Emerald

I do understand how people become attracted to one another and how relationships form… quite well, if I do say so myself. I’ve had several serious relationships that have all ranged from 1 year together to 9 years together. And I’ve learned a lot on the topic from a practical and archetypal perspective. And I’ve worked with over 400 male and female clients… with many of them exploring the topics of dating, relationships, and sexuality with my guidance. And I’ve also had direct experience of Divine Feminine and Divine Masculine in my plant medicine experiences. And from all of this, I can tell you that your internet bro-science understanding of male/female attraction dynamics is severely lacking in terms of the psychological and practical understanding of how people actually function. It seems to me that you’re just reading a bunch of stuff on the internet about women and believing that it’s true. But one thing I would ask you about your perspective on male/female dynamics is… how’s that working out for you?

There is a constant ebb and flow between the Masculine and Feminine in all things… including human beings. But in the broad strokes sense, some things/people are more Masculine than they are Feminine. And vice versa. But if you zoom in, you will always find Masculine facets in the Feminine and Feminine facets within the Masculine. So, paradoxically… some people are more Masculine and some people are more Feminine… BUT simultaneously (if you get down to the granular level) everyone has infinite facets of both… BUT in the absolute paradigm all dichotomies are illusory and collapse. So… some people are more Masculine than they are Feminine and vice versa. And everyone is equally Masculine and Feminine. And no one is Masculine and Feminine. All three are true from different paradigmatic vantage points. But if you want to get practical with dating/relationship dynamics and you want to create a Masculine/Feminine polarity between two people, it’s good to know about the Lover and Believe archetype and how to apply it.

It was.

Toxic masculinity is a term that was coined by Men’s Rights Activists that describe the toxic expectations that men and boys have put upon them by society. So, it’s things like the expectation to never cry or show emotions. Or the expectation to behave in unhealthy macho ways. Healthy Masculinity is the natural Masculinity that’s subtle and unpretended that comes from the inside. Toxic Masculinity comes from social pressures and is more like a mask of socially enforced “Masculine” traits that society expects men and boys to wear. And many of these expectations make a man callous, brutish, emotionally unintelligent, and womanizing if he “successfully” adheres to these expectations. There are toxic Feminine expectations too. Things like “be submissive and self-sacrificing” or “your only importance is your appearance”. Things like that. But most of those are self-deprecating. So, the toxicity happens inwardly… and sometimes toward other women.

????

No worries

Just saying this as someone with the experience of being the younger person.

Why do you want me to change my mind about bodily sovereignty? Do you want the government to be in control of people’s bodies? There are some circumstances where a person is not capable of consenting. In which case, there should be protocols about who gets to make decisions. Otherwise, it’s my view that people should have absolute bodily sovereignty under the law.

As to your question, it’s a difficult one. What I would say is that the best solution is for it to be policy that the mother should create a birth plan for if these contingencies. And part of it could be that she grants the father (or another friend/family member in the absence of the father) to make that decision if she’s unable to consent. Otherwise, I think the default position should be with the doctor.

???

I’m not advocating a situation where the woman isn’t making any effort. I’m just talking about the archetypal framework that informs male/female relationship dynamics. But people are not archetypes. So, all people have the lover and beloved within them. So, men and women will ebb and flow between these archetypes organically. That said, if you want polarity in the dynamic, then the man primarily as Lover and woman primarily as Beloved tends to be what leads to deeper pair bonding. The opposite doesn’t usually lead to good results in terms of stable pair bonding… unless the woman is more Masculine and the man is more Feminine.

The younger person always thinks this about themselves. But be careful. The older person probably isn’t viewing you that way.

But Leo and I weren’t talking about work. We were talking about existing as an attractive woman with big tits and getting freebies. Sex work is work… not a freebie.

I’m not dodging any questions. I notice that this is the third time you’re ascribing motives to me that I don’t have. First the thing about thinking I was secretly replying to you when I was replying to someone else. The second was the thing where you thought I was bullying you. And now you’re ascribing to me that I’m dodging questions. I feel like you may be projecting something/someone onto me that I’m not. What specifically was your question about the issues with bodily sovereignty?

@Leo Gura Certainly people would be wise to eat healthier food. But my point was that there can be certain circumstances that aren’t related to lack of education that hold a person back from eating better. It is common for people to know all about the nutrition and yet still be held back from positive changes due to psychological self-sabotage mechanisms.

The egg does not chase the sperm.

You’re over-thinking this thing about objectification. The Lover and Beloved archetype isn’t about objectification… it’s a reflection of the unconditional giving and receiving of love. Also, all of my relationships with the men I’ve loved and been loved by began organically in the context of just having a good time together and chatting about mutual interests. The reality is that women and men often fall in love just by spending quality time together. It wasn’t some hyper-rational guarded pick up stuff. The logic-mind doesn’t belong in the love dynamic. I knew most of the men I’ve shared a mutual love with as friends first and mutual attraction just arose after some months of spending time together platonically.

Yes, taking the frame of the adored enables the man to usurp the power of the Feminine Beloved archetype and be detached from the relationship while the woman is attached. He begins by aping the Lover to hook the woman and ignite her pair bonding drives. (He apes it because embodying the Lover would feel too vulnerable and he would run the risk of falling in love) And then, when she has fallen for him, he does a bait and switch and positions himself in the role of Feminine Beloved where he will never fall in love. And because she is hooked, she shifts into the role of the Masculine Lover archetype. And she begins vying for his love by giving and giving in the way she would like to receive. But men don’t fall in love by being given to. So, none of that works. So, it puts him on the front foot and her on the back foot. But a mutual love cannot arise from this dynamic. And it’s a misfortune for any children that are conceived. So, women are wise to avoid men who only ape the lover. And men who actually want mutual love are wise to avoid these tactics.

Of course, there is balance and mutualism in the Lover and Beloved dynamic. You would both be ebbing and flowing between the Lover and Beloved in a healthy love dynamic. So, she would also be expressing love. Love is a conversation. And the Lover speaks and the Beloved listens. But those are archetypes not human beings. Two human beings must ebb and flow between the two for there to be conversation. But it’s a good ideas for the man to take the Lover frame and to allow her to take the Beloved frame. This allows love to to blossom in both.

It’s not black and white. All people have the Masculine and the Feminine in them. The woman’s Masculine side must also be the Lover to the man’s Feminine side. For most, the dynamic will probably be around 80/20.

Take it slow. You don’t have to be super vulnerable up front. But for mutual love to happen, it must gradually unfold and you must both surrender to it. This takes time and trust. In the meantime, you can engage with the lighter aspects of the Lover - being playful, fun, flirtatious, etc. It’s best to start out really chilled out about connecting. But if a man tinkers around in the Lover role in the initial stages of attraction and hooks the woman… and then shifts himself in the Feminine Beloved role, where he is up on the pedestal… she will be in love and he will not. He will be detached and she will be falling all over herself to keep him because she will sense his detachment and get really anxious that he will leave. Not a healthy dynamic.

A common dynamic in pick up is for men to usurp the power of the Feminine Beloved role to their own benefit. That way, they can awaken love in the woman without being in love themselves. In this way, they can gain relationship to a woman (or women) without any of the vulnerability or loss of control that is required of the Lover. And if they succeed at awakening love in the woman, she will shift out of her natural power and into the Masculine role to try to keep him. — The mother archetype is a different archetype from the Lover and Beloved. But insofar as the Lover and Beloved apply in parent-child relationship, the parents play the Lover role and the children are the Beloveds. Both nurturing and protecting are part and parcel to the (Masculine) Lover archetype… while being on the receiving end of that love and protection is when the (Feminine) Beloved is embodied. But love is seen as culturally Feminine. But the Lover (the one who gives love) is archetypally Masculine. It extends the most vulnerable parts of itself to give love deeply to all of its beloved creation. The Lover archetype is repressed in men in our culture because we have a society that overvalues the Warrior and King archetypes in men… but undervalues the Magician and the Lover archetypes in men.

These are archetypes. I don’t make the rules. But objectification simply means to view someone as an object… which means nothing about choice or standing out. And the lover and beloved dynamic doesn’t have much to do with objectification. Though we could say that the beloved is the “object” of the lover’s desire. But more than objectification, it’s a reflection of the archetypal love dynamic… from the mundane to the spiritual. In terrestrial form, typically the man embodies the lover more often and the woman typically embodies the beloved more often. Though a healthy relationship dynamic oscillates a bit. And on the spiritual level, God is the lover and all parts of its creation are his beloved.

Of course, don’t put a woman up on a pedestal. But the archetypal story is Masculine Lover and Feminine Beloved. And this dynamic where the man is more in the Lover position and giving love, and the woman is more in the Beloved position and receiving love tends to lead to deeper pair bonding and a mutually loving relationship that feels like home. And it gives way to a stable and comfortable family to raise children within. The opposite dynamic will lead to a situation where the woman loves and adores the man, and the man is pretty detached from the woman. And she’ll feel the need to chase him. So, it will put her in her Masculine energy. And the relationship will be like a very exciting and emotionally disregulating roller coaster ride where the woman will feel insecure and unable to relax because she senses he doesn’t love her. Needless to say, this wouldn’t be a good dynamic to raise children in.

Not necessarily so. The OP never specified what his partner was eating or how much of it. Perhaps she even does eat a relatively healthy diet. Some people (especially women) have dealt with eating disorders where they over-restrict. And restricting food choices could re-trigger those issues. So, it could be quite important for these people to allow themselves to eat any kind of food they want in moderation. Also, many people who have been sexually assaulted tend to feel safer with more weight on their bodies. And so, they’ll unconsciously end up in dynamics of craving and over-eating high calorie foods that willpower alone isn’t going to fix. Or they could just be dealing with body image issues more generally where part of them tries to lose weight because they feel unlovable with weight on their body and another part of them rebels because the desire to lose weight is coming from self-hate. There can be many dynamics as to why someone’s diet is the way it is that has nothing to do with lack of education. It’s fairly common for people to have psychological barriers to eating healthily that have to be worked through before that education can be applied.