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

[CARDOZZO]

18 minutes ago, bambi said:

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.

 

What do you think about the statement that woman need 2 personas in 1 man at the same time? (bad boy/romantic)

She wants to be fucked like an animal on the bed but treated like a princess on public.

Edited October 1 by CARDOZZO

[bambi]

7 minutes ago, Keryo Koffa said:

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 😁

I am not a massive JP proponent, but this is one of my favourite videos of him

[bambi]

2 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

What do you think about the statement that woman need 2 personas in 1 man at the same time? (bad boy/romantic)

She wants to be fucked like an animal on the bed but treated like a princess on public.

For me this is childish narrative building. I dont subscribe to it. But I am sexually experienced.

All of your worries and issues are insantly solved with confidence and experience and development. All of this type of questions will not even appear to you

[bambi]

7 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

@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. 

Tell me about, I am not being paid to respond to you and Emerald lol!

You do not engage, as you have no counter arguments to any of my points or posts, and you are scared to agree. There is nothing more complicated then this

[Princess Arabia]

7 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

What do you think about the statement that woman need 2 personas in 1 man at the same time? (bad boy/romantic)

She wants to be fucked like an animal on the bed but treated like a princess on public.

Depends on the female. Not all are the same and also depends on if substances are involved and who she's with.

[Keryo Koffa]

1 minute ago, bambi said:

I am not a massive JP proponent, but this is one of my favourite videos of him

He alienated me before and has his paradigm, but is also continuously growing and I'm quite fond of him.

I didn't believe in Leo's choice initially, but now I think it's an amazing one, I'm definitely looking forward to.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, bambi said:

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.

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.

[Something Funny]

In case anyone here needs a healthy masculine role model, check out Grubby on twitch.

https://m.twitch.tv/grubby?desktop-redirect=true

He is a super wholesome guy who is also grounded, masculine, and conventionally successful.

[Etherial Cat]

8 minutes ago, bambi said:

Tell me about, I am not being paid to respond to you and Emerald lol!

If I recall, you quoted me twice in responses addressed to specific people.

So it's more a situation where you are the one initiating and waiting for engagement on my side.

[Emerald]

32 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

@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.

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."

[Something Funny]

@Emerald that makes sense, thanks.

[bambi]

20 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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.

I am not only helping you with you archaic and infantile view on women sexuality, but sexuality as a whole. You have a chronic and distorted view with an equal refusal to accept any help

Sexuality is ultimately unique to the individual of both sexes. We are breaking down components to understand commonalities and patterns, so your constant sleight of hand to promote womens sexuality as holistic and unique and mens as shallow and broken is absurd

Deep specifc attraction and pair bonding only ever comes as a package deal for men too, what are you not getting here?

Your claim that women dont care at all about objective qualities such as fame, height, looks, status, etc etc is just patently and demonstrably false. What an absurd claim to make. What a sweeping debased generalisation to make. Would you like to redact?

All you are saying in your ramble is two benign points:

1) Womens core attraction and romantic selection criteria are completely orthogonal  to surface level or evolutonary adapted attributes. This is an incorrect sweeping generalisation, that is not close to true for all females

2) The emotional and unique preferences of each women are higher weighting then males in the selection process, This is correct. Women tend to have a different selection process for men, especially when selecting for long term partners over short term ones. Things like safety, security, emotional reciprcoity etc are more highly valued for sure. But not totally devoid in mens selection etiher, its about weighting and preference.

Any appeal to evolutionary biology will simply lead to a different but matching set of criteria of men and women, NOT that women are holistic and subjective and men are fragmented and shallow. They are selecting for different criteria, as they have different survival concerns

Your key mistakes is again, your toxic and incorrect categorical generalisations. They are impairing your view on the diversity of female sexuality. And they are creating a false dichotomy in your mind between men and women.

Your post is just absurd in so many ways. It is literally insinuating women are incapable of short term sexual encounters, or sex for pleasure outside of pair bonding. Its obviously false, so why are you even suggesting it?

Edited October 1 by bambi

[bambi]

15 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

If I recall, you quoted me twice in responses addressed to specific people.

So it's more a situation where you are the one initiating and waiting for engagement on my side.

Yes exactly, this is what saint like help looks light. I see you struggling and help immediately out of kindness

[Something Funny]

1 minute ago, bambi said:

Yes exactly, this is what saint like help looks light. I see you struggling and help immediately out of kindness

Wow, that's so nice and sweet of you XOXO

[bambi]

15 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

Wow, that's so nice and sweet of you XOXO

I want to join the circle jerk party too lol!

Edited October 1 by bambi

[Something Funny]

@Emerald can you also answer my question about cold approach if you will have time, please?

[eos_nyxia]

58 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

What do you think about the statement that woman need 2 personas in 1 man at the same time? (bad boy/romantic)

She wants to be fucked like an animal on the bed but treated like a princess on public.

Better than being treated like an animal in public and a fragile princess in bed, I guess?

[QVx]

56 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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.

@Emerald
 

Bravo! I enjoyed that very much, thank you for sharing.

As a male who has spent his younger years being drenched with masculine energy, and the last few years melting into my feminine energy, I can wholly resonate with what you’ve said.

In fact, I have a significant preference to the experience you’ve described in how I’m looking for a partner nowadays.

I’d like to think I have significant integration between the masculine and feminine, and thus I can appreciate both perspectives on both a theoretical and practical level.

My key personal experience is that testosterone is a massive driver in  objective qualities. When I was younger and full of testosterone I had no desire nor drive for the subjective aspect of attraction. I simply valued objective attraction and how I could have sex with beautiful women. As my testosterone has decreased over time, and thus my increased desire to explore the feminine aspects of my being, so has my desire and drive for subjective attraction increased significantly.

On a scientific level, I’m convinced that hormones play the key role in influencing how one thinks and feels. Thus, trying to fight against your body is itself a trap. Acceptance of one’s own biological system is the gateway to deeper levels of consciousness and exploration of the desire for sex, love, and meaning.

[Basman]

On 29/09/2024 at 0:25 PM, Leo Gura said:

It doesn't match your experience because you are not looking at womankind as a whole but a few local cases.

Men have figured out long ago what women as a whole are attracted to. They use this knowledge to get laid. But from a woman's POV this knowledge is irrelevant and painful to look at.

Your dissemination is clearly unpopular with the girls here. Why is it painful for women to learn this stuff exactly? Is it because your undermining romance as a concept?

[Emerald]

51 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

@Emerald can you also answer my question about cold approach if you will have time, please?

Sure, what's the question?