Emerald

Haha! Nice

Lonely… and painful. Mind the ridges bro! ?

You could treat it like it’s 50/50 if that’s what works for you. But it’s not 50/50 in actually. If I’m going to put numbers on it, it’s more like 80/20 in favor of subjectivity for the average woman.

Check out this cool emoji of me —> ? Haha ?

I suppose there's always a chance I could be unconsciously holding onto slut shamy view. When I was a teenager I was really judgmental about that kind of thing because I lived in a very conservative redneck town. And you'd get ripped to shreds as a woman by other women and some men if you were seen as slutty. And I also had a fair amount of sexual traumas. So, I totally could have some holdovers from that time period. But I don't have any conscious shame about my sexual past. I've had relationships, flings, one-night stands. And I very much enjoy sex. And there's not too much that I won't try. And I was always very precocious when it came to all things sex and romance. I'm pretty well an open book about the topic. And I don't see "primitive" sexuality as negative or less evolved. I quite like the more primal elements of sexuality because it is untouched by civilization. That's the core of the deep sexual urge. And this is a very important component. And when you're in the loving embrace with your partner, you can tear the civilized humanity off of yourself and just let go. It's very cathartic. So, I don't see my posts as being reflective of slut shaming myself. It's more of a desire to be seen accurately and without distortion. There's a lot of over-emphasis of certain aspects of female sexuality and a lot of under-emphasis or omission of other aspects of female sexuality. It just irks me a lot when I see men totally misunderstanding female sexuality and then falsely believing that they're right about it... and be stubborn to hear anything different.

You're being like one of those incel guys who quote dating profile statistics to say why only Chads get girls. If you look at dating profile statistics as gospel, you'd think that women are mostly or only attuned to looks. And that's because surface level stuff is all there is in a dating profile sense. And so, when Incel guys are like "ONLY the top 20% of guys looks-wise get all the girls", it's because they're looking at dating profile statistics and seeing that as an absolute truth about female sexuality. But I know you're smarter than that Leo. I know you'd just as much call them on their bs as I would. But when it comes to status, you look at dating profile statistics as proof of your theories around the ultimate objectivity of female sexuality. You're trying so hard to prove that female sexuality works the same way as male sexuality, when it does not. And I mean that in its content as well as its overall patterning. We aren't just men who happen to be attuned to different qualities. It's a different mode of relating and attraction altogether. So, where's the consistency here? It's a bunch of malarky when Incels use dating website stats to support their distorted coping mechanism ideas about female sexuality, but it's absolute truth when you use it to support your distorted coping mechanism ideas about female sexuality? The fact of the matter is that, if you're trying to build status to meet women, you will meet women who are seeking status. You will also gain more mass appeal and you'll be less likely to hit a woman's dealbreakers, so it's useful. But status (though attractive to me in an objective sense) is never what ends up snaring me. Now, some women are really attuned to that. But other women aren't as much. I can certainly recognize that status is attractive. But am I attracted to ALL high status men? Absolutely not. And that's because the subjective factors of my sexuality outweigh the objective factors. Now, I understand that it may be comforting for you to believe that female sexuality is a predictable machine. That's a big security blanket that would be very difficult to let go of. But overall, it's a lot less straightforward than male sexuality. And that's something that you will never fully solve or hack your way out of. It doesn't matter how many books you read on the topic. It doesn't matter how much personal development you do. And it doesn't matter how good you get at approaching. It will never act as a consistent machine in the way you like to think it does.

Well hello there... j/k

That's true. There is a subjective component to all human sexuality, just as there is an objective component. But let's be real here. Male sexuality and female sexuality are different. And male sexuality is much more influenced by objective factors, while female sexuality is more influenced by subjective factors. If a woman is between the ages of 18 and 25, has symmetrical features, oval face shape, large eyes, full lips, and a .6 waist to hip ratio most men will be attracted to her. It's objective. But if you take a charismatic, confident, classically handsome man with a great job and all the fixins... most women still won't be into him, even if they recognize him as objectively attractive. But of course, men need a leverage point with how to attract women, so they have to work on the objective elements of male attractiveness. The subjective can't be worked on or improved. It just is what it is.

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.