Leo’s advise about dating and sex are mostly aimed towards man

[NoSelfSelf]

@Keryo Koffa hahah thats so fing true actually...

If you look to get a yes you are failing.

Edited September 30 by NoSelfSelf

[LoseYourvelf]

On 24/09/2024 at 6:18 PM, Tenebroso said:

@LoseYourvelf I will respond when you can write a coherent sentence.

My coherence isn't covered in spider webs, dust and moth balls

[Nemra]

@Alexop, I appreciate your response. 🙂

[Keryo Koffa]

2 hours ago, NoSelfSelf said:

@Keryo Koffa hahah thats so fing true actually...

If you look to get a yes you are failing.

Let me layer it:

[...]

Failure Level 957: If you are generalizing and demonizing women, you are failing.

Failure Level 956: If NoSelfSelf roasts you in three words, you are failing.

Failure Level 954: If you are complaining on a forum about women, you are failing

Failure Level 953: If you're relying on women for happiness, you are failing

Failure Level 952: If you have to talk to plenty of women to get a yes, you are failing

Failure Level 951: If you have to talk to women to get a yes, you are failing

Failure Level 950: If you are looking to get a yes, you are failing.

Failure Level 949: If you're conceiving of a yes to get, you are failing.

[...]

Failure Level @Princess Arabia: If there's a you, you are failing, 😁

Failure Level Leo: If there's still a Leo in your Solispst bubble, you are failing.

Edited September 30 by Keryo Koffa

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, NoSelfSelf said:

Pick up to me is a clown show,if one has to talk to 1000 women to get a yes, hes doing something wrong period.

I agree that pick up tends a clown show. It's annoying to approached by random guys outside of social contexts where that makes sense. And personally, I don't even like it in contexts where it does make sense... like clubs.

But my point is, that pick-up operates off of numbers game sales tactics. Enough approaches to random strangers and eventually someone will say yes. And he might have to approach 10 or more women to get one saying yes to giving him her number.

But in more personal social contexts, it's about attractions organically sparking and forming into something deeper. And that just takes a willingness to engage with women acquaintances and friends socially and a willingness to be playful.

And of course in all of this, it helps to have more objectively attractive qualities.

But everyone on this thread whose been replying to me keeps missing the mark of what I'm actually saying and arguing past what I'm saying. 

The core of what I'm trying to communicate here isn't about pick-up or objectively attractive male qualities or any of that. A lot of people on here already knows what those are and still don't seem to be able to have productive interactions with women.

And that's because lots of people on here are operating off of distorted reductive understandings of female sexuality that has been cobbled together by male dating experts. And this creates lots of insecurity and shame in men who operate off of these paradigms that are actually foreign to the way that women subjectively operate.

So, there's a lot of focusing on surface-level solutions like "Be more masculine" or "Develop yourself into a high value man" or "Be more confident".

But it doesn't address the root problem of why so many men on here struggle to have interactions and relationships with women.

The root issue is that the men who believe the false narratives that men spread between each other dogmatically about female sexuality, gives men this sense that women can't possible truly be interested in them because they're not in the top 20% of guys. 

And it implies that a woman will settle for them, but not actually prefer them... which isn't true.

And it aggravates all the pre-existing shame wounds around feeling unwanted and unlovable in the eyes of women because they're "not manly enough".

[Princess Arabia]

30 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I agree that pick up tends a clown show. It's annoying to approached by random guys outside of social contexts where that makes sense. And personally, I don't even like it in contexts where it does make sense... like clubs.

But my point is, that pick-up operates off of numbers game sales tactics. Enough approaches to random strangers and eventually someone will say yes. And he might have to approach 10 or more women to get one saying yes to giving him her number.

But in more personal social contexts, it's about attractions organically sparking and forming into something deeper. And that just takes a willingness to engage with women acquaintances and friends socially and a willingness to be playful.

And of course in all of this, it helps to have more objectively attractive qualities.

But everyone on this thread whose been replying to me keeps missing the mark of what I'm actually saying and arguing past what I'm saying. 

The core of what I'm trying to communicate here isn't about pick-up or objectively attractive male qualities or any of that. A lot of people on here already knows what those are and still don't seem to be able to have productive interactions with women.

And that's because lots of people on here are operating off of distorted reductive understandings of female sexuality that has been cobbled together by male dating experts. And this creates lots of insecurity and shame in men who operate off of these paradigms that are actually foreign to the way that women subjectively operate.

So, there's a lot of focusing on surface-level solutions like "Be more masculine" or "Develop yourself into a high value man" or "Be more confident".

But it doesn't address the root problem of why so many men on here struggle to have interactions and relationships with women.

The root issue is that the men who believe the false narratives that men spread between each other dogmatically about female sexuality, gives men this sense that women can't possible truly be interested in them because they're not in the top 20% of guys. 

And it implies that a woman will settle for them, but not actually prefer them... which isn't true.

And it aggravates all the pre-existing shame wounds around feeling unwanted and unlovable in the eyes of women because they're "not manly enough".

❤️❤️

[NoSelfSelf]

6 hours ago, Emerald said:

I agree that pick up tends a clown show. It's annoying to approached by random guys outside of social contexts where that makes sense. And personally, I don't even like it in contexts where it does make sense... like clubs.

But my point is, that pick-up operates off of numbers game sales tactics. Enough approaches to random strangers and eventually someone will say yes. And he might have to approach 10 or more women to get one saying yes to giving him her number.

But in more personal social contexts, it's about attractions organically sparking and forming into something deeper. And that just takes a willingness to engage with women acquaintances and friends socially and a willingness to be playful.

And of course in all of this, it helps to have more objectively attractive qualities.

But everyone on this thread whose been replying to me keeps missing the mark of what I'm actually saying and arguing past what I'm saying. 

The core of what I'm trying to communicate here isn't about pick-up or objectively attractive male qualities or any of that. A lot of people on here already knows what those are and still don't seem to be able to have productive interactions with women.

And that's because lots of people on here are operating off of distorted reductive understandings of female sexuality that has been cobbled together by male dating experts. And this creates lots of insecurity and shame in men who operate off of these paradigms that are actually foreign to the way that women subjectively operate.

So, there's a lot of focusing on surface-level solutions like "Be more masculine" or "Develop yourself into a high value man" or "Be more confident".

But it doesn't address the root problem of why so many men on here struggle to have interactions and relationships with women.

The root issue is that the men who believe the false narratives that men spread between each other dogmatically about female sexuality, gives men this sense that women can't possible truly be interested in them because they're not in the top 20% of guys. 

And it implies that a woman will settle for them, but not actually prefer them... which isn't true.

And it aggravates all the pre-existing shame wounds around feeling unwanted and unlovable in the eyes of women because they're "not manly enough".

They dont need to understand women,problem is nobody showed them to understand themselves ,to the point they see more worth in their dick over putting power in the pussy.If they looked at themselves like that then they would look at woman as humans and not something they can use to validate their weak reality.

Nobody is showing how to be masculine because the one teaching is feminine because no man bitches,complains about women,or gives you some manipulation tactics to get her in bed.

That's the whole issue everything is about women and if she says no ,because one has weak understanding of himself and the world(in his mind), he gets feelings of shame like you said just because hes not a man.

Edited October 1 by NoSelfSelf

[Emerald]

12 hours ago, NoSelfSelf said:

They dont need to understand women,problem is nobody showed them to understand themselves ,to the point they see more worth in their dick over putting power in the pussy.If they looked at themselves like that then they would look at woman as humans and not something they can use to validate their weak reality.

Nobody is showing how to be masculine because the one teaching is feminine because no man bitches,complains about women,or gives you some manipulation tactics to get her in bed.

That's the whole issue everything is about women and if she says no ,because one has weak understanding of himself and the world(in his mind), he gets feelings of shame like you said just because hes not a man.

They don't see women as normal humans precisely because they don't believe they need to understand women beyond what seems immediately pragmatic to themselves.

Not only does this create an intimacy issue where women understand men better than men understand women.

It also causes these men to get caught up in distorted stories about how female sexuality work that prevent them from having healthy relationships and interactions with women.

The men who are attached to these narratives and who ignorantly believe they know better than I do about female sexuality, don't realize that I'm telling them very valuable information that can dispossess them of the falsehoods that create and exacerbate their shame... and in turn would help them with women.

They only just keep doubling down on the "I have to be in the top 20% of guys to get a woman to look at me" idea and trying to fit that mold of masculinity... as that feels quantifiable and semi-controllable.

But these are surface level solutions to a deeper problem... which is shame and also ignorance about how female sexuality actually operates because they're projecting their own sexuality onto female sexuality and they are being too reductive.

And in that reductionism, a male shame narrative gets papered over how female sexuality actually operates.

[bambi]

32 minutes ago, Emerald said:

They don't see women as normal humans precisely because they don't believe they need to understand women beyond what seems immediately pragmatic to themselves.

Not only does this create an intimacy issue where women understand men better than men understand women.

It also causes these men to get caught up in distorted stories about how female sexuality work that prevent them from having healthy relationships and interactions with women.

The men who are attached to these narratives and who ignorantly believe they know better than I do about female sexuality, don't realize that I'm telling them very valuable information that can dispossess them of the falsehoods that create and exacerbate their shame... and in turn would help them with women.

They only just keep doubling down on the "I have to be in the top 20% of guys to get a woman to look at me" idea and trying to fit that mold of masculinity... as that feels quantifiable and semi-controllable.

But these are surface level solutions to a deeper problem... which is shame and also ignorance about how female sexuality actually operates because they're projecting their own sexuality onto female sexuality and they are being too reductive.

And in that reductionism, a male shame narrative gets papered over how female sexuality actually operates.

This is false. I have already outlined in several posts (which you conveniently ignored) how it is you who are engaging in reductionism.

You continue to promote a broken rhetoric built on reductive gender dichotomies, misrepresenting what others are saying, and confining yourself to an echo chamber.

Female sexuality is neither difficult to understand nor arbitrary as you insinuate.

Your core issues, which I've highlighted before, are as follows:

1. You do not understand the difference between initial and generic attraction traits versus specific and unique romantic and pair-bonding traits, and you consistently conflate the two.
2. You engage in false dichotomies and fallacies, often ignoring that most of what you claim is largely gender-agnostic.
3. You promote toxic stereotypes, which are harmful and unhelpful.
4. Human needs in relationships transcend gender. Most of our core needs are universal—we all seek relationships that align with shared values, goals, along with specific traits and preferences. There is nothing inherently unique to female sexuality in this regard.
5. Jungian psychological types and the Enneagram psycho-spiritual framework provide a far more powerful, gender-agnostic approach to understanding romantic compatibility.
6. Your reductionist approach exacerbates harmful gender divides and promotes false narratives that are counterproductive.

Ultimately, human sexuality is about becoming the most authentic, confident, honest, healthy, and integrated version of oneself, for both sexes. Success in relationships comes from being authentic, developing good habits, and cultivating integrity. Your archaic, flawed stereotypes serve no purpose but to further divide and limit genuine understanding.

I strictly reject your toxic gender stereotypes and impositions.

.

 

Edited October 1 by bambi

[Etherial Cat]

@Emerald

I am so glad you have an outlet where your almost saint-like love, kindness, and brilliant mind are appreciated at their true value.

And in here, I am sure many people are passively benefiting from your posts, even if so many replies are somewhat attempts to discredit you or undermine the quality of your point of view. 

 

Edited October 1 by Etherial Cat

[bambi]

10 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

@Emerald

I am so glad you have an outlet where your almost saint-like love, kindness, and brilliant mind are appreciated at their true value.

And in here, I am sure many people are passively benefiting from your posts, even if so many replies are somewhat attempts to discredit you or undermine the quality of your point of view. 

 

LOL saint like love, your are swimming in a swamp of delusion.

If you want to engage in a circle jerk, rather then engage in an intellectuall discourse, this is your prerogative, but don't bullshit yourself or other people. Have you considered private messaging her? Or would that ruin the virtue signalling persona?

[Keryo Koffa]

1 hour ago, bambi said:

1. You do not understand the difference between initial and generic attraction traits versus specific and unique romantic and pair-bonding traits, and you consistently conflate the two.
2. You engage in false dichotomies and fallacies, often ignoring that most of what you claim is largely gender-agnostic.
3. You promote toxic stereotypes, which are harmful and unhelpful.
4. Human needs in relationships transcend gender. Most of our core needs are universal—we all seek relationships that align with shared values, goals, along with specific traits and preferences. There is nothing inherently unique to female sexuality in this regard.
5. Jungian psychological types and the Enneagram psycho-spiritual framework provide a far more powerful, gender-agnostic approach to understanding romantic compatibility.
6. Your reductionist approach exacerbates harmful gender divides and promotes false narratives that are counterproductive.

Ultimately, human sexuality is about becoming the most authentic, confident, honest, healthy, and integrated version of oneself, for both sexes. Success in relationships comes from being authentic, developing good habits, and cultivating integrity. Your archaic, flawed stereotypes serve no purpose but to further divide and limit genuine understanding.

I strictly reject your toxic gender stereotypes and impositions.

Bambi, more like Bam*boo*, hehe just kidding.
It's the vibe I'm getting from the thread.

But I like your responses most of anyone here.
I'm yet to get through Emerald's walls of text though.

I'm way too alien for all this human drama.
It's way too much ego-gender spaghetti for my taste.
It's not innate or "natural", just culture-normative.

Just wanted to say, I see wisdom in your points.

Edited October 1 by Keryo Koffa

[Emerald]

50 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

@Emerald

I am so glad you have an outlet where your almost saint-like love, kindness, and brilliant mind are appreciated at their true value.

And in here, I am sure many people are passively benefiting from your posts, even if so many replies are somewhat attempts to discredit you or undermine the quality of your point of view. 
 

Thank you for the kind words! 

I do tend to post more for the curious passive viewer than to try to convince those who are not open to my perspective.

[CARDOZZO]

54 minutes ago, bambi said:

LOL saint like love, your are swimming in a swamp of delusion.

If you want to engage in a circle jerk, rather then engage in an intellectuall discourse, this is your prerogative, but don't bullshit yourself or other people. Have you considered private messaging her? Or would that ruin the virtue signalling persona?

You are overreacting too much for a guy who has dating/intersexual dynamics under control. 

Your views are appreaciated but don't try to boss around with your intellectual superiority complex.

Edited October 1 by CARDOZZO

[bambi]

5 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

You are overreacting too much for a guy who has dating/intersexual dynamics under control. 

Your views are appreaciated but don't try to boss around with your intellectual superiority complex.

Actually incase you couldnt tell, I am mirroring them, except I am being authentic about it lol!

[CARDOZZO]

13 minutes ago, bambi said:

Actually incase you couldnt tell, I am mirroring them, except I am being authentic about it lol!

No problem.

The only worth questions are: 

What solves the problem?

What are the solutions to meet women/men/person/alien, fucking, being happy, bond, live life together?

The issue is not who is right or wrong - what we need is to solve it and move on with our lives.

[Something Funny]

@Emerald @Leo Gura am I just stupid or what the two of you say doesn't really contradict each other? I read almost the whole thing and I am not really sure what you are disagreeing on.

@Leo Gura what are your thoughts on the fact that the most conscious women see cold approaching as a red flag and look down on it? Does that mean that it is not really a valid option if you want to find a really great, conscious partner for yourself?

@Emerald how do you expect men to get real life experience with women and get over their insecurities, build social skills, confidence, and stuff if you are against arguably the most efficient tool to do that, which is approaching a lot of women?

You make it sound as if all those insecurites, anxiety, and limiting believes can be undone with just a click of your fingers. When in reality they take a lot of work to get over. And not just work with a coach / psychologist.

[bambi]

Just now, CARDOZZO said:

No problem.

The only worth questions are: 

What solves the problem?

What are the solutions to meet women/men/person/alien, fucking, being happy, bond, live life together?

The issue is not who is right or wrong - what we need is to solve it and move on with our lives.

The solution is obvious and simple, become the healthiest version of yourself, deal with your trauma and any low self esteem, build healthy habits, and find a partner that you are compatible with beyond initial attraction mechanisms if you are selecting for a long term mate. You should be clear on your intention, and have boundaries and standards of what you are interested in.

You need to know yourself, your preferences, what you like, what turns you on, who you are comfortbale around etc etc

Beyond this I worked for over 5 years buildind my own models on romantic comaptibiltiy derived form jungian psychologicla types and ennegram tritype theory. But we are years away from this being consistently useful for the average human

 

The qualities needed to sleep with women are not the same to be in a long term healthy relationships. The traits you are selecting for would equally be different too.

 

[Keryo Koffa]

The @bambi vs @Emerald chains do sound a lot like this though

And no @bambi, don't give yourself the benefit of embodying JP here 😁

Edited October 1 by Keryo Koffa

[Etherial Cat]

@bambi

It takes a lot of patience and kindness to interact in your free time with total strangers over the internet for the sake of helping them have better relationships.

And this is especially true when you are met with arrogance and defense mechanisms of all sorts that stem from traumas they don't realize they have due to a lack of emotional awareness.

Regarding your redundant criticism about my supposed lack of intellectual rigor, I can’t help but wonder if this is merely a reflection of your own insecurities on the subject.

I receive objective feedback daily, which reinforces my confidence in my intellect and reasoning abilities. Therefore, when I read your posts, I do not feel the need to defer to someone like you as an authority on the matter. But feel free to express over and over how intelligent you are while suggesting that I have a bird-like cognitive ability if it makes you feel better. I interpret this as a form of psychological unconscious homeostasis.

I choose not to engage because, after weighing the pros and cons, I conclude that my time is better spent on actions with a higher probability of return.

Last but not least, this is a public forum. While you may interpret my posts and intentions as they filter through your perspective, this will not influence how I choose to post or my general actions. I have my own ways of understanding things, so my posts are going to reflect that inner personal sovereignty and autonomy.