How can I actually pick 1?

[gambler]

9 minutes ago, Consept said:

 Realistically i think what makes non-monogomy difficult is that we're all socialised toward monogamy

I disagree. In the Middle East polygamy is permissible and a man can marry up to four wives. But realistically, what makes those relationships difficult, is that the females will begin to desire a monogamous relationship instead and want out. Even if you socialized everyone to be fine with non-monogamy, like in the Middle East, my feeling is that most females would still prefer monogamy. Or after getting into a non monogamous relationship, they’ll  realize they prefer and want monogamy. 

[RendHeaven]

22 minutes ago, Consept said:

@RendHeaven Realistically i think what makes non-monogomy difficult is that we're all socialised toward monogamy, so if youre that different in society it just makes it difficult to implement on a wide scale. Also if there was non-monogamy it can create issues with les say the top % of men getting all the women pregnant and not being able to look after them. In small tribes this is fine cos the whole tribe looks after the kids but in western society it would lead to a lot of kids not being looked after sufficiently. 

My topic is more of an emotional connection argument, so i feel kind of at conflict with myself because i want freedom and connection and its hard to marry those 2 things. I'm probably similar to you in that im trying to find a way non-monogamy could work but it is difficult to do realistically. It feels like the options are either sleeping around or getting in a relationship.

Non-monogamy is not a prescription for the average person.

Non-monogamy is a serious option to consider for select people who are unsatisfied with the traditional sexually exclusive girlfriend/boyfriend model

So no need to worry about chads impregnating everybody, lol.

What specifically is stopping you from embracing/exploring non-monogamy?

12 minutes ago, AION said:

 I’m definitely not going to convince the train 🚆 guy to take children. Just imagine all the things that child will have to go through. 😅

Oh no, they'll be subject to critical thinking! the horror~

[integral]

 

 

[RendHeaven]

10 minutes ago, gambler said:

my feeling is that most females would still prefer monogamy. Or after getting into a non monogamous relationship, they’ll  realize they prefer and want monogamy. 

Correct. Because women value safety and security on a deep level which is difficult for the average man to appreciate.

Non-monogamy at face value is very threatening to a woman because if you're not careful, you might as well be danging an exit door in front of her face which can trigger biological alarm bells or even abandonment trauma.

Which is why to get a woman to agree to non-monogamy, she has to feel very very safe around you. She must trust you. And of course, she has to be fiercely attracted to you. It's a high bar to clear, but not impossible.

You can substitute the safety and security a woman would feel from a monogamous relationship model by being there for her energetically with masculine containment.

It all comes down to communication and emotions.

[Consept]

44 minutes ago, AION said:

Having children is not like breeding livestock like “ah we need 5 more cows this quarter, let’s make them fuck each other and breed some stock for the farm” .. that is a very SD orange way of looking and reproduction. 🐄 

I'm not necessarily arguing for not having kids I'm just saying it's not automatically some deeply spiritual thing to do, it can be of course but I can think of a lot of examples where I don't think those people shouldve kids. Someone could be biologically mature but not mentally mature or even have gone through trauma that can really damage the 'fruits'. 

As I say it can beautiful and amazing but so can many things in life. 

[Consept]

35 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

What specifically is stopping you from embracing/exploring non-monogamy?

There is something romantic I like about you and another person taking on the world, I also feel you can get deeper with one person than you would with seeing multiple at a time. 

I also feel like being non-monogamous and having multiple does inevitably lead to some kind of manipulation, even if you are upfront etc. So one of my things is i want to be as authentic as possible and I think you have to lose a bit of authenticity in non-monogamy although that can also be the case in monogamy. 

Just on a logistical aspect you have to spin a lot of plates and make sure you're giving attention to a lot of people, this can be hard even with one person let alone multiple. 

The other thing is that, for the most part the highest quality women are realistically going to want monogamy and so to have a 'roster' you do have to trade off having let's say not as high value women for them just being willing to be in that relationship. 

Right now I'm single and I have a few girls I could do this with but honestly I haven't fully taken that plunge. It's something I'm considering but then I don't know if I'd prefer to just go for a girl I really like.

[aurum]

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

In that case, I'm surprised you consider non-monogamy "just a theory."

What are your specific reservations?

It's "just a theory" in the sense that I have no experience of it working.

You can predict what you think non-monogamy will be like for you. But until you have actual experience, you have little idea how your expectations will match with reality. You could be deceiving yourself. In fact, you probably are.

The mind loves to conjure up all kinds of fantasies about how much better things will be.

You've already identified many of my reservations. I find even just meeting a partner seriously interested in mature ENM is a hell of a task. My standards for getting into a relationship are already high enough that I disqualify the vast majority of women I meet. Add in ENM, and I might as well be looking for a unicorn.

Then there's also the issue of all time you will be spending on your extra romantic relationships. Is that really the highest use of your time? I don't think it is for me. Especially not if you're having kids.

Again, I'm not saying it's impossible. But these are some of my concerns.

[AION]

What is divine for you guys? I’m perplexed 

[Emerald]

On 1/24/2025 at 6:19 PM, Consept said:

To context what I'm gonna say I have had a bit of a shitty month so mood isn't great, not depressed or anything just not feeling upbeat. 

I've always had this feeling of not really wanting to settle down, if I'm honest I am an aviodant attachment style. I've tried to work on this amongst other and there has been progress, the main issue though is not trusting a woman to take care of me emotionally. This is obviously to do with my mum who definitely didn't do that and so I've always been very independent. 

Based off of what I've experienced in myself and working with others, there could be a repressed child aspect of you that's still looking for someone to transfer your feelings about your mom onto in hopes of getting those needs met.

And that can make you want to seek out new partners... because new partners are like a blank projection screen. And you can play out the psychological dynamic of getting your mom to take care of you emotionally with a new partner.

But once you know them, they can no longer be the blank projection screen because the projection screen fills up. And that child part of you wants to go out once again... and search for 'mom' so that you can play through the cycle again.

I call this dynamic relationship mirages... and it tends to lead to dissatisfaction in relationships because it's like being in a desert and spotting an oasis... only to find that it was a mirage.

Then, you see another oasis in the distance and run over there... only to find another mirage.

And repeat, repeat, repeat. (the oases represent each partner)

The solution is to face that child part of you that's still trying to get your mom to take care of you... that is stuck on a loop like a skipping CD saying "Please take care of me" "Please take care of me" "Please take care of me"... 

And you must turn inward to care for that part of you, as it's really asking you to take care of it.

[Whitney Edwards]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Based off of what I've experienced in myself and working with others, there could be a repressed child aspect of you that's still looking for someone to transfer your feelings about your mom onto in hopes of getting those needs met.

And that can make you want to seek out new partners... because new partners are like a blank projection screen. And you can play out the psychological dynamic of getting your mom to take care of you emotionally with a new partner.

But once you know them, they can no longer be the blank projection screen because the projection screen fills up. And that child part of you wants to go out once again... and search for 'mom' so that you can play through the cycle again.

I call this dynamic relationship mirages... and it tends to lead to dissatisfaction in relationships because it's like being in a desert and spotting an oasis... only to find that it was a mirage.

Then, you see another oasis in the distance and run over there... only to find another mirage.

And repeat, repeat, repeat. (the oases represent each partner)

The solution is to face that child part of you that's still trying to get your mom to take care of you... that is stuck on a loop like a skipping CD saying "Please take care of me" "Please take care of me" "Please take care of me"... 

And you must turn inward to care for that part of you, as it's really asking you to take care of it.

This is so spot on Emerald. Thank you so much. Also how to cure these mirages? 

[Emerald]

53 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

This is so spot on Emerald. Thank you so much. Also how to cure these mirages? 

You're welcome!

The mirages can be resolved by understand they're projections being projected out from somewhere. To turn off the projections one must find the internal projector they're coming from.

And that projector is a repressed aspect of the personality... usually repressed in childhood.

That's where Shadow Work and Somatic Work come into play.

There are difficult emotions that must be tuned into and faced with to access these repressed parts and work through he barriers to integration.

Like, I used to have this mirage aspect myself... though I would suppress it because I knew it would lead me to a very unfulfilling romantic life. 

But in about a 1.5 year cycle, I'd get a really strong crush on someone. And there would be like this fixation and longing for that person that was really intense.

And in one of my medicine journeys, the medicine brought me into feelings of terror that I had been repressing since childhood. And I processed a lot of that terror, which came up as shapes of tension in the body coupled with behind-the-eyes visuals of what those shapes of tension/terror look like.

And after processing like 30 shapes of terror, I clicked back into a repressed 3 year old aspect of myself. And it brought me into a memory of being 3 years old and going underneath the bathroom cabinet to get out my mom's make-up pouch. And I pulled out her red lipstick and began smearing it on my lips and face.

And this wasn't a repressed memory. I remembered it quite well from childhood. It was a family memory of "Hey, remember when Emerald got into the lipstick?" 

But what I hadn't remembered was my motivation for doing it. I was putting on my mom's make-up to try to be like her.

And I transferred my feelings about my mom onto the lipstick... which then got transferred onto beauty in general... which then got transferred onto Disney princesses in the movies I was watching... which then got transferred onto Disney princes... which then got transferred onto boys my age.

And I'd have these really strong crushes from the age of 3 onward... even up until a few years ago when I had this experience. And this memory helped me realize that I was playing out my feelings towards my mom onto these crushes.

And the feeling this aspect of me had was that my mom represented perfection... and that I had to be IDENTICAL to her to be accepted and loved by her. 

But I look more like my dad than I do like my mom. And I didn't know that a part of me didn't like that fact. I was always consciously happy to look like a Wilkins because I'm closer to my dad's side of the family.

But this child aspect of me that thought I needed to look and be IDENTICAL to my mom to be perfect and therefore valid... and hated the fact that I wasn't identical to my mom... and was terrified that I didn't look like my mom.

And this created all these body image issues where I'd be obsessed with my face and body and just really loathing my appearance from the age of 3 onward.

All this without knowing the real reason why. I just thought it was culture having images of pretty women everywhere... and that I wanted to be attractive to the guy that I like.

This was always under the thought of being attractive or unattractive to the guy I like.... but also attractive or unattractive in general.

But it was all about this terror that if I'm not perfect (which meant identical to mom) that I will have to do all the scary things alone. And I was actually right about that.

But it was just this terrified little 3 year old part of myself... lost in a dark and claustrophobic cave. And it was feeling like it had to be perfect (aka identical to my mom) to be lovable and had to do all the scary things alone.

And perfection meant wearing lipstick... meant being beautiful... meant having a boy attracted to me. That's why being like mom meant. 

And so, male attention became this sense that I am winning at being like my mom... and they also represented my mom in a way. 

So, every 1.5 years or so the tides would switch and I'd have a new male projection screen to play out the "being perfect enough to get my mother's love" drama with. And the feelings are a lot more intense than a relationship because they have to do with deep psychological dynamics.

But once I actually experienced what was really going on, there was a huge shift in this dynamic. And I don't struggle quite as much with body image or crush mirages anymore.

So, facing into the part of you that's causing it is essential. And you can use Shadow Work and Somatic Work.

Edited yesterday at 03:41 AM by Emerald

[RendHeaven]

12 hours ago, Consept said:

There is something romantic I like about you and another person taking on the world, I also feel you can get deeper with one person than you would with seeing multiple at a time. 

I think you might be assuming that non-monogamy = an orgy free-for-all with 3 girlfriends

That's way way way too much.

The only core difference between monogamy and non-monogamy is genital gatekeeping.

From an earlier comment I wrote in this thread, here's a more realistic/stable and low-key varient of non-monogamy (compared to a saudi harem lol)

• The simplest and most hassle-free non-monogamy is to have a girlfriend/wife in an emotionally exclusive relationship, but both parties are allowed to have unrestricted sex with anybody as "friends with benefits" (but you can implement safeguards like "no fucking each others' siblings or best friends" to minimize bullshit). The emotional exclusivity helps her feel safe, fulfills the criteria of mutual sacrifice, and disincentivizes her from running off with other men (lmao).
  • This means you can still take on the world with your one special person and go as deep as you want. But you can both eat snacks on the side. You're not meant to get attached to your snacks the way you would with the main course. But it's also neurotic to refuse all snacks for the rest of your life, and to eat your one designated meal like a good boy.
    • Yes, this arrangement does mean you will be using other women as "side pieces" but this is not a problem as long as you have integrity and the all girls involved give their informed consent. If you have an open marriage, for example, this should be the first thing you tell new girls.

One main girl + one rotating side girl (because nobody wants to be the side girl forever) counts as non-monogamy, and compared to regular monogamy, gives you more freedom and forces you to be more trusting of your main partner, without detracting from the depth of romance you desire to build (it could even add to deepened trust, contemplate why!)

12 hours ago, Consept said:

I also feel like being non-monogamous and having multiple does inevitably lead to some kind of manipulation, even if you are upfront etc. So one of my things is i want to be as authentic as possible and I think you have to lose a bit of authenticity in non-monogamy although that can also be the case in monogamy. 

Yes. Non-monogamy is manipulative, but so is monogamy. As to which is more manipulative, I'm not sure. The margin feels razor-thin, and I don't have a horse in this race believe it or not. I'm tentatively sold on this non-monogamy model I just shared above, but that doesn't mean I'm strictly anti-monogamy.

12 hours ago, Consept said:

Just on a logistical aspect you have to spin a lot of plates and make sure you're giving attention to a lot of people, this can be hard even with one person let alone multiple. 

One main girl + one side girl who you only see every other week for 2 hours (to destroy her guts) is not so different from just having one main girl in terms of the attention you must give

The side girl understands that she's not your girlfriend with informed consent. She's happy to use your body just as much as you are using her. This whole arrangement would actually fall apart if you tried giving more time and energy to your side girl. Paying for dates, talking about your feelings, etc. This would cross the emotional exclusivity boundary, send mixed signals to both of your girls, and lead to the collapse of your castle.

You don't have to have 3 full-fledged girlfriends, nor should you ever want that. That sounds nightmarish.

The one "downside" to the dating model I'm sharing is the fact that you will have have to go "hunting" for a new side girl once or twice a year. Because if you lazily sit on your ass, your side girl will eventually leave you and you will be completely dry of options, which means you are now in de facto monogamy except your girlfriend still has infinite men knocking on her door and you can't force her to close her legs (it's completely her choice).

So you have to stay sharp. Attracting new women has to be fun and enjoyable for you.

12 hours ago, Consept said:

The other thing is that, for the most part the highest quality women are realistically going to want monogamy and so to have a 'roster' you do have to trade off having let's say not as high value women for them just being willing to be in that relationship. 

All girls are going to have a preference for monogamy.

The only reason a "high quality woman" would be more difficult to convince is if she has more sexual marketplace leverage over you.

If you both subconsciously understand that she is the buyer and you are the seller (due to uneven demand - more high quality men want her than high quality women want you), then she is in a position to walk away from you if you don't fit her standard. She will simply go find someone else. Honestly, go girl!

However, if you manage to flip the emotional buyer-seller dynamic by showing her that more high quality women want you than high quality men want her (this is only possible by emphasizing quality. Because you will ALWAYS lose to her in quantity), then you are in a position to offer a non-monogamous relationship, and even though this disturbs her at first, she can't just drop you and walk away. And if she does, you still have other high-quality women willing to hear your offer.

Yes, pulling this off with integrity, informed consent, and minimal manipulation requires you to be a bit of a stud (in terms of energy and emotions! NOT money or looks)

You can't be a crusty value-leeching gremlin and expect any woman to be happy with your greediness. If you want the benefits of monogamy paired with unbound sexual freedom, you have to earn it by making the women in your life happy.

Edited yesterday at 08:42 AM by RendHeaven
mistyped

[RendHeaven]

8 hours ago, aurum said:

It's "just a theory" in the sense that I have no experience of it working.

You can predict what you think non-monogamy will be like for you. But until you have actual experience, you have little idea how your expectations will match with reality. You could be deceiving yourself. In fact, you probably are.

The mind loves to conjure up all kinds of fantasies about how much better things will be.

That's fair. My confidence only comes from observing my friends in-person and online. But their futures are yet to be seen. And especially my own future is vague. More testing is required.

8 hours ago, aurum said:

You've already identified many of my reservations. I find even just meeting a partner seriously interested in mature ENM is a hell of a task. My standards for getting into a relationship are already high enough that I disqualify the vast majority of women I meet. Add in ENM, and I might as well be looking for a unicorn.

I sympathize with this deeply.

Not only must she be attractive, but she must also energetically compatible, have values alignment with you, and now she has to be non monogamous?? That's an impossibly high bar

In my experience, women tend to be unfathomably flexible, explorative, dynamic, and go with the flow (i.e. feminine). Feminine women will mold to fit the shape of their container, like how water takes on the shape of its cup.

Maybe you have observed this. The same girl you were once dating will get a new boyfriend and it's like her entire personality changes. It's not that she was ever real or fake. It's that her bliss is to follow the leadership of whoever she currently trusts with her heart. This gives her a shocking (and incomprehensible) degree of personality flexibility.

This is also the mechanism that abusers and narcissists exploit. Since women naturally have looser boundaries than men, this allows disgusting guys to push and push and push until she bends or breaks. Obviously I am not recommending that we do this. I want the women in my life to be on board with my leadership without any coercion. I'm merely bringing up this dynamic to make the point that women are happy to try new things, so long as their heart follows you.

Your dream girl basically has a 0% chance of having non-monogamous software preinstalled. This is an offer you must make, with no strings attached, and she has to willingly choose to give it a shot with you, because she's naturally adventurous, and she wants to keep you in her life.

It's a frame battle of sorts. If you really really really really want her, and you're afraid of losing her, you will fold and offer monogamy to placate her. There will be 0 conflict, and both sides will appear initially thrilled. But you did very much just castrate yourself. Your sexual freedom is now nonexistent. You are no longer "allowed" to show interest in any other woman, or else you are a liar. This may cause issues down the line. Are you seriously going to be with this one girl, and only this one girl, FOREVER? That's the implication and promise.

So you have to "hold the line" so to speak. The frame is, "I really like you and I want to take this to the next level, but I can't hand you my balls. I want to explore emotional exclusivity, but I can't promise eternal sexual subservience to you. This is not a wise thing to do for our future longevity. I am open to compromise." And if she says no, then that's that. But if she likes you, it's more likely that she will pause and furrow her brow as she's faced with an internal conflict. She may push back or try to change your mind. This is where you gently but firmly hold the line. You want her but you're willing to lose her. If she sees your sincerity and she has an open mind, odds are actually in your favor!

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

The solution is to face that child part of you that's still trying to get your mom to take care of you... that is stuck on a loop like a skipping CD saying "Please take care of me" "Please take care of me" "Please take care of me"... 

And you must turn inward to care for that part of you, as it's really asking you to take care of it.

What exactly would "taking care of that part of you" entail? Or is the answer to that question case specific?

[gettoefl]

7 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

That's fair. My confidence only comes from observing my friends in-person and online. But their futures are yet to be seen. And especially my own future is vague. More testing is required.

I sympathize with this deeply.

Not only must she be attractive, but she must also energetically compatible, have values alignment with you, and now she has to be non monogamous?? That's an impossibly high bar

In my experience, women tend to be unfathomably flexible, explorative, dynamic, and go with the flow (i.e. feminine). Feminine women will mold to fit the shape of their container, like how water takes on the shape of its cup.

Maybe you have observed this. The same girl you were once dating will get a new boyfriend and it's like her entire personality changes. It's not that she was ever real or fake. It's that her bliss is to follow the leadership of whoever she currently trusts with her heart. This gives her a shocking (and incomprehensible) degree of personality flexibility.

This is also the mechanism that abusers and narcissists exploit. Since women naturally have looser boundaries than men, this allows disgusting guys to push and push and push until she bends or breaks. Obviously I am not recommending that we do this. I want the women in my life to be on board with my leadership without any coercion. I'm merely bringing up this dynamic to make the point that women are happy to try new things, so long as their heart follows you.

Your dream girl basically has a 0% chance of having non-monogamous software preinstalled. This is an offer you must make, with no strings attached, and she has to willingly choose to give it a shot with you, because she's naturally adventurous, and she wants to keep you in her life.

It's a frame battle of sorts. If you really really really really want her, and you're afraid of losing her, you will fold and offer monogamy to placate her. There will be 0 conflict, and both sides will appear initially thrilled. But you did very much just castrate yourself. Your sexual freedom is now nonexistent. You are no longer "allowed" to show interest in any other woman, or else you are a liar. This may cause issues down the line. Are you seriously going to be with this one girl, and only this one girl, FOREVER? That's the implication and promise.

So you have to "hold the line" so to speak. The frame is, "I really like you and I want to take this to the next level, but I can't hand you my balls. I want to explore emotional exclusivity, but I can't promise eternal sexual subservience to you. This is not a wise thing to do for our future longevity. I am open to compromise." And if she says no, then that's that. But if she likes you, it's more likely that she will pause and furrow her brow as she's faced with an internal conflict. She may push back or try to change your mind. This is where you gently but firmly hold the line. You want her but you're willing to lose her. If she sees your sincerity and she has an open mind, odds are actually in your favor!

Non-monogamy is pay for play.

Which is fine until the money and the vaginas dry up then it gets old and sad for both.

Maybe do it during your playboy and playgirl teens and 20s.

Children deserve two committed parents no matter the latter's libido.

Just my 2 cents.

[Consept]

Hey @Emerald thanks for your thoughtful reply 

 

11 hours ago, Emerald said:

Based off of what I've experienced in myself and working with others, there could be a repressed child aspect of you that's still looking for someone to transfer your feelings about your mom onto in hopes of getting those needs met.

And that can make you want to seek out new partners... because new partners are like a blank projection screen. And you can play out the psychological dynamic of getting your mom to take care of you emotionally with a new partner.

Yeah i think there is some kind of repressed child dynamic, where essentially im looking for someone (a woman) to love me pretty much unconditionally, I also want to be 'special' in their eyes, so even if they do end up with someone else, it was always me they truly loved. I know how this sounds but I'm more just exploring these feelings rather than saying theyre right or wrong. Regarding my mum she had post-partum and OCD around not loving me when i was born and actually shipped me off to Nigeria to live with my auntie and cousins for 6 months  when i was a baby. Apparantly when i came back I called my auntie my mum not my mum. She recently brought this up and apologised for it, but i actually hold no grudge against her, i did for a long time but this is something ive really worked on and am glad I dont feel any hate or negativity toward her. 

The second part of seeking out new partners, i not too sure about, in fact the issue is more I keep partners at arms length, iil even say upfront im not looking for anything super serious, which is how i feel, but then i will really get attached to the love thy show and like having them around, not always but just the idea of having someone in your corner. Whats counter intuitive is because im not as invested they get more attracted and end up really loving me but i still want to keep them at arms length. As i said probably because of what happened in childhood I feel like i dont want to fully let in someone who would not look after my emotions or would reject me or whatever. So i dont trust anyone to fulfill those needs and so id rather just have someone there and not let them in fully, not necessarily keep looking for new partners. Sex is also a factor as well, i want to have consistent enough sex but i need some kind of connection with the person. 

11 hours ago, Emerald said:

But once you know them, they can no longer be the blank projection screen because the projection screen fills up. And that child part of you wants to go out once again... and search for 'mom' so that you can play through the cycle again.

I call this dynamic relationship mirages... and it tends to lead to dissatisfaction in relationships because it's like being in a desert and spotting an oasis... only to find that it was a mirage.

Then, you see another oasis in the distance and run over there... only to find another mirage.

And repeat, repeat, repeat. (the oases represent each partner)

I do have an urge to just escape when i feel its too serious, i want to be free but then i also want someone there, which is not a great dynamic obviously. I sometimes also think whether I am just over thinking, like is it a case of just not finding the right one, obviously if i dont feel a situations right but im just in it cos it fulfills certain needs at the time, then obviously im not going to want it to get too deep. a few months ago i met a girl i think i really liked and it was just one night really, we didnt sleep together just kissed had fun in a club, but I kinda felt with her for whatever reason that i was willing to go deeper with her. It was more on her side where she probably wasnt looking for that at the time. But point being there are women i meet where I could see myself going further than just sex or a situationship type thing. 

11 hours ago, Emerald said:

The solution is to face that child part of you that's still trying to get your mom to take care of you... that is stuck on a loop like a skipping CD saying "Please take care of me" "Please take care of me" "Please take care of me"... 

And you must turn inward to care for that part of you, as it's really asking you to take care of it.

How does one do this practically? I have dont IFS therapy with a therapist before and also some shadow work myself and i found it really useful, its what allowed me to forgive my mum and love myself more. But this relationship side of it seems to be a bit of a sticking point. 

[RendHeaven]

1 hour ago, gettoefl said:

Non-monogamy is pay for play.

Which is fine until the money and the vaginas dry up then it gets old and sad for both.

Maybe do it during your playboy and playgirl teens and 20s.

Children deserve two committed parents no matter the latter's libido.

Just my 2 cents.

I wrote detailed, point-by-point deconstructions and questions for you on page 2 roughly 21 hours ago.

There's a chance you just didn't see it, in which case fair enough.

But if you read it and chose to ignore it and double down on your thesis word for word, it seems like we just don't have the same intellectual standards.

[AION]

51 minutes ago, Consept said:

Hey @Emerald thanks for your thoughtful reply

How does one do this practically? I have dont IFS therapy with a therapist before and also some shadow work myself and i found it really useful, its what allowed me to forgive my mum and love myself more. But this relationship side of it seems to be a bit of a sticking point. 

As a child one is very vulnerable because at that age we don't have the analytical mind to protect us. A lot of under compensated people develop this analytical mind to protect themselves (and thus overcompensate) but the thing is the analytical mind also becomes the thing that withholds them access to their inner child and fix it.

Basically you have to get in an alpha brain wave state so you can get past your analytical mind. There are special meditations for that. When you are in that state you get access to your sub conscious and you will be able to give yourself in mind what you are lacking by doing these imagination exercises. Basically you have to teach your body to resonate on the level of wholeness instead of separation.

This is the only thing that really helps. IFS therapy and other kind of therapy were too analytical and didn't hit my deep psyche. I think IFS therapy is still very helpful for people who have good access to their inner child but I have a very developed analytical mind so for me it was very difficult to get access to my sub conscious. I had like 4 years of regular therapy and there were times it really helped me but most of the time the therapy only scratched the surface because I was so stuck in the analytical mind and couldn't access my emotions.

Edited yesterday at 03:06 PM by AION

[Emerald]

8 hours ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

What exactly would "taking care of that part of you" entail? Or is the answer to that question case specific?

Yes, it would be case specific.

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, Consept said:

How does one do this practically? I have dont IFS therapy with a therapist before and also some shadow work myself and i found it really useful, its what allowed me to forgive my mum and love myself more. But this relationship side of it seems to be a bit of a sticking point. 

You're welcome. Thank you for sharing a bit more about the dynamic. There are probably different blocks to allowing connection in... at least partially because of trust issues.

But IFS therapy is a good way to go about it. But even moreso Somatic therapy can be an excellent path to helping you with IFS.

I had a relationship mirage dynamic since I was 3 that I resolved a few years ago on a medicine journey.

And it all began with facing into and processing repressed emotions of terror. And through facing with this terror, it enabled me to "click into" a state of embodiment of a three year old 'part' of myself.

And in that embodiment, it enabled me to move past a traumatic moment that I had been stuck in for 30 years... and al the mindsets and understandings that I had at that time.

It's really in the process of turning inward that the issue will be resolved... even though it feels like it's an external issue.

And you may even find yourself attracted to women that won't work for a longterm relationship because you're selecting for what that part of you wants... and not what would really work out longterm.

Or there could just be general blocks to connected because of chronically unmet connection needs.