Emerald

Then plug another chef with a love for food but selective tastes into the metaphor.

I don't see it as a form of unconditional love. It's definitely SUPER conditional. But it's not conditioned primarily upon specific objective qualities. It's conditioned on him being precisely who he is. It's more about an appreciation of the whole gestalt of his personality and who he is as a unique living breathing feeling human being. I would call it hyper-subjectificaton where that one guy becomes like a demi-god in a woman's eyes. And that's true even if he doesn't possess objectively attractive or positive qualities. And yes, that can be a huge issue. This tendency has a pretty self-destructive side to it if a woman doesn't get ruthlessly picky about who she allows to get close to her. Once a woman has her heart set on a particular man and she gets attached, boundaries can be difficult. This is why it's important to integrate the Masculine side, which is to set clear boundaries and standards for the men she spends time with... lest she be struck by Cupid's arrow for a man who will drag down the quality of her life. So, it's SO important to have solid deal breakers and to be able to protect your boundaries as a woman because these feelings put you in a vulnerable position. And that's especially true if you're young and inexperienced. Like back when I was between age 16 and 20, I had no boundaries because I thought boundaries were wrong to have. I thought that I would be a bitch if I had any boundaries, and that was a huge fear for me at the time. When I was 16, I fell in love with my first boyfriend who was 17. And we were together for 4 years. And he had some redeeming qualities. But he was mostly a mess of a guy who was going nowhere in his life. And I lived with him, his mom, and his sister in my junior and senior year of high school before I went to college. And he was very chaotic and would frequently threaten to commit suicide... often as a means to control me or evoke certain reactions from me. And he was also in and out of jail for petty crimes. And life was very stressful with him because he was super unreliable and irresponsible. But I had this deeply held belief that "If I love him, I should be willing to support him and stick with him through anything." And he didn't have much of anything going for him, but I had this deep value of loyalty where I would sacrifice myself for him again and again and again. And I kept trying to act as an almost motherly figure to him because his life had been very traumatic and neither of his parents had ever given him any nurturing. His mom was an alcoholic and was a decent person but very rough and tough. He also witnessed his older brother having hung himself when he was 12. And his dad even tried to shoot him at the request of a hooker he had brought home when my ex-bf we was 14. (Side note: His dad also enlisted the help of a drug dealer to try to steal our van by pretending like he was being held for ransom unless my ex-bf would sign the title over. And a few months before he and I got together, my ex-bf was seeing a girl who was also 17 like he was. And he took her to Tampa with him for a week to stay with his dad. And his dad started giving her (a 17yo) crack in exchange for sex. I could go on and on about his dad and how terrible he is.) So, when he and I got together, I was trying EXTRA hard to compensate for all of his pain by being as loving and nurturing as possible. And I was endlessly enabling. But one night, when I was 20, he went full-blown homicidal with me and started threatening to kill me and himself. And he was leading me around by the pedestrian walking area downtown at 3am and holding a broken beer bottle to my throat for about an hour as we walked and he was threatening to cut me and also to snap my neck. And he led me to the fort that's in the same area and was holding me next to a high ledge near the for with a 10-15 ft drop and threatening to push me off and asking me if I trust him or not. Funny enough, I wasn't too too scared... because he never went through with anything he ever said he was going to do. And he'd never been violent with me before. It was just sad and traumatic. Needless to say, I had to break with that value and end it. And it was a painful but important lesson to learn that I needed to grow some claws. Then when I finally severed the tie, I didn't really have a support system. And out of loneliness, I started spending time around guy who was about a decade older than me, and I had started to catch feelings for him. And he had all sorts of issues with heavy drugs. And he'd lost custody of his kid. And he was showing so many abuse red flags just in a few week's span of time. And I could sense with those hyper-subjectifying feelings that were kicking in that I was going out of the frying pan and into the fire. So because I was very alone in the world at that time, I deliberately went out and found another random guy to spend time around that I was generically attracted to that wasn't as chaotic. It was a crazy time with many lessons. And one of them is that you have to be super picky about the guys you spend time with BEFORE those feelings fully set in.

I looked up what the platforms are. I had assumed at first that they were AI interactions that mimic human interactions or a place where you pay someone to talk to you. But yes. That seems to be better than not socializing at all. That said, nothing substitutes for in-person interactions. And if those sites give the illusion of a socialization fix, that can discourage you from getting out of the comfort zone.

I'm glad it made you laugh.

Let's put it this way. Men love sex like Scooby and Shaggy love food. Women love sex like Gordon Ramsey loves food. Who loves food more? Scooby and Shaggy or Gordon Ramsey?

100% Not enough real-world social experience causes men to fill in the blanks of their understanding of women and humans in general in ways that exacerbate their feelings of loneliness and isolation. The same can be true for women as well. But it seems that a lot of men have a stronger tendency towards fear of rejection, intellectualization, hyper-individuality, social isolation, and technological interests. And because of this, there's a tendency for young guys to get swallowed up in a protection chamber of intellectual certainty and predictability as opposed to entering the unknown of real-world social interactions.

I totally agree with this. It's sad but also interesting how triggering it is for them to hear that, when a woman is genuinely interested in them, that they are actually being appreciated for the core of who they are as a unique person. It's like trying to take a hurt and scared animal out of bear trap, but they start scratching and biting your hand as you do it. They are so afraid that the core of them is unlovable, and they believe that women cannot see what's lovable about them beyond their utility to us. If they could just see once through the eyes of the Feminine and the a-rational lens of beauty that it isn't like that, they would be dispossessed of a lot of shame instead of feeling so inadequate and like they need to change so many things about themselves to be loved, appreciated, and validated.

Thank you!

You're welcome! I'm glad it resonates.

I used to worry the same way that men aren't capable of loving a woman at an equivalent level of depth. But not as much anymore because I've worked with so many male clients and have had several partners over the years that are very loving. And so many of them crave to be love and be loved deeply. But there are lots of men who will avoid looking deeper at our sexuality because he fears the Feminine in himself and others... and fears what he cannot control or gain leverage over. And this is why there is so much resistance to a deeper more holistic understanding of female sexuality as so many men already feel powerless to the Feminine. But it is a good litmus test for the level of maturity and Feminine integration a man has if he's curious and open about the Feminine and is able to explore the beauty of it... or if he's closed off and wants to stick to his utilitarian illusions of knowing. For me, I really need a man to be curious about the beauty of my feelings for me to be intrigued.... instead of him seeing my feelings for him as this ugly garish thing that gets reduced down to pure utility. It makes me feel really unseen with these projections papered over what I consider to be one of the most interesting and beautiful parts of myself. And in theory, most the guys on here value depth. But most of the guys on here are too hyper-masculine, logical, and nerdy to appreciate beauty. They only understand utility. And yet they crave and are starved for beauty. But they reject it if you try to open them up to the lens of beauty. Not all men of course. Some men are developed enough to be genuinely intrigued by the Feminine. Not all men are sailors. Some men are scuba divers that are interested in us merfolk.

Funnily enough, it's usually inexperienced men who've never had a functional longterm relationship with a woman and who are afraid to talk to their female peers that are the most resistant to my insights. But they are the ones that can benefit the very most from what I'm sharing. Listen to us old broads from time to time, and you might just learn something.

And you're incorrect about that assumption. If you want to know some insights about female sexuality, you can look back at my previous posts.

Let me explain it this way. The perspective that Leo is speaking from isn't holistic and multi-perspectival as it pertains to female sexuality. And because of this, he often draws incorrect inferences about the nature of female sexuality because he is only looking at female sexuality from one angle... which is the pragmatic 'what do men have to do to get a woman' angle. It's kind of like looking at a cylinder from one angle and saying it's a rectangle, while the other person says it's a circle. Leo is looking at female sexuality ONLY as the circle... when it is a cylinder. And to be fair, the average woman is only looking at it as the rectangle, which is inaccurate. And that is what people believe that I'm doing. And this is why so many are resistant to my insights. But I've deeply studied this cylinder from many angles because I am interested in looking at female sexuality more in depth in ways that aren't pragmatic but are just about learning and understanding how this machine ticks. It's a passion of mine, and I'm deeply compelled to explore. And my insights are rare and valuable for people that have the ears to hear them. But most on here won't recognize the value because they aren't thinking multi-perspectivally about female sexuality. And they don't see the value in doing that because they mistakenly believe that it isn't going to benefit them personally. But the cylinder of female sexuality is only 20% circle and only looks like a circle from the specific vantage point that men have, and that the rest of the form is very different from a circle. The issue isn't that men are operating from the circle paradigm when they're practically engaged with meeting a woman. That's not my issue. Use the circle paradigm practically if it helps you. My issue is that there are many incorrect inferences that are being drawn about female sexuality due to the circle perspective paradigm lock. And I want to liberate them from these incorrect inferences that are creating tons of shame and issues with connecting with women. It's like the blind men and the elephant. Men in these paradigm-locks are hyper-fixated on the tusks of female sexuality. And they've created all these weird false narratives in their mind that women are made out of pure ivory. So, be careful not to draw too many guesses and inferences and weave too many narratives around your certainty about female sexuality being a circle.

I agree with everything in the bolded part above... if we're defining low value partners similarly. I define low value partners as men who are unstable, immature, selfish, shallow, disloyal, irresponsible, cold, callous, ungrounded, etc. And I don't even need to consciously sort for these qualities, because I can sense them straight away and there is an automatic repulsion. So, I define low value men less by physical attractiveness, height, or net worth... and more by "How much do I trust him?" and "How much do I value his character and personality" and "Is he a reliable person?" etc. Of course, these objective qualities are nice to have, and I can have deal breakers that pertain to those qualities. Like if I think a guy is ugly or he's broke and can't be a supportive partner that contributes to a household, I probably won't be able to be attracted to him. But those qualities aren't the thing I seem to be intuitively maximizing for. Those are just lines in the sand, and if a guy meets or exceeds them, they're not a deal breaker. So, if you're defining "low value guys" the way that I do, I agree with the bolded parts above. But the first thing that you had mentioned about screening for the tallest, hottest, smartest, richest guy is not something that I can relate... except the intelligence part which is a necessity for me in order to have an eye-to-eye intimate connection with a guy. And I've noticed that to operate off of searching for a laundry list of signifiers of universally agreed upon social value doesn't seem to yield very good results for the women who get involved with guys that tick all these boxes. Many people can operate off of the thought process, "If I'm with a partner that's more attractive than me, that means that I'm also high value." But I've tended to operate through the opposite thought process of wanting to be regarded as the peacock of the relationship... at least in terms of looks and whimsy. I like it if a guy feels like he's punching a little bit above his weight and finds my affection towards him meaningful and surprising. And this has led to this feeling of being valued... which feels stable and secure. And it's also exciting to be the peacock because you get to feel the other's desire for you like you are the apple of their eye. And I think this is why I've had a pretty easy time finding compatible partners that value me and are highly invested in me as a person. I don't have any sense of scarcity in that way because I can tell who values me... and I'm highly compelled by feeling valued and desired as a person. So, I like to be in the role of the beloved when I'm engaged with a guy. And I like for him to feel like he has to step into the lover role to woo me. And I just can't imagine a Brad Pitt-looking guy doing that. That type of dynamic would put me in this awkward role of trying to win his affection, and then he'd feel like he was punching below his weight. And that whole dynamic would turn me off. So, I tend to get attracted to average-looking sexually-reserved intelligent guys with good character and a stable life who are slightly less sought after than I am... if I can intuitively sense that he will regard me as his beloved based off of my looks and personality. This is a good way for me to sum up the types of guys that I tend to become attracted to the most often. And this dynamic is the one that I find the most gratifying. But in the opposite dynamic, where the guy is more attractive than the woman or if he has aspirations to maximize every element of his life, the woman can become an option and just part of his rotation... which is the opposite of being regarded as the beloved. And the relationships I've seen that fall into this category can be pretty shallow and anxiety provoking for the woman because the guy isn't that into the woman and wants to see if he can do better and get a hotter woman. Or he may even just want more freedom and sexual variety. He could even want to embody the image of the ideal masculine and have tons of women regarding him as the beloved. Of course, this dynamic can also be true for guys who aren't tall, hot, smart, or rich. But it's more of that maximizing status mindset that leads to a constant dissatisfaction with where he's at in life and a desire for more and better. So, these guys can have trouble with settling down with a specific woman... even if they value marriage and family consciously.... because they always sense that there's some better woman out there. And they can spend a lot of time chasing an imaginary ideal of a woman. And it's a very insecure relationship that tends to emerge when the man is the beloved of the relationship, as she will love and adore him... but him not love and adore her. But if the woman is the beloved of the relationship, he will love and adore her and she will reciprocate. And this leads to more stable relationships.

I'm sure that does happen for immature women (and/or women with attachment issues) who try to play 4-d chess and engage in manipulation games if she feels that the guy is pulling away or something. So, she withholds affection to manipulate the guy into putting in effort to remedy the issue because it makes her feel more secure in the connection. But this is just immature behavior, and ultimately would backfire as a mechanism for testing and sorting men. And that's because men with lower self-esteem will be the ones that stick around, where men who have a higher self-esteem will be repelled. So, if it is a sorting mechanism... then it's one that backfires and produces the opposite results to creating a securely attached healthy relationship with a functional partner. And you will end up attracting less mature partners and scaring off more mature men who are willing to walk away if they're not being treated well. Or conversely, if a woman isn't wanting to have sex with a guy over a long period of time (which can appear from the outside like she's withholding sex deliberately as a game), there's usually some other relationship issue that's getting in the way of opening up. And example would be lack of non-sexual affectionate touch from her partner. Another would be if sex starts to be seen as a chore that she's expected to do for him as opposed to something that she enjoys. Or another could be if the guy is mean or callous towards her. Or it could also be a lack of communication and intimacy. Or if sex is approached only from a male-centric lens, and she doesn't get anything she wants out of sex and it begins to feel like an unfair deal. If these things happen, the thought of sex with this partner just starts to feel like nails on a chalkboard. And there will be this deep aversion that has lots of unpleasant emotions like anger and powerlessness.

I don't necessarily think that's the function of women hiding their attraction cues from men, as there are other more obvious survival advantages that female sexual opacity provides. There are other functions for weeding out the wrong men that are more efficient than that. Truthfully, if she's genuinely attracted, she's already done the instinctual selection and has already gotten past the smell test around qualities that give her the ick. And at that point, if she has sensed that she's not attracted, she doesn't really have an attraction to hide. My experience has been that my tendency towards opacity about my attractions has been in relation to the following... Starting off platonically without me indicating attraction directly allows for a more organic basic human-to-human intimacy to form. And this sets up a better foundation to build upon romantically. And if I create more ambiguity, it will keep an interested guy engaging in the interaction over a long enough period of time for platonic intimacy to happen... which sets a better stage for pair bonding. I've also hidden my feelings because I'm nervous to show them before I know they're reciprocated for fear of rejection. Also, I like deliberately slowing things down and allowing mystery, sexual tension, and anticipation to build over time... because it's 10x more interesting and exciting to me that way. I have deliberately cultivated a self-image and reputation as being someone who is a bit more sexually reserved despite also being a naturally sensual person. And I tend to find more sexually reserved men and women more sexually attractive because I find them more mysterious, as hidden sexuality makes it more intriguing to me. So, being more socially opaque about this facet of myself makes me feel more attractive and feel like I'm being perceived as more attractive. Being more opaque with my sexuality and my attractions as my general MO sets up a solid platonic status quo. And when that platonic status quo shifts to something more amorous with regard to a specific person, it means something more to me (and them too if they're a good person to match with). And the contrast between platonic and romantic creates a tension of opposites that intensifies the depth of my erotic heart-centered feelings and sets a better stage for me to open up to deeper levels of merging and pair bonding. Many negative experiences from age 13-15 where I wore my flirtatiousness and sensuality on my sleeve and was treated really badly by both male and female classmates. It made me a target for quite a bit of hate and disrespect. This caused me to make strategic changes when I was 15-16 to become a lot more reserved and opaque about my sexuality. And from that point onward, I got a lot more power and respect... and higher quality people who were interested in me. So, I'm more opaque because of those negative experiences... but as a consolation prize, it helped me find a more empowering feeling sexual frame and identity to inhabit. If I like him and we're interacting regularly and things are progressing... why rush it and ruin the unfolding process with tons of unnecessary directness? I find it simultaneously adorable, exhilarating, and meaningful to be alone with the guy I'm interested in and witnessing him doing his best to work up the courage to overturn the platonic status quo, as I can see he's putting in some emotional labor to be intimate with me. So, I can't really imagine getting to the point where I'm already attracted to a guy and being instinctually opaque with my signals to screen further. I've never had a situation happen like that where I was already attracted to a guy and he misread a signal and I lost that attraction. Yet again, I have pretty high standards for what I consider an attraction to be. So, it depends on how you define attraction. Perhaps if it's a shallow generic attraction like "Hey, that guy's kind of cute." but then he misreads my level of interest to the point where he tries to kiss me right away, that's going to kill any real attraction that could have ever grown there. But my perception, from looking at my conscious decisions to be more opaque, is that my opacity around my sexual feelings isn't really about the vetting men's weaknesses. Rather, being sexually reserved creates the necessary conditions that deeper levels of intimacy, meaning, and pair-boding can be built upon. And this would be more difficult if I was super open with my sexual expressiveness. And it is also helpful to me socially in general because it communicates that I have more selectiveness about my mate choice and higher standards. And this in turn, creates a perception of higher value and abundance in many social contexts.

Usually if a woman you know personally and are interacting with a lot has a crush on you, she'll do a few predictable things... She'll probably try to be in your proximity quite a lot. She'll laugh a lot. She may start focusing more on her physical appearance. She may tease you. She may even act a bit awkward or strange in your presence. She could even potentially avoid being around you if she's really nervous or insecure. But many women (especially less confident women) will be somewhat tight-lipped about her feelings because having feelings for a guy is pretty high stakes. If you only get a crush every once in a while when the feelings are super strong, and the guy you're invested in isn't interested in you, the rejection rips all the potential away forever with that specific person. And keeping those feelings under wraps is a way of maintaining that potential, even if nothing comes to fruition due to non-action. And there's already so much investment into that one person that could be lost, which would cause some degree of grief. So, women can often avoid being direct about their feelings to avoid the pain of potential rejection. Plus, women can also worry about creeping the guy out and feeling like an obsessive stalker. So, she may underplay her feelings if she has this concern that the depth of her feelings are inappropriate and that he's going to feel icky and violated by the depth of her feelings for him. Like, I've hidden my feelings SOO many times from guys because of these concerns. Now, in more casual interactions where general attraction is more relevant (like clubs), the woman will probably make more eye contact if she finds you attractive. But you'd have to feel it out more in these contexts through making a slight advance and seeing how she responds. And if she responds affirmatively, then continuing to advance. Like if you get closer to her or touch her platonically, does she pull away or seem to move closer? And if you notice she's okay with these mild advances, you can get a somewhat bolder with your proximity and touch. But the main thing is to advance things slowly and gauge her response. Think of it like a wordless conversation. Like if you're sitting next to her and you let your legs relax and it happen to press slightly against hers, does she pull away or keep her leg in the same spot? These communicate two different things. So, you don't have to go from 0 to 100 from a single look or anything like that. Instead, make gradual advances when you intuitively sense that it's the right time. And if she's laughing and having a good time with you, you can probably make the first advance like closer proximity or platonic touch. Or you invite her to sit next to you to look at pictures on your phone that are attached to a personal story (like a vacation or memories with friends) and keep the phone towards her but still in front of you, and see how much liberty she takes to get close to you to see the pictures. If she gets quite close or wants to stay sitting next to you, that's typically a good sign that you can advance things somewhat further. But taking it slow until the kiss is important.

You're welcome!

He's not taking out of his ass either. For men's pragmatic purposes, the things that he's learned will give a guy enough know-how to interact with and attract women... in lieu of deeper feelings of shame that might get in the way. The reality is that, if you can interact with women in a way that shows you have objectively valued qualities, you will be more successful with women. And more women will be attracted to you if you possess more attractive qualities than if you don't. But the issue is in believing that, just because these things that he's learned from dating experts work for him practically that he has an accurate understanding of how female sexuality and attraction really works subjectively. And he makes tons of assumptions about how women are operating that fit as a puzzle piece into his pragmatic operating system regarding women... but that are totally off from how women are really operating. And this leads to a lot of false conclusions about how women experience men they're attracted to... which leads to inaccurate narratives that produce shame in men.

It's just because it's a misrepresentation. That's why it bothers us. It takes 20% of our sexuality and pretends it's the whole story... and weaves a distorted and inaccurate narrative. And it makes it impossible to be seen because so many men already believe they know better, when they don't. It's the confident ignorance of it that's really annoying. But it's just not being seen accurately that's upsetting too. Female sexuality is a lot more interesting than it's being given credit for.

Thank you! I've noticed that it tends to be the case, that when a guys more integrated with his Feminine energy that he's far more subjective in his attractions. And it's tended to be that I can have more interesting and fulfilling friendships and romantic partnerships with men who are more integrated in this way, as it's easier to see and be seen. And I need this to feel like I'm on even emotional footing with a guy in a relationship. Otherwise to make an emotional analogy, it's the equivalent of me giving him a $100 bill in exchange for a $1 bill. I mostly share these perspectives on here about my experiences of female sexuality, because I keep seeing that the guys on here are struggling with connecting with women. And they keep doubling down on these perceptions of the world that are antithetical to the Feminine principle. And there's a lot of misconceptions that a lot of the men have on here that they have to keep adding more Masculinity and to themselves and subtracting Femininity from themselves to get better with women. But that doesn't work out well.

Listen. I don't want your help. You were saying this same thing to Princess Arabia the other day that she's refusing your help. But neither of us is asking for your help. And if you want me to fully read your replies and engage with the content of what you're saying, you're going to need to stop with the condescending tone and ad hominem attacks. I have to admit that I've only been skimming your replies because they're SUPER condescending. I won't be replying to you again until you can speak to me with respect.

Sure, what's the question?

That's the thing. What I'm saying doesn't contradict with what they're saying. These perspectives reconcile, and I recognize this. But they aren't able to integrate my perspective because they are too attached to what they "know" about female sexuality. They perceives that it's either/or, so they don't want to listen and learn. I understand their perspectives 100%. And I get that it's what they must do to be pragmatic... to enhances their objectively attractive qualities to attract women. What I'm just saying that they aren't understanding my perspective and how their perspective is only like 20% of the picture of female sexuality. And they believe they know better about female sexuality than women do because guys on the internet told them so. And I get tired of having 20% of my sexuality overshadow the understanding of the other 80% because of these narratives that so many men get stuck on. And it creates tons of shame for men, because they believe that women are looking at them as precisely the sum of their parts. But the way we see men is different than that. Basically, there are kernels of truth in what they're saying but they're leaving out the most important things. It's like someone was in a red and yellow room and came to the confident but ignorant conclusion that the entire world is red and yellow. And when we say "No it's actually mostly blue and green." They say, "You're just kidding yourself. I've seen that it's red and yellow."

That's correct! I don't differentiate between feelings of attraction and pair bonding because I am a woman, and my sexuality sees those as one and the same. I can notice attractive qualities in a man. But they aren't initially any more interesting or arousing to me than an elderly woman would be. So you're finally understanding and starting to get somewhere in your understanding of female sexuality! This is how female attraction AND pair bonding works. Deep female attraction and specific pair bonding with a unique person only ever comes as a package deal. And generic attraction traits generally aren't compelling from the female perspective because the only compelling thing is the unique romantic pair bonding drive that's anchored on that SPECIFIC person. This is why men are driven wild and hyper-compelled by objective qualities like nice tits and ass. But women don't care that much if a guy looks like a super model... or has a ton of money... or is charismatic... or possesses x,y,z objective traits. Until the pair bonding drive kicks in towards a specific man, guys who possess these qualities are just platonic dudes that populate the planet, until there is a deeper spark that has to do with his unique personality and vibe and how that interacts with her feeling states. Generic attraction traits don't do much of anything for a woman unless those traits are attached to a specific person with a specific personality she wants to uniquely pair bond to. But once she is set on that specific person, she will appreciate the objective qualities that he has because he's "that guy." And that's true whether those qualities are attractive or not in the way she conceptualizes abstractly of an attractive man. And she will prefer that one guy over all men... including men who are more objectively attractive. So, she is not settling for who she chooses and just wishing the guy was some guy in the supposed top 20% of guys. She really prefers him in particular. In contrast, for men, generic attraction traits are highly compelling. And shallower attraction and pair bonding are totally separate to where love and sexual attraction are separate things. And men tend to be far more compelled by the initial sexual attraction than by the desire to pair bond. So, a man is generically attracted to most women who have x,y,z objective traits... usually visual ones. And there is a kind of inherently objectifying element there because men are compelled mostly by the initial attraction. Because of this, men make the mistake of thinking women operate the same way. And they believe that women are similarly objectifying them... but in a pickier way that involves a variety of qualities instead of just looks. But we don't. We are hyper-subjectifyng in our sexuality. We hyper-subjectify the man we have the pair-bonding drive kick on in relation to. And he becomes the only man who sparkles. And this is why it is painful to us when men are more objectifying in their sexuality. And that's because sexuality and pair-bonding come as a package for women. And sex tends to mean love and pair bonding to us if we're having sex with someone that the pair-bonding infatuation has kicked in for. And it's precisely because sexual attraction and deeper pair bonding drives are one and the same for women. And the deeper pair bonding toward that unique person must come first. And of course, this makes sense from the perspective of evolutionary biology. Women need attraction and pair bonding drives to come together because she's instinctually looking for a partner to raise a child with. She can't afford to be compelled by objective qualities like men do. For men, attraction and pair bonding are separate. So, he can get tons of women pregnant that he feels nothing about. And if some of the children survive in lieu of his support, then his genetics will still be passed on.