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

[CARDOZZO]

14 minutes ago, bambi said:

What about this was eye opening for you, out of interest?

It is only a perspective. Not to be treated like a Truth with capital T.

[Emerald]

8 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

Well.. The truth is a bit harsh. 

If you ask ladies on the street what kind of a man they will eventually pick if they can get a chance, they will all pick the hottest, tallest, smartest, richest guy out of the crowd even if they don't have much value to provide themselves. Women date up, men date down. This is a well known fact. Women have their eyes set on the prize if they let their inner feminine be completely free. Women usually settle for a low value man when they can't get their hands on a high value guy and when they are lazy or they have low self esteem so they settle for something less as a matter of subconscious compromise. Yet if given all the feminine joy and freedom in the world, a woman will find herself happier with a richer smarter high character high value man. This is female psychology and female nature. In fact often women regret dating low value men and having wasted their precious time over them. A woman who is highly conscious of her own value wants to screen a guy for value in a man. Theres nothing manipulative about this, she wants to eventually ensure she has the best Dad for her potential children and a great caregiver husband. Women are wired to select a good mate unless she is steeped in unhealthy patterns. I think you got my point. 

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.

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, Basman said:

If men have an understanding of women that works in real life than that understanding must be true, otherwise it wouldn't work. Like if your understanding of carpentry does not result in a house than you don't understand carpentry. Its senseless to argue with a carpenter on a fundamental level about houses when he has built hundreds of houses already.

I suspect that there is degree where attraction feels different to women than to men but feelings don't necessarily equate to reality. Something can feel one way but in reality be a completely different way. A man can feel "just right" to a woman but that doesn't mean that there isn't cold survival incentives driving their feelings. Its not a coincidence either that women that feel attractive to men are usually fertile and young.

I don't think men need to understand the entirety of womanhood anyway, like no red blooded male needs to understand how women menstruate. Most women don't really care what it is like to be man either and that is fair.

What about these kind of discussions makes you so mad anyway? I always see you writing walls of text whenever there is talk about how women work. Do you think your above being an animal?

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. 

[bambi]

I hope most of the guys especially the younger one can clearly see the pointlessness of having female input on these topics, especially the ones on this forum. Its cute and fun to some degree to engage with them, but by their own disclosures none of them have any logic, which makes it impossible for them to analyse or communicate coherently or with any value.

I think this is the core issue, without the logic that men have and simply having emotions, they simply cannot even discern or think about topics properly.

This renders most of what they say completely useless and nothing more then a quaint attempt to join the discourse. This should be taken for what it is, fun social dynamics, but not literally listening to what they write, that would be like listening to a drunk person

I worry about the younger men, so hopefully they are wise enough to see the sense.

[Basman]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

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. 

What is the truth then?

I honestly don't think its that deep.

[Emerald]

Just now, Basman said:

What is the truth then?

I honestly don't think its that deep.

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. 

[Basman]

59 minutes ago, bambi said:

I hope most of the guys especially the younger one can clearly see the pointlessness of having female input on these topics, especially the ones on this forum. Its cute and fun to some degree to engage with them, but by their own disclosures none of them have any logic, which makes it impossible for them to analyse or communicate coherently or with any value.

I think this is the core issue, without the logic that men have and simply having emotions, they simply cannot even discern or think about topics properly.

This renders most of what they say completely useless and nothing more then a quaint attempt to join the discourse. This should be taken for what it is, fun social dynamics, but not literally listening to what they write, that would be like listening to a drunk person

I worry about the younger men, so hopefully they are wise enough to see the sense.

Yeah, and its always really liberal middle-aged women with a bunch of failed relationships that have a lot to say about it. No resentment there I'm sure.

Kind of a straw-man buts its funny.

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Basman said:

Yeah, and its always really liberal middle-aged women with a bunch of failed relationships that have a lot to say about it. No resentment there I'm sure.

Kind of a straw-man buts its funny.

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. 

[bambi]

26 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

Dude, you are reacting disproportionately. Due to your jealousy and fragile ego. Relax. Go drink some tea or something. Go outside, take a breath of fresh air.

The women on this forum are wise and integrated. You need to appreciate that they take the time to share their insights and wisdom with you, instead of constantly putting them down.

Just because you have a dick, it doesn’t mean that you are more intelligent. Intelligence isn’t measured by genitalia, did you know?

Your logic is distorted, and is often a rationalization of your suppressed feelings. So you are not that objective as you assume you are, but highly emotional and self biased.

 

 

Wise and integrated lol!!! Ego-centric, condescedning, and self-absorbed, yes, 100%. This was given to you by AI, but Im sure the females skimmed over that objective analysis. Wouldnt want to ruin their ego-image, fragile enough

Hey I am just using your own axioms, the women have stated multiple times men are logic driven and female emotional. Now you are saying I shoyldnt be doing this?

Got it, which logic exactly, can you be the first women to actually address any of the propositions I made, or gonna hide behind that veneer of pesudo-intellectualism and faux help you guys tend to parrot

[bambi]

31 minutes ago, Basman said:

Yeah, and its always really liberal middle-aged women with a bunch of failed relationships that have a lot to say about it. No resentment there I'm sure.

Kind of a straw-man buts its funny.

Precisely, most of the women here are in the most dysfunctional relationships and as per the AI analysis are totally ego-deluded,

Their coping mechanism of dissociation away from their romantic failure is posturing on forums like this lecturing males with their delusions at any chance to fill the void

Truly what is Emeralds status and value? What is her past relationship experience, what is her current situation, where does her authority and condescion come from? Where is the data or credentials here? 

[bambi]

2 hours ago, CARDOZZO said:

It is only a perspective. Not to be treated like a Truth with capital T.

Sorry I dont follow, how does this relate to the video

[bambi]

2 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

 

 

 Very relaxing!

But come on this is the town square, we came to dance

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

I love the analogy to the Fibonacci sequence, this is so good.  
This entire post describes what a gift it is to be loved by a woman. This is such a beautiful love.  

The depth she seeks in the man, her diving into his character, the subtle things she appreciates in him I can relate. I don’t know if men are capable of loving a woman to such depths.

It may be the case for some, I don’t know.  

If I am ever in a relationship with a man again, I want to be loved to the bone and to my core. I will never compromise for less than that. I would rather remain single for life than be artificially and shallowly loved by a man.

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.

[Basman]

13 minutes ago, bambi said:

Precisely, most of the women here are in the most dysfunctional relationships and as per the AI analysis are totally ego-deluded,

Their coping mechanism of dissociation away from their romantic failure is posturing on forums like this lecturing males with their delusions at any chance to fill the void

Truly what is Emeralds status and value? What is her past relationship experience, what is her current situation, where does her authority and condescion come from? Where is the data or credentials here? 

Don't pop a vessel now.

[bambi]

Just now, Lila9 said:

You have infinite reincarnations ahead, so you’ll have time to dance.
Don’t worry!  
Now you need to relax, otherwise, you will scare the women here away with your woo woo.

 

No this is my last life, fortunately for you!

 

[bambi]

3 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

I feel the same. I can’t be with someone who dismisses my emotions or emotions in general. This alienates me as well. 
 

@Emerald Thank you for providing your insights, this is so informative and inspiring!

Yes becuase feeding her delusion grandeur is healthy lol

You genuinely find it profound and insightful that humans dont like their emotions and needs to be dismissed? Seriously? Further you think this is only applying to women? Really? 

You honestly think of yourself as wise and integrated, yet are completely overblown by the suggestion humans (or ignorantly females) dont like their emotions and needs to ignored diminished or dismissed?

This is the true absurdity of this thread

[Etherial Cat]

32 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

I love the analogy to the Fibonacci sequence, this is so good.  
This entire post describes what a gift it is to be loved by a woman. This is such a beautiful love.  

The depth she seeks in the man, her diving into his character, the subtle things she appreciates in him I can relate. I don’t know if men are capable of loving a woman to such depths.
 

It may be the case for some, I don’t know.  

If I am ever in a relationship with a man again, I want to be loved to the bone and to my core. I will never compromise for less than that. I would rather remain single for life than be artificially and shallowly loved by a man.

Thank you. Happy it could bring you something.

And yes, I 100% can resonate with your observations and concerns. I am certain that our ability to love as human is the most beautiful we are capable and this increase in beauty, compassion, tenderness, intimacy and depth as we grow 'more' conscious. Truly, the sheer love and purity in the feelings that can arise is nothing but perfection. And no words can make justice to the actuality of it.

Co-creating, and living love with someone is the most beautiful path that two humans can undertake, when it comes to relationships.  

When I read this dating section and observe how some men discuss their relationships with women, I often feel a strong sense of discomfort. I find it particularly off-putting because, in adopting such a stance, masculinity strays far from its traditional roles of protector and lover.

Unfortunately, I am convinced to the core that many of them here are unable to believe it, because they just don't see themselves as worthy of such love, but in an unconscious way. So the idea furiously bounce from their awareness the moment they read it. And they hide behind some macho posturing and ridicule femininity not to have to deal with it.

17 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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.

Yep yep yep!!!

So well put!!!
 

[Etherial Cat]

25 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

I feel the same. I can’t be with someone who dismisses my emotions or emotions in general. This alienates me as well. 
 

@Emerald Thank you for providing your insights, this is so informative and inspiring!

That one is literally an ice bucket falling from above.

Not only this inner beautiful experience feels profaned, but you get to know there won't be an outlet to share.

Very disappointing. 

[bambi]

7 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

Have you read her post? The full post?

 

1) You didnt answer any of my questions and are deflecting

2) Yes of course, a bunch of self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing content we've all become accustomed to

[CARDOZZO]

Today I approached a woman. 

Extremely feminine, beautiful but happily married 

She appreciated the initiation and proactivity. We had some laughs together!

It was really fun