have been married or had a really longterm live-in relationship. So, they're calibrating themselves to the first few months or year of a relationship... of which it's important to go slowly and not jump the gun. And there should be a mutual element of push and pull. But what I'm referring to is a slight imbalance in a long-term relationship where the guy is highly invested in the particular woman and there is a continued space of tension and pursuit where the woman loves him deeply but isn't 100% impressed or won over by him, where her admiration is conditioned upon his actions and his character. And that gives space for the man to show up in his life and for her and to be appreciated and earn her respect through either achieving something relative to his individualistic goals or by investing in her, because it gives him something to do and be appreciated for. For example, a man who is invested in his wife or longterm partner may put in efforts to show up for her and help her because he values her and sees her as the prize. And men who really care about the women they're with just tend to naturally do this as lots of men show people that they care about them through acts of service. But if the woman sees him as the prize, there is no space for her to appreciate his doing and his Masculinity. Instead, she will see him as her precious gem just for existing and appreciating him on the level of his Feminine. And lots of men have this fantasy... especially the ones that feel a sense of scarcity or feel unworthy of love. But in reality, they don't enjoy being treated like a woman's precious gem. And for a man, it will be like a game that's too easy to win, and it will lose its meaning. And men don't like that, as men want to "win her over" and be appreciated and respected for their investments and legwork. And you can't win over a woman who sees you as the prize because she is already won over. And the value of her admiration goes down because it's like getting applause when you haven't done anything challenging or special to earn it. But women tend to do best when they're valued as the prize on the level of being for who she is... rather than things that she does. In contrast, men tend to do best when they are loved on the level of being as a baseline.... but are valued, respected, and appreciated for what they do. And that's why it's not a good idea for the man to be the prize.

Can you define in detail what it is that you mean by pussy so that we aren't miscommunicating on the semantics? I thought you literally meant vagina. But explain what you really mean.

I think you're just projecting the way you feel about unattractive women onto women... and assuming they are responding the same way to men that they don't find attractive.

It's a projection. Men who feel disgust towards unattractive women, will project that women are feeling disgust towards them when a woman doesn't find them attractive. But women see men as neutral regardless of their level of attractiveness.. until one really strikes her fancy.

Why do you have to frame male-female relationships in such an ugly way? You're here chewing on these toxic philosophies, while there are men and women out there right now having real intimacy with one another. You just have to let go of all these weird narratives that so many men are indoctrinated into now-a-days.

That's such a silly conjecture. I can explain to you how it works. When I interact with most men, they are neutral to me. And I can recognize when guys are more or less attractive, but it doesn't hold any meaning to me. But when an attraction organically arises (usually after a few months of interacting with a guy) it comes on randomly. And then, it's like I can suddenly see and feel everything that's attractive about him and these intense feelings arise. But until this happens, every man is neutral to me. It's not negative. Nor are my thoughts about him framed in terms of how I perceive his level of attractiveness. He's just as neutral to me as an old woman, until things flip around... if they do end up flipping around.

First off, I wasn't advocating for women to lead the relationship. I was saying that women should be the prize in the relationship. You can be the leader or you can be the prize... you can't be both. And if the woman is the leader and the man is the prize, that's not going to lead to a healthy relationship. And I was saying that, when women lead the relationship and tries to woo the man and makes him the prize, she goes into her Masculine and starts putting the man up on a pedestal and trying to do all these things to make the relationship happen. And this puts a man into the Feminine beloved role while she takes on the Masculine lover role. And men only pair-bond through going into the Masculine lover role, where he's leading and investing in a woman he sees as the prize. Also, I see that you disagree with monogamy, and you're adding all this immature "beta male" idea that so many men are hung up on. But I quite like a monogamous relationship and so do most women. So, you're just going to have to deal with it being a widespread preference for the majority of men and the VAST majority of women.

@Leo Gura This is what I was trying to communicate in my previous post. I'll speak crudely to put it in the same language to make it clearer. It's not about what the pussy needs, it's about what the heart needs. And the pussy is just a very primal conduit through which to receive the heart needs. Like sex without the heart connection is only 30% interesting. It still feels good, but it's not very emotionally stimulating. But with the heart connection, it's the most intoxicating feeling that exists shy of a drug.

Yes, most women need/want a male partner... unless they're a lesbian or asexual. But I wouldn't boil it down to pure physical sexuality as that's just that one component of what women want/need from a man. Of course, that an obvious one. But there's more to it than that.

That's not true that women don't need men. People are not independent. People need each other. We are wired to live interdependently and communally, and it's unhealthy for us to be socially isolated. And unless the woman is a lesbian or asexual, she is likely going to want/need a male partner at some point in her life. And there is no such societal change that's going to over-ride those fundamental instincts, nor will there ever be. Now, as a caveat, the only thing that could stand in as a blockage is if women feel safer outside of a relationship than she feels inside of the relationship. And there's tons of misogyny that's been laid bare and rising in popularity over the past 10 years or so because of social media, which makes women feel unsafe with a sizable minority of the male population. So, women might be a little more cautious now-a-days compared to before because these safety concerns are more front and center in the collective consciousness than before. But even still, those instincts and needs for pair-bonding with a male partner run very deep for most women. The issue is that you don't understand what women find attractive and appealing about men beyond what's purely functional. Lots of straight men fall into this trap because they can't fathom of what's attractive about men. And what men value about men and what women value about men tend to be very different. So, you're thinking logically like women see men as these fungible tools that play a specific functional role in a woman's life. And if a man is just a fungible collection of functions and tools, then why wouldn't the woman go for the man that can perform that function the very best. And it assumes that practical needs are the only reason why a woman wants a man around. It's like car parts... why get an average carburetor when you can get a better one? But this isn't the way women feel about men at all. Women are hyper-subjectivizing in their attractions towards men. And a woman can get super obsessed with a guy who's pretty average by objective standards. And it's about his vibe, the way his voice sounds, his facial expressions, his gestures, the way he thinks, and other tells about his personality.

You're talking past my point here. My point is that the man has to be somewhat more invested in the woman than she is in the man for it to work out long term... or it has to be dead even (which is rare). It's a very common occurrence that women get swept away with feelings of chemistry with a guy and starts putting a low-investment guy up on a pedestal and chasing him around... regardless of whether he's average or the top 1%... she can end up in a roller coaster of dissatisfaction that doesn't lead out to the kind of relationship dynamic she really wants. And the attractiveness of the guy in this case is not relevant to the point. It's more of a behavior that women can fall into when she gets attached to a guy who isn't interested in her in particular. And women who "want what they can barely hold onto" are setting themselves up for failure, because a guy you can barely hold onto just isn't that into you. He's just sticking around for easygoing female companionship and sex. And to get the kind of relationship you want as a woman, you have to weed out those guys... even if there are feelings and chemistry. So, a man who seeks a dynamic where he's the aloof guy who's just out of reach of the woman will keep her in her Masculine trying to chase and pursue him... while he doesn't feel much of anything in particular. And it doesn't have to be multiple women flocking around a particular guy. A woman can just get super obsessed with a guy who's not that into her and she can end up wasting a lot of energy trying to hold onto someone who isn't right for her. And that dynamic creates an unstable anxious situation that isn't conducive to starting a family.

Women's attractions have probably stayed pretty similar over the centuries and millennia that humanity has been around. Human biology and psychology have not changed. And average women tend to develop attractions to average men. I just think that the attractiveness of the average man escapes most straight men, because they can't fathom of anything attractive about an average guy. But you must understand that women's attractions to particular men are highly subjective and very personalized. So, it's never a math formula of "if I do x, y, and z, the woman will like me." So, even if there's a guy who objectively has all the best qualities and is Prince Charming who will make her the prize, there's no guarantee that a given woman will feel that way about him. It has so much to do with the unique chemistry of two personalities coming together and the communication and banter between them. And it's very emotional and easy to get swept up with a partner that isn't a good fit based on the chemistry, which feels so profound. The risk of this is increased if the man and woman had childhoods that were traumatic and chaotic... who look for a similar chaos in a partner. And this is what happens when a woman goes into chase mode where she's putting a particular guy up on a pedestal. Strategically, it's a terrible move if the woman wants a good relationship. But most women need to live to learn how to separate out intense chemistry from questions of compatibility and the question of longterm happiness and relationship sustainability. And that's a huge learning curve.

There's a difference between chasing and investing. I'm not advocating for some desperate situation, but one where the guy is clearly invested int he particular woman and wants a future with her in particular. And that can only develop over the course of months.

You're thinking about what's good for men who want to have lots of women attracted to them, which is what a lot of male dating coaches teach. The dynamic that sets up is one of a very well sought after guy with a bunch of desperate women chasing him and competing for him, while he sits on the pedestal of his Feminine without having strong feelings for any woman in particular. And the women go into their Masculine to try to woo and win the guy. But it's not what's good for a woman's interest and won't lead out to a fulfilling relationship that feels good to her. And the relationship will fall apart relatively quickly within 1-3 years.... either because he got bored or he cheated... or things got too chaotic with her chasing him around all the time. Not sure if you'll know the reference, but the dynamic you describe is a bit like the relationship between Carrie and Big in Sex and the City. She's basically obsessed with him and he's indifferent about her, but keeps stringing her along. And he's like this big shot womanizer guy that lots of women throw themselves at. And that's "women going into their Masculine to chase the man" is unfortunately a very common dynamic because these types of relationship imbalances create all sorts of anxious excitable emotional states. And it makes them feel more profound than they actually are because it awakens the Masculine Lover archetype within the woman. And she starts trying to give and woo the man. And for the unseasoned young woman with self-esteem or abandonment issues, it's easy to fall into that dynamic because it matches the chaos of childhood. But women who want what they can barely hold onto are not setting themselves up to receive what they ACTUALLY want in a relationship dynamic... and are setting themselves up for failure and lots of anxiety. And that frenetic anxious state is not conducive to a fulfilling longterm relationship nor is it a stable environment to raise children in. A healthy dynamic is one where the man is highly invested and is the reliable rock, while the woman is able to be stable and focus on raising children (if the couple chooses to have children). And an inexperienced woman can end up thinking "intense emotions = he's the one". But a woman who's had longterm relationships in the past knows that a good sign for the health of a relationship is a settled comfortable safe feeling. A good relationship feels like an out-breath, rather than an anxiety inducing longing for what's just out of reach. The issue here is that you're thinking on too short of a timeline... and when you say "Women are repulsed by men who chase them", that's true if the relationship hasn't been properly established yet and it's just within the first 3 to 6 months. But the most comfortable and fulfilling relationships last a lot longer than that. And that doesn't happen if the man isn't investing equally or greater than her.

Of course, on a human level, all people are on equal footing in terms of validity. So, this is not a value judgment comparing men and women. But the type of pairing that works is either one that is totally equal (which is rare)... or is one that the man is very invested in the particular woman and sees her as the prize. In a situation where the man is the prize, it leads to a desperate woman draining her energy trying to keep a complacent guy who likes her just enough to have sex with her and spend some low investment time with her. That's what happens when the man is the prize. But in the opposite situation where the woman is the prize, she can rest in the Feminine. And he will pursue her and invest in her. And this creates a relationship where both the man and the woman are invested in each other... but the man slightly moreso. So, if you want a woman to be desperate and obsessed with you while you don't reciprocate her feelings, find a woman who sees you as the prize. If you want a committed relationship that is stable and can last a long time, only pursue women that you truly see as the prize.

You are so far off from understanding what women actually want... and how male/female relationship dynamics really operate. Women (on the whole) tend to find a lot of meaning in the mutual single-pointed devotion in monogamous relationship. And deviations from that (from herself or her partner) water down the potency of that meaning. I only know one woman who genuinely prefers polyamory to monogamy. And that's because her personality is very sexually open. And she would never go for a harem situation where only the guy has multiple partners because she also wants variety. So, there are poly women who exist. But these poly women tend to want to have multiple partners themselves... and don't prefer some harem situation. Otherwise, in every other situation that's arisen where a woman I've known has entered into a polyamorous situation (or stayed in a relationship that turned poly) with a guy who has another female partner or who wants an open relationship... she stays with him because she cares about him and doesn't want to break up or lose him. And the guy is always just some guy... not even a particularly attractive or powerful guy. Just a guy that she's got feelings for and has grown attached to. And the women I've known who have stayed in this type of poly situations, were doing so at the sacrifice of the type of relationship dynamic that they really wanted and just tried to make do with the polyamorous situation. But this dynamic just arises from a lack of fidelity to one's own boundaries. There's always a lot of cognitive dissonance to avoid acknowledging one's own boundaries in these kinds of situations.

I don't know very much technical information about Karma. But my understanding of it is more along the lines of lessons that must be learned and traumas that must be processed and growth that must happen. And this is just my interpretation, but the way I see Trump is that he himself is a manifestation of the Karma of the collective consciousness of America and the first world. What I mean is that Trump is a reflection of the Karma of the collective of humanity, and is a Karmic "expectorant" of sorts that dredges up a lot of things that people don't want to face with. He seems the ideal embodiment and reflection of the collective American Shadow.... of unbounded ego, Capitalist greed, anti-intellectualism, falseness, and ugly glamour. So, I believe that we're collectively "burning off Karma" through the Trump presidency because it brings so much hidden unpleasant stuff from the collective unconscious up to the surface to be faced with and processed and learned from. The past 10ish years has been one big Trumpy shit sandwich of Karma that we're all collectively eating through.

I know you wouldn't do it. I wasn't really directing that advice towards you in particular... just addressing the post more generally. But I would guess that, if he's not in the exact Jackass-like night-life scenario that I mentioned in my previous post, that it's probably pre-planned and staged to get clicks and views from guys who are trying to learn to be more confident approaching women so that they can marvel at it and go, "Wow! How was that guy able to do that!?!?!" Otherwise, it would definitely end up with him ending up in jail because it's such an aberration to the norm and against the law. And even if (theoretically) a woman on the busy street in broad daylight was receptive to it (which I doubt... but yet again, crazy likes crazy), somebody else would definitely call the cops on him. Like, if you're going to act crazy, you have to be in an environment where crazy is normal and where you have social proof from friends that crazy is normal... like at a rock concert/festival, spring break beach party, or rowdy club environment. Like, when I was 17 years old and I went to my first rock festival show (Livestock 2006), the first thing I saw upon entering the festival was a woman giving a guy and blowjob on top of an rv while a bunch of people cheer them on. So, in these kinds of environments that are already crazy, it's like the Wild West. And in most environments, you have to a very young person too. Or it's going to still read as weird and crazy no matter the environment. Like a bunch of 21 year old guys going out to a wild place and a friend in the group starts streaking to be funny is just read as young adult hooligan antics. But a 30+ year old group of guys going out to a wild place and a friend in the group starts streaking, it's like "Good lord! John's gone crazy."

I didn't see the videos because they were blanked out, but the only way I could see this remotely work out for him is if the following is true contextually... He's young (under the age of 25) He's out with a bunch of friends at night... and all the guy friends are funny and brash together as a group. He's in some kind of wild nightlife place (like Ybor city or something like that) or out during Spring Break in a beach party town He's extremely outgoing and naturally funny He's totally detached from sexual outcomes (in a take it or leave it kind of way). His intention in being naked is not about getting girls. And he wants nothing from being naked other than to be outrageous and funny with his buddies (like the Jackass guys, if you're familiar with the show from the early 2000s) He's taking the frame of being the funny daring punkish guy who skirts the rules and disrespects the law He has to be courting young women (18-25) who he and his friends happen to encounter, who are also out to have a wild night and who are attracted to punkish outrageousness who haven't yet grown tired of these types of antics Some alcohol is involved He has to be at least somewhat conventionally attractive with a lean tall build. And ALL of these conditions would have to met for him to be considered as operating within the realm of normalcy. He'd have to be coming across like a Johnny Knoxville type of guy who's out having a wild night with his buddies. And some guys can pull this kind of thing off if it's in their personality to be such a jokester. But they're also taking a huge a risk. So, I don't recommend taking any risks like this for sure... especially if you're not naturally funny, outgoing, or brash AND you don't have a big gaggle of naturally funny, outgoing, or brash guys to go out and get into antics with you.