Emerald

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.

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.