Emerald

? Thank you!

I feel like this would be bad psychologically for you in particular. I’m sure there are people who feel okay with sex work. But I get the sense that this decision would be made from a place that hurts you. You may end up feeling very objectified and it might aggravate your self-esteem issues.

I don’t think that’s transphobic because it relates to other factors than them being trans. My assumption of transphobia would only come if someone was really hellbent on expressing a disinterest in trans-people. It’s not the disinterest in itself because that can come up with regard to factors of compatibility. It’s just sort of a feeling I get when people go out of their way to express sexual disinterest in trans-people that I’d assume that. But for me, having more kids with a future partner is also something that I wouldn’t want to take completely off the table until I’m past 35. I probably won’t have any more children. And I’m truly okay if I don’t. But I also wouldn’t want to take the option off the table quite yet. So, I might also be hesitant to start a relationship with a trans man for that reason. Yet again, dating a trans man or infertile man might save me from the ambivalence and my tendency to toggle between baby fever and the “my womb is retired” mindset. Part of me is like “Yeehaw… empty nesting with two adult children at age 43!” The other part of me is like “Awww… babies.” So, I’m going to imagine that my choice in partner would likely nudge me out of my ambivalence in one direction or the other.

An insight that I had at a recent plant medicine ceremony was that, underneath everything (even the most bitter hatred and prejudice) that all human beings longed to love and receive love from each other. There was a desire to be a human family. And it contextualized a lot of things for me. I could see that men really wanted to love and be loved by women… which I’ve had my doubts for obvious reasons. And that it’s the desire for love but feeling deeply unlovable that’s led to this culture of objectification and bitterness towards women. So, men emphasize the aspects of their own sexuality that make them feel more in control and less vulnerable. And they try to pretend that the desire to love and be loved isn’t there… perhaps to the point that they fool themselves. Basically it’s a certain type of avoidance strategy that keeps them detached in order to avoid the vulnerability of loving a woman. And it was clear that most men are playing out some form of this avoidance pattern… in varying degrees. Some very extreme and others more mild.

So you do agree with me! It’s my exact point that the male strategy and female strategy are different. Men are more objective in their attractions and women are more subjective in their attractions. And because men are too caught up in their own agenda, they begin only seeing female sexuality as a projection of their own sexuality. And so they project their own objectivity onto women. But where you are wrong is in believing that this is irrelevant to the male strategy. There are so many men who are insecure BECAUSE they just see women as more selective men. But women are not selective primarily based on object factors. Subjective attraction plays a much bigger role. And if a man realizes this, he can drop the projection onto women.

As I’ve said many times before on this thread, men are wise to develop themselves along the lines of objective attractiveness factors so that they don’t run into women’s dealbreakers. And it can also help them in terms of knowing how to escalate things as well. So, as I’ve said, it’s the best strategy for men to use the leverage that the objective element of female sexuality provides them. But the issue becomes where the man mixes up the tool and the truth as one and the same. When a man only has a hammer, he begins seeing everything as a nail. And this is one of the biggest psychological issues that so many men are dealing with in the current era. So like the hammer, developing along the lines of objective male attractiveness is a very useful tool. And it’s wise to learn to use it well. But when you practice with the hammer, be very careful not to get a distorted view of the truth of female sexuality just because that distorted view fits your tools better. Know the reality of the situation and the efficacy and limitations of your tools for responding to that reality. The hammer is useful sometimes but useless other times. The truth is that female sexuality is primarily subjective. And that means, no matter how much you’ve grown in terms of objective attractiveness (and how much you’ve developed your “hammering skills”) it doesn’t guarantee an attraction. And it’s a blessing to know this because there are tons of men out there who believe that female sexuality is objective. And so, they feel like “Why would a woman want me when she could have Chad?” or “I have to change my entire personality so that women like me.” Or they just get so afraid that women are the objective arbiters of male attractiveness and worth that they avoid women altogether. So, even though I’m not giving men an objective attraction strategy (which is far better served by developing one’s self along objective lines)…. I am sharing the truth that will set them free of so many insecurities around women. That is, if they listen and integrate this truth into their framework. When a man really realizes that there’s very little that’s objective about female sexuality, then he can experience rejection without it meaning anything about his objective level of attractiveness or worth.

You’re working very hard here to say that the perspective I’ve shared is just a social construct and a matter of semantics and that that there’s no fundamental difference between the way women and men get attracted. But I am sharing an observable truth about the subjective nature of female sexuality. I’ve watched myself go through this process so many times from the meta perspective. And I’ve seen other women do the same, albeit from the outside. And you’ll notice that there are no women on here contradicting me and saying that I’m generalizing. It’s only some of the men who are adamant that what I’m saying is false. And the reason why is because they don’t want to feel powerless to women. They want to feel like all aspects of female sexuality have levers of control. And so, if they can frame female sexuality purely through the lens of the objective and non-mysterious, they can “solve it” and FEEL a lot more in control. And this enables them to cope with the sense of powerlessness and insecurity they feel in relation to women and the false images they project onto us. And just be honest with yourself for a moment. The only reason why you’re so adamant about proving me wrong is because what I wrote made you feel powerless and insecure. It’s not about anything other than that. These truths feel threatening to you. And it’s easier to write off any non-user-friendly element of female sexuality as construct or falsehood than it is to integrate that truth into your worldview. But your dating life will be so much less stressful once you do. The subjective element is much friendlier than the objective element.

Thank you ☺️

I’d imagine so. There are trans men who I’ve seen on the internet who are really attractive and masculine to where I wouldn’t really know they were trans unless they told me. Though it might not be sexually compatible in the long run because I strongly prefer the sexual dynamic of being penetrated by a penis. And only some trans men have had bottom surgery to make that possible. But otherwise, I could see the relationship just feel like the usual hetero dynamic that I tend to prefer in relationships. Now, if a trans man didn’t pass, I’m not sure if that attraction would arise as I haven’t been in the situation. But it’s in the realm of possibility. Also if a person isn’t attracted to any given trans-person, it’s not transphobic. But if a person has “won’t date trans people” as a hallmark of their named sexual preference, I will probably assume that they’re transphobic just for specifying.

You’re projecting a lot of things onto my post. You CAN improve along objective lines. And this will help you get better with women because you won’t hit their dealbreakers and you’ll be able to elicit the sexual responses that come from the objective component of female sexuality. And so you have tools to work with. The issue becomes that, when a man only has a hammer, that everything starts looking like a nail. And in this case, your hammer is your ability to make yourself more attractive along objective lines. But this doesn’t mean that female sexuality is a “nail”. There is a “nail”component to female sexuality that your hammer can work on. But that’s not the only component of female sexuality. It isn’t even the main component. And trust me when I say that that’s great news for all men. Otherwise, it’d be pretty hellish for you guys because women would only ever be interested in the most objectively attractive men. It is women’s subjective attraction element that enables her to become attracted to a man’s humanity. But you must develop yourself as a human being and along objective lines so that you don’t hit her dealbreakers.

?? ?

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.