Emerald

This is not a relevant topic to the conversation and it’s definitely a derailment tactic because you know deep down that I’m right about you not having authority to speak on matters you’ve never experienced ... But yes, I am qualified to speak on these matters because I’ve had direct experience. First off, I never shared anything that I’d never experienced. And my videos on enlightenment were always from the perspective of being a seeker on the path. But I experienced total dissolution of ego last year and then came back into ego. And it was shown to me to show me that enlightenment from the Gods-eye view is meaningless. And it was clear that the purpose of my life was to surrender deeply to my human embodiment and to act as an extension of mercy within maya. So, because of my experience, I no longer seek. There is nothing to be sought. But I disagree with you advising women on relationship matters when you have no experience, to start with. If women actually followed your ideas, they’d run their life and the quality of their relationship prospects into a ditch. But for you more specifically, I’m trying to show you that relationships don’t follow your internal script. And if you cling to this script, you won’t get what you want.

Yeah, I’ve never run into a man I was attracted to who was liking me until I revealed my career or goals to him. It’s just never happened. The intuition does a good job at sorting. But yeah, people tend to attract and be attracted to those on the same wavelength. So, I just haven’t been involved with any hyper-traditional men nor would I ever want to be.

The problem is that you’re telling women that most men feel this way and giving advice as though it has some kind of authority. You’ve not just been sharing a preference of yours and saying that it’s yours. You’re implying that your preference is universal and something that women should keep in mind, as though it’s relevant to us. And keep in mind that this forum is a bit of an echo chamber. And because it relates to personal development with a masculine slant, it attracts a lot of guys who are too in their head, who have low self-esteem, and have trouble attracting women. So, it’s not really a surprise that many men on here would feel uncomfortable with successful women. But why would I cater to that insecurity when I can find a man who’s on my wavelength. But you are living in a fairy tale idea of relationships right now. And the sooner you realize that, the better your ability to have actual relationships will be. You’re going to run into the same laundry-list dilemma that I mentioned before in relation to women. So, I won’t sugarcoat it for you. You are in a fairy tale. Go get some actual experience with women, then come back to me and tell me what you learn about yourself and your preferences.

Yes exactly. Too much theorizing, based on distorted notions about women, femininity, relationships, and family. You have to live these experiences to glean the wisdom and perspective. The truth of the matter is that he won’t even know what he wants until he experiences the real thing.

But you’d be wise to question your own authority in providing relationship advice to women because... You’ve never had a serious relationship You’re in your early 20s You’re not a woman and thus aren’t aware of the ACTUAL issues women face in trying to find a partner All of your ideas about relationship and the relationship issues that women face are abstract and non-experiential But I’m sure my 10 extra years of life experience and 15 years of relationship experience and 9.5 years of motherhood wouldn’t provide any valuable insights into dating, marriage, and family. Best to keep ahold of your fairy tale... I mean, it seems to have been working out so far. Right?

Now, I have 10 years of experience on you. Keep that in mind. I’ll be 32 in a couple days. And I’ve spent 15 years of my life in committed relationships. One of those relationships my longest ones were 4 years and 9 years. That’s 15 years of relationship experience... compared to you having never been in a committed relationship before. So you might be wise to have a listen. So, I think this is what will happen. You’ll have all these specific standards and abstract ideas about women and relationships and how the world works that aren’t based in reality. And because you’re so hung up on these ideas in your head, you won’t be able to interface with the reality as it is. And you’ll fail to make an intimate connection with any woman at all. And as such, you likely won’t end up with the family you desire. Too much strategy, projection, and mind stuff... not enough heart. Also, you keep asserting that this is a universal preference that men don’t want successful women. But it isn’t. Passionate men typically want a passionate partner who is compatible with him. And being a very driven woman I can tell you that I’ve never had any issues finding a man who shares my values and who’s invested in me. Now, do other stage blue men exist? Yes. Are they the majority? No. So, there is no shortage of compatible men. Don’t fear monger with the “Do you wanna die alone?” thing. As long as a woman is attuned to her intuition and heart and is open, she won’t have trouble attracting a partner.

@Consept I know that’s what you’re saying. A few other guys are saying otherwise. They’re actually arguing that successful women are less appealing. But I tagged you because you were involved in the earlier conversation and I wanted to address this point. The OP’s premise that women believe they can use their career success for the purpose of attracting men or that women pursue career to attract men is incorrect in the first place. Women pursue career for reasons independent of relationship concerns. And I’m certain that nearly all women aren’t under the assumption that their career success will act as an aphrodisiac,

I have always been really excited to go towards what interests me. So, my interests, and by extension, my interest in my career has never had much to do with trying to get a relationship. But if a man is threatened by my interests and career, then it’s a good sign that he’s not the right man for me either because of incompatibility or because of him being threatened by my empowerment. Men who are insecure tend to like to keep their women small because they fear they’re not dominant enough or desirable enough if they don’t diminish her. But a man who is truly confident and secure in himself, won’t feel shaken by my passion. When a man is truly in his king energy, he will support his woman in her queenhood. But most people don’t love their work. It’s important to understand that most working women aren’t making a Feminist statement. The lady working 60 hours a week at Burger King has no other choice. And these women would probably adore to stay at home with their kids if they had the opportunity. So, categorizing women working as a Feminist thing or competing with men is a total misread of the situation. Most women work as a means to an end. Poor and working class women have always had to work... long before Feminism was even a thing. So, if the men on this thread really want a woman not to work, then you have to start making enough to support an entire household on a single income.

I only spend like 25-30 hours a week on my career if that. I work for myself, from home. My job consists of life-coaching over Zoom and making videos for my YT channel (which I tend to slack off on). And some passive income too. So, I’m not really killing myself to make ends meet. Maybe I’d feel different or struggle to be well-balanced if I were working like 60 hours a week at a job I hate.

@intotheblack @Raptorsin7 @Consept @Preety_India “Also what is being assumed here is that said woman is striving for success for the purpose of believing that this will help her attract a man. Or that if the woman is successful it must mean she’s not as physically attractive so is choosing career to try and make herself more attractive (in the way that men do) which I don’t think is the case, for women they are doing that more out or choice, not because they think it will attract more men.” This is also important to realize in relation to the original post. Women generally aren’t going into careers for the purpose of attracting men. They do so either out of necessity or because it’s what really lights their fire. I can say from experience that my desire to follow my passions, which is something I’ve always been oriented to even as a little kid, is all about the excitement and fulfillment found within the engagement of the passion itself. There’s never been a thought process of, “Okay, I’m going to develop this super successful career and the men are gonna love me.” The life-purpose has never been a bargaining chip for some other desired outcome. The life-purpose itself is the desired outcome.

Are you saying that most people are not like me? Is that what you mean? Regardless of how similar or dis-similar people are to me, my entire point is that a woman would be using an unwise relationship-seeking strategy to forego career/Individuation for the purpose of attracting a partner. It’s said by many men on this thread that they prefer a woman who only focuses on home and family and that success will hurt a woman’s relationship prospects. And there is an implication of advice to women that foregoing career would be a good strategy for finding a high quality partner. But my entire point is that this is a terrible strategy for both life satisfaction and relationship seeking. In my experience, developing yourself fully (including career) is the best strategy for attracting a compatible, high quality partner... and it’s also a great strategy for scaring off incompatible and low quality partners. And it’s important for all women to know this. They would be wise to know that they don’t have to stunt themselves and their growth to attract a man. In fact, keeping themselves small is a good strategy for attracting the wrong kind of man. Shine your light fully and brightly and do what speaks to you in your heart of hearts and you will become a beacon for potential partners who are on the same wavelength.

The reason I’m talking about career so much in relation to my relationship is because that’s what the post is all about. I am also very invested in my relationship to my partner as well. This entails being a good listener, being supportive and non-judgmental, being affectionate, investing time and effort in him, giving him a space where he can let down his guard, etc.

Could trauma be a reason why someone might have a resistance to becoming a parent? Yes. Is that typically the case? No. Most often, it's just a preference. It seems to me that nature knows what it's doing. The human population is getting to the point where it's elevated above what's normal for the species. So, I think lots of people don't want kids as a deeper instinct that enables us to balance out our population as a species in future generation. It's kind of like how certain animals and plants respond in a feedback loop with nature. And if the populations of one species get too high, there tends to be other things in the feedback loop that balances the population out. I see the desire to have fewer or no children as an outgrowth of our more instinctual awareness about what's balanced.

I value a LTR and a family... in fact, I have them. And I've only ever found that my kids (9 and 6) are very interested and inspired by what I do. And it sends a good message to my daughter especially that the sky is the limit in terms of what's possible for her.

That's exactly my point. What I've found is that attracting a compatible partner who's worth the effort is all about individuation and growing one's self. If women followed your dating/relationship advice around not focusing on career success, they'd end up with a low quality and incompatible partner and stifled individuation. But if women follow my advice and developed themselves fully, they'd be more apt to find a high quality partner who supports their individuation. There's no need to cater to men who aren't compatible.

It depends on the woman as to who is compatible. Women tend to look for their match. There's a sense of feeling like you've found your soul's twin. But what I know from my perspective is that, if a man is bothered by my skills or success, then that man is not for me. That's my entire point. There's no benefit to considering the proclivities of a man that I wouldn't be interested in to begin with. So, beyond the theoretical "men are like this, women are like that" perspective, I can tell you that success and focusing on my individuation and career path have never been anything but a wonderful tool for attracting compatible partners who care about me in a multi-faceted way and weeding out partners that are not compatible. What must be understood is that success from a woman's perspective doesn't have much to do with abundance of options. That's a male perspective thing. Success for a woman comes from the ability to find a partner who is compatible and capable of deep relationship. And if you've developed no particularity/individuality and don't have your own thing, this leaves you in a space of being interchangeable with other women and attracting men who see women as interchangeable.... and thus unable and unwilling to truly penetrate you. But this thread is a perfect example of how men generally tend to give terrible dating advice to women. They tend to advise women about what they think will attract and keep a man as opposed to what really attracts and keeps a man. Most men would guess it's something like maxing out on physical attractiveness or being feminine. These things are great in the attraction phase. But only developing these things make you totally fungible. If you want to really attract and keep a man, you have to individuate yourself and find a man who is equally individuated. And education and life-purpose and personal development is all part of attracting (and becoming attracted to) the right kind of guy. In order to attract "the one", you have to be "the one". (Mind you, I don't believe in the one in any absolute sense). And the individuation path (which includes career) is the way you become the one.

I've never had a friends with benefits situation. I don't know if I'd be capable of having a sustained sexual friendship with someone without either falling in love with them or just not being that interested in them anymore and losing the motivation to have sex. Most of my sexual motivation comes from a desire for intimacy. So, I'm only speaking from the standpoint of having a deeper relationship to a romantic partner.

I was just talking about the laundry-list problem above. Lots of women tend to get into a more intellectual way of orienting to relationship as opposed to a more organic heart-centered orientation to relationship. So, they start looking for men who objectively fit certain criteria. But that's not where the magic is that bonds two people together. And it isn't the way female attraction naturally works. Female attraction is incredibly intuitive and particular... not objective, rational, and general. So, it's not really the career thing that holds women back from relationship. It's more about that non-emotional orientation to relationship prospects. But that's a Stage Orange issue... and women in careers emerges in Stage Orange. So, I could see how these things are conflated. But the real issue is picking with the mind based on a laundry list of qualities, instead of with the heart.

The issue you're speaking of doesn't really have to do with the career. It has to do with a certain orientation to dating and relationships. Women who are out of touch with their feminine side and have lost sight of their intuition will not be able to let organic attraction happen. And so, many women end up in a space of trying to make dating and relationship decisions with their minds instead of with their hearts. This is a big problem in the current era. So, the career isn't the thing that gets in the way. It's having a laundry-list approach to relationships that's disconnected from the emotions. As I've said, I've always been a career-oriented woman and I've never had an issue finding a man who I love that loves me back just as I am. And all the men I've ever been with (even back to my first serious relationship at 16) have found my art and insight skills impressive and have been very interested in the career aspect of my life. But also, keep in mind, in relation to the "women desiring a men of higher socio-economic value"... I've never looked specifically for men who out-earn me. I don't really care as long as a man is contributing in equal measure in terms of effort. Also, men are not really scarce or picky. So, there's really no need to sacrifice your goals so that you can find one. The best way to find a compatible partner is to show your peacock feathers in terms of looks, personality traits, lifestyle, and skills. And you become a beacon for like-minded men and incompatible men alike.

You could certainly find a partner that resonates with that. Most people aren't really jazzed up about working to begin with. Very few people work because they want to work. So, there are plenty of women who would want to be stay at home mothers. But then you really have to be able to support a family with a single income. That's the main thing. All I'm saying is that, when men are threatened by successful women that it's an indicator that the man is not going to be a high quality partner. Preferring that dynamic doesn't necessarily mean you're threatened by it. It's a valid preference. That said, as a mother who very much enjoys pursuing my life purpose and creative/intellectual pursuits, I wouldn't be compatible with a man who has that preference. So, I would never feel inclined to sacrifice my personal goals for a relationship to a man with those preferences. Nor would any woman who wants to pursue her own life-purpose/career. So, if Arc's point was to discourage his step-sister's career goals because it would get in the way of her ability to find a partner, then he'd be incorrect. She'd just be appealing to a different type of man... and many men in that category aren't just preferring that traditional dynamic. Many of them are threatened by female agency and power. Now, in terms of power imbalances and the concentration of power in one direction in a relationship, that's a sign that things have gotten out of whack. The archetype of the lovers implies complementary opposites and balance. There is a symmetry to the lovers. So, if there is a power imbalance in a relationship, then that's a sign that the relationship is dysfunctional. So, even in cases where the woman stays home and the man works, there should be a concerted effort to remedy the imbalance in power.