Treat Women Like Children

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, BlueOak said:

Or you get called too picky, like me. Everything has the reverse.

Why do you care what someone else calls you?

Just do what feels right to you.

[BlueOak]

1 minute ago, Emerald said:

Why do you care what someone else calls you?

Just do what feels right to you.

You've just unargued your own point
 

46 minutes ago, Emerald said:

And if you do make that shift, more women will see you as a higher quality guy who isn't desperate and has standards.

Why do I care? Its banter mostly with a good friend. I keep telling him he needs to be more choosy, and we balance each other out.

People are a reflection of me. To ignore them completely is to ignore myself and learn nothing. I've tried that and it's not healthy either. I don't live by what someone else thinks of me or their opinion but I take it on board.

[eos_nyxia]

The premise of this thread is a bit of a mess.

I mean, if you're only attracted to the most vulnerable, girlish, "hooking" qualities and expressions of femininity, and that is all femininity is to you because it is all you're willing to let it mean, then that is what you get?

 

Congrats, you made your own echo chamber. And your superficiality and lack of breadth and development in your personal expression are a match for theirs.

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 09:22 PM by eos_nyxia

[Emerald]

Just now, BlueOak said:

You've just unargued your own point
 

Why do I care? Its banter mostly with a good friend. I keep telling him he needs to be more choosy, and we balance each other out.

People are a reflection of me. To ignore them completely is to ignore myself and learn nothing. I've tried that and it's not healthy either. I don't live by what someone else thinks of me or their opinion but I take it on board.

It actually goes right along with my point.

My point is that if you shift your mindset to one of abundance rather than one of scarcity, you can be more selective and have what you want without having to worry about "Do they like me?"

Instead, you can ask yourself "Do I like them?"

The same is true with people calling you picky. Who cares what other people call you? Just do what feels right to you.

You don't have to fit other people's expectations of you because you have options. 

Now, since it's your friends calling you picky... you can question whether their perspective is reflective of some avoidant tendency they notice in you or if they're just not selective enough. If it's the former, you can consider if there's any validity to that perspective.

But there is nothing wrong with being selective... as long as you're being realistic in your expectations and it doesn't prevent you from having a relationship.

If it does, you might consider your friends' advice... as that's the other negative side of the spectrum relative to the person who has no standards at all.

[Emerald]

4 minutes ago, eos_nyxia said:

The premise of this thread is a bit of a mess.

I mean, if you're only attracted to the most vulnerable, girlish, "hooking" qualities and expressions of femininity, and that is all femininity is to you because it is all you're willing to let it mean, then that is what you get?

Congrats, you made your own echo chamber. And your superficiality and lack of breadth and development in your personal expression are a match for theirs.

100%

It really reduces the Feminine down to something very narrow... because that makes the Feminine feel less threatening.

[BlueOak]

3 minutes ago, eos_nyxia said:

The premise of this thread is a bit of a mess.

 

Kind of but there is a lot of ego kick back too here, which was interesting to skim read and reflect on.

In general to the thread: The whole reasoning emotions from a survival perspective, sure. But when you get past that, no. I don't need a child's emotion in my relationship. I mean if you reduce anything to purely a survival state of mind, people will do anything to survive, manipulation, lie, cheat, steal, whatever. And a lot of men to get into bed will say most anything that works. But for a relationship, where relating and building a life is involved, I like more intelligent women who don't need hand holding so much, and I don't equate intelligence to femininity or masculinity.

[BlueOak]

23 minutes ago, Emerald said:

It actually goes right along with my point.

My point is that if you shift your mindset to one of abundance rather than one of scarcity, you can be more selective and have what you want without having to worry about "Do they like me?"

Instead, you can ask yourself "Do I like them?"

The same is true with people calling you picky. Who cares what other people call you? Just do what feels right to you.

You don't have to fit other people's expectations of you because you have options. 

Now, since it's your friends calling you picky... you can question whether their perspective is reflective of some avoidant tendency they notice in you or if they're just not selective enough. If it's the former, you can consider if there's any validity to that perspective.

But there is nothing wrong with being selective... as long as you're being realistic in your expectations and it doesn't prevent you from having a relationship.

If it does, you might consider your friends' advice... as that's the other negative side of the spectrum relative to the person who has no standards at all.

>>My point is that if you shift your mindset to one of abundance rather than one of scarcity, you can be more selective and have what you want without having to worry about "Do they like me?"

Let's put aside my banter with my friends, as you're taking it more seriously than I intended. He's not the first person that's told me it either.

You absolutely need to know if a woman likes you.

>>Instead, you can ask yourself "Do I like them?"

Because that makes almost no difference if the line above isn't true. 

I'll talk to anyone, and I do to a lot of women at work. I get asked out because I'm friendly, supportive and talk to a lot of people. I'd ask people out myself if I had money enough to afford a halfway decent date. I don't. So I don't. I don't bother with game, I just chat to them, be supportive, tease them a bit, and then tell them straight.

>>Now, since it's your friends calling you picky... you can question whether their perspective is reflective of some avoidant tendency they notice in you or if they're just not selective enough. If it's the former, you can consider if there's any validity to that perspective.

Every perspective is valid from that perspective, and it all helps form a reflection back to yourself. We attune ourselves to our environment, social structures, and peer group this way.

>>But there is nothing wrong with being selective... as long as you're being realistic in your expectations and it doesn't prevent you from having a relationship.

I haven't had one in years. Can't afford one.

>>If it does, you might consider your friends' advice... as that's the other negative side of the spectrum relative to the person who has no standards at all.

He does, but he still ends up walking into walls. He's a bit younger, and more charismatic. I have enough charisma to flirt and chat, but he tends to shine when he's selling something, whether it's himself or a product

Edited Saturday at 09:48 PM by BlueOak

[Emerald]

11 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

>>My point is that if you shift your mindset to one of abundance rather than one of scarcity, you can be more selective and have what you want without having to worry about "Do they like me?"

Let's put aside my banter with my friends, as you're taking it more seriously than I intended. He's not the first person that's told me it either.

You absolutely need to know if a woman likes you.

>>Instead, you can ask yourself "Do I like them?"

Because that makes almost no difference if the line above isn't true. 

I'll talk to anyone, and I do a to a lot of women at work. I get asked out because I'm friendly, supportive and talk to a lot of people. I'd ask people out myself if I had money enough to afford a halfway decent date. I don't. So I don't. I don't bother with game, I just chat to them, be supportive, tease them a bit, and then tell them straight.

>>Now, since it's your friends calling you picky... you can question whether their perspective is reflective of some avoidant tendency they notice in you or if they're just not selective enough. If it's the former, you can consider if there's any validity to that perspective.

Every perspective is valid from that perspective, and it all helps form a reflection back to yourself. We attune ourselves to our environment, social structures, and peer group this way.

>>But there is nothing wrong with being selective... as long as you're being realistic in your expectations and it doesn't prevent you from having a relationship.

I haven't had one in years. Can't afford one.

>>If it does, you might consider your friends' advice... as that's the other negative side of the spectrum relative to the person who has no standards at all.

He does, but he still ends up walking into walls. He's a bit younger, and more charismatic. I have enough charisma to flirt and chat, but he tends to shine when he's selling something, whether it's himself or a product

I see. So, the issue is not really about you being picky, persay. Nor is it as case of feeling scarcity relative to relationships.

So, you fall in neither of the categories I was mentioning before. So, the advice I gave to the other person would not fit you... as it's intended more towards guys that feel like they have to take whatever dating opportunities they can get.

It's more of a sense of feeling scarcity relative to money... and deciding to forego realtionships until you get financially stable.

That's a perfectly fine decision to make... as long as your expectations are realistic.

Like if you want to be making enough to afford to live before getting into a relationship, that feels like a realistic expectation.

But if you feel you need to be a millionaire before you can have a relationship, that would warrant some more exploration... as you may be using finances as a way to avoid relationship or feeling like you have to have some secondary boon for a woman to like you. (Those are just some examples, not saying that specifically describes you)

[integral]

32 minutes ago, Emerald said:

100%

I am a woman.

Stop assuming you understand this subject without experiencing it.

You’re a developed integrated GigaChad woman 😅 who likes debating, you have not experienced a man dating a normal woman.

Highly feminine women hate debates.

I have directly experienced dating women over and over again.

I’m not suppressing them by any means by helping them get through their emotions every day… it only benefits them.

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

I like to have a subtle containment dynamic in my relationships myself, so I am familiar with the concept.

My preferred relationship dynamic is 95% eye-to-eye ordinary human-to-human intimacy... and 5% playing at more traditional polarities for spice. 

But what Leo is describing isn't that.

He is saying to treat a woman like a child... and that the man has to stand in as the responsible one because Feminine women are irresponsible. And if a woman is responsible, then she is Masculine and unattractive.

The whole dynamic describes what happens between unintegrated men and women as the ideal, where one expects the other to act as their repressed part... and to "complete them".

And no intimacy is possible from that standpoint as it requires for the woman to remain in an un-individuated state to maintain pure Femininity and therefore attractiveness. And the man must remain purely in a repressed relationship with his Feminine to relegate the Feminine to the status of child.

This is not a natural state for humans to be in... because we are all 3-dimensional beings with many shades of Masculinity and Femininity playing through us... just as Yin and Yang can be found in all living and non-living systems.

So, to suggest such a strong polarization is just a reflection of someone who is not very well-integrated themselves and is repressing their own Feminine side.

Polarity attracts.... and similarity connects. The former is just the frosting on the cake of the latter which wears off as men and women age and mature.

Biology creates hard separations. It is not true that a person is only healthy when balanced in masculine and feminine.

Healthy and unhealthy are separate things from masculine and feminine.

You can be healthy at any place in the spectrum between masculine and feminine energy.

It is not exclusive to those who have balanced and integrated both sides.

Some women are naturally highly feminine and also healthy. And it will only put stress on them to hold a masculine frame for a long period of time. They will never feel fully comfortable as anything other than a very feminine state.

This is natural for them and for most women.

A Fuck boy is an unhealthy masculine. A man child is unhealthy. Andrew Tate is unhealthy masculinity not that he lacks feminine integration. He lacks healthy integration of any kind.

A woman who’s naturally highly feminine and healthy wants and thrives within masculine containment.

So you’re projecting that only healthy people are these kind of integrated hermaphrodites.

A healthy masculine man integrates the feminine while still looking masculine. It’s what healthy masculinity is.

A healthy person can have any type of energy anywhere on the spectrum.

[The Renaissance Man]

30 minutes ago, Emerald said:

It really reduces the Feminine down to something very narrow.

I agree, and I was surprised by the name of the thread. How can that work for an adult, developed person?

I feel everybody here has a different idea in their mind about what the masculine and feminine are, and how they can work together. And I also am very unclear on what masculine and feminine are. I can't pinpoint them in a sophisticated way.

The idea of the child is extreme and shallow, but it has some truth deep in it. So where's the balance? What's the better, integrated version?

I'd appreciate some perspective on this, if any of you can help.

[BlueOak]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I see. So, the issue is not really about you being picky, persay. Nor is it as case of feeling scarcity relative to relationships.

So, you fall in neither of the categories I was mentioning before. So, the advice I gave to the other person would not fit you... as it's intended more towards guys that feel like they have to take whatever dating opportunities they can get.

It's more of a sense of feeling scarcity relative to money... and deciding to forego realtionships until you get financially stable.

That's a perfectly fine decision to make... as long as your expectations are realistic.

Like if you want to be making enough to afford to live before getting into a relationship, that feels like a realistic expectation.

But if you feel you need to be a millionaire before you can have a relationship, that would warrant some more exploration... as you may be using finances as a way to avoid relationship or feeling like you have to have some secondary boon for a woman to like you. (Those are just some examples, not saying that specifically describes you)

It's a bit of both. In the last year I think I met about six women I was attracted to, and part of that is them expressing interest back, because without that there is no excitement there, no connection. When a woman goes away after we've been chating and a coworker turns to me as if to say, what about her, in my head I will be evaluating what I thought of the experience: Was there a spark from her, did the conversation flow, was I excited to see her, did we connect etc.

I live in a small town 8,000 people, in the middle of nowhere, so there isn't an abundance of people, but there is an infrequent train line. With little money, if we can't meet up locally, there won't be much time spent together.

Money for me has limited everything. I feel like i've limped along without a leg. Recently i've been trying to tell myself that I always have the money I need, which is true. My bills are paid and I survive with no trouble. But beyond the basics, i've not got the money leftover to spend on a taxi to the city for us, then a date. Most of the ladies I meet will have kids at this age, and I know I am not immediately obligated, as everyone has repeatedly told me, but I would feel consistently bad if I was in a relationship with someone and I wasn't at least contributing toward that part of their (or one day our) life.

I appreciate your perspective; thank you. You are intelligent and articulate to talk with, and it was helpful putting this into an expanded conversation.

 

[integral]

@Emerald Highly feminine healthy women are NOT irresponsible. They just cannot take responsibility for hard parts of survival because that's not what they're designed for, that's not what their biology equipped them with.

A fish is not irresponsible because they can't fly.

Edited Saturday at 10:23 PM by integral

[Emerald]

@integral I'm not saying people have to be hermaphrodites to be healthy... though over-attachment to one or the other polarity creates repression, so that isn't healthy.

I'm a mostly Feminine woman myself, and I like to play at more traditional dynamics to some degree.

But these exaggeratedly polarized ideas just don't fit with how human beings function. Masculine and Feminine dynamics are subtle when they work well. And they don't need to be orchestrated.

Otherwise, it's just confining... and it makes people lose sight of the commonality. And that's where intimacy is lost.

[BlessedLion]

23 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's generally good advice when dealing with the feminine.

As a man you have to learn to emotionally manipulate women.

This sounds bad, but feminine women need and want their emotions managed. Children also need their emotions managed. The whole challenge of being a man is that you must deliver results with no one else to comfort you or manage your emotions. Women can operate that way too, but then they lose their feminine qualities and become masculine, which makes them unattractive.

The problem though is that this irresponsibility over one's own emotions in women cannot ultimately work. It must fail because life is far too serious to manage without being fully in control over your emotions. The feminine way of life is just not suitable for serious survival. It works when survival is relatively easy. Which is why feminine women often need men to take care of survival for them. The more she's able to handle very difficult survival, the less feminine she's gonna be. So there's a tradeoff between survival effectiveness and feminine innocence. If you want a very feminine girl then you gotta be ready to take care of her more, manipulate her emotions for her, etc. And in that sense it is like dealing with a child because the child cannot handle its own survival. That's the common thread.

Women are fully capable of taking care of themselves. The problem is that basically turns them into men. Which is unappealing to most men and women.

Learning to handle the feminine is a very tricky skill. It requires learning emotional manipulation. Men are never taught this tricky skill.

Nonsense. A woman can be feminine and still have her life together and doing well. It’s called a Woman, a mature fully grown adult Woman can do this and still be feminine and it’s very sexy. 
 

Sure, if you’re dating underdeveloped girls with the psychology of a 9 year old then yeah you’ll have to baby her. Fuck that. 
 

I prefer being with a Woman who can also take care of me and help me feel better. It’s not like she needs to be mommy but I def don’t want to be daddy either. 
 

It’s a Man Woman relationship. 

[Emerald]

10 minutes ago, integral said:

@Emerald Highly feminine healthy women are NOT irresponsible. They just cannot take responsibility for hard parts of survival because that's not what they're designed for, that's not what their biology equipped them with.

A fish is not irresponsible because they can't fly.

You're saying a different thing to what Leo was saying. So, you're moving the goal posts.

Sure, men are generally better equipped for things that require physical strength if that's what you're saying.

But that isn't what Leo was saying, and it's not the point that I was arguing against. 

Leo was saying that you have to emotionally manipulate women and treat them like children. And he was saying that Feminine women are bad at survival and are irresponsible for their own emotions. And that the more responsible a woman is for her own survival and her own emotions the more Masculine and unattractive she is.

That's the thing that I'm arguing against because it's not a tenable view to hold to have a deep intimate male/female relationship.

I'm not arguing against the idea that men are generally stronger than women physically and might be more suited to physically taxing work.

Nor am I arguing that women generally don't like to feel taken care of by their male partners. Generally, women do like to feel like the beloved and be treated as such.

It's just the mindset that I mentioned above that I'm arguing against, because it's an unsustainable foundation for a relationship.

[BlessedLion]

7 minutes ago, Emerald said:

You're saying a different thing to what Leo was saying. So, you're moving the goal posts.

Sure, men are generally better equipped for things that require physical strength if that's what you're saying.

But that isn't what Leo was saying, and it's not the point that I was arguing against. 

Leo was saying that you have to emotionally manipulate women and treat them like children. And he was saying that Feminine women are bad at survival and are irresponsible for their own emotions. And that the more responsible a woman is for her own survival and her own emotions the more Masculine and unattractive she is.

That's the thing that I'm arguing against because it's not a tenable view to hold to have a deep intimate male/female relationship.

I'm not arguing against the idea that men are generally stronger than women physically and might be more suited to physically taxing work.

Nor am I arguing that women generally don't like to feel taken care of by their male partners. Generally, women do like to feel like the beloved and be treated as such.

It's just the mindset that I mentioned above that I'm arguing against, because it's an unsustainable foundation for a relationship.

Agreed. This whole framework makes no sense. Honestly I can’t even believe this is a discussion. 
 

Wouldn’t you want to date an adult not a child?

 

Ive recently been so much more attracted to maturity and WOMEN and girls (no matter how hot) are just unappealing 

[Emerald]

Just now, BlessedLion said:

Agreed. This whole framework makes no sense. Honestly I can’t even believe this is a discussion. 
Wouldn’t you want to date an adult not a child?

Ive recently been so much more attracted to maturity and WOMEN and girls (no matter how hot) are just unappealing 

I think this viewpoint that a lot of the guys share on this forum (including Leo) comes from a lack of Feminine integration... and emotional stunting and lack of real relationship experiences with women that arises as a result of that stunting.

It's juvenile Masculinity in a nutshell.

Men who think this way about women just wouldn't be able to have a really deep mature relationship with women beyond the bag of tricks for attracting a woman during pickup. So, the ability to actually operate in a more human-to-human way with women is blocked off in favor of more simplistic user-friendly understandings where they can feel more in control.

It tends to be more often that men who have had real longterm relationships with women tend to value a mature equal partner (though of course, there are plenty of exceptions... as immature men and women can also get together and stay together codependently).

But the ability to relate to women in a mature way is often what enables men to establish longterm relationships with women in the first place.

And men who cannot do that and who don't have a good relationship with their Feminine side, will stay alone theorizing and crunching the logical numbers of how to "play the female instrument" and maintain control so as to avoid being hurt.

And minimizing women and seeing women as childish... and going for under-developed immature women that need someone else to regulate her emotions for her is just another way of trying to avoid feeling out of control and getting hurt.

[gambler]

28 minutes ago, BlessedLion said:

Wouldn’t you want to date an adult not a child?

You can be a grown adult woman who has a very mature psychology, life together, and all that responsible stuff but still have an aversion to reality. Take my mother for example, she is extremely mature, sharp, responsible and takes no bullshit. But, she likes to live in fantasy. One example is she hates confronting reality when it comes to the dark side of her children. If I tell her the cold truth about why her son did this, or why her daughter did that, she doesn't want to hear it. This is even an observation my older brother has made too--that she'd rather lie to herself and believe the lie. In this example, she does not like having the sanctity of her fantasy, or imagination, that she constructed about her loved ones violated of its pureness with unpleasant truths. Unlike my father who is okay with it, she'd rather choose comforting lies. 

Edited Saturday at 11:14 PM by gambler

[integral]

42 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Leo was saying that you have to emotionally manipulate women and treat them like children. And he was saying that Feminine women are bad at survival and are irresponsible for their own emotions. And that the more responsible a woman is for her own survival and her own emotions the more Masculine and unattractive she is.

The feminine being bad at certain parts of survival is just what it means to be feminine. The masculine is also bad at certain parts of survival and that's just what it means to be masculine.

A fish is a fish, a shark is a shark.

If a fish wants to go out and start killing other fish, then that fish behaves like a shark.

The feminine becomes masculine.

There's nothing misogynistic about this. Our minds and bodies do not work the same way genetically from birth.

This is equality, his statement is equality...

42 minutes ago, Emerald said:

That's the thing that I'm arguing against because it's not a tenable view to hold to have a deep intimate male/female relationship.

I'm not arguing against the idea that men are generally stronger than women physically and might be more suited to physically taxing work.

Nor am I arguing that women generally don't like to feel taken care of by their male partners. Generally, women do like to feel like the beloved and be treated as such.

It's just the mindset that I mentioned above that I'm arguing against, because it's an unsustainable foundation for a relationship.

How do you know it's a unsustainable Foundation?

How do you know it doesn't work?

Your solution is to go find a healthier woman to date? Well that's not a solution as we just discussed because highly feminine women can be healthy.

You're assuming it's not going to work because the man is "looking down" on the woman. When he's not.

When in reality hes just recognizes her needs. And the most loving thing to do is to frame her as a child and not put all the burden of truth and survival of the real world on her shoulders. The whole conversation was emotions and I'm supposed to burden her with truth? Why?

I'm not looking down at my dog, I recognize what their needs are and then give it to them.

It's the most loving thing to do.

But I feel like you're blinded by this need for equality of the sexes.

Edited Saturday at 11:20 PM by integral

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, The Renaissance Man said:

I agree, and I was surprised by the name of the thread. How can that work for an adult, developed person?

I feel everybody here has a different idea in their mind about what the masculine and feminine are, and how they can work together. And I also am very unclear on what masculine and feminine are. I can't pinpoint them in a sophisticated way.

The idea of the child is extreme and shallow, but it has some truth deep in it. So where's the balance? What's the better, integrated version?

I'd appreciate some perspective on this, if any of you can help.

The framework that I use for the Masculine and Feminine more generally is more archetypal and reflective of Yin and Yang.

And you can notice subtle difference in men and women generally as it comes to these qualities.

It's just that people like to exaggerate these differences because we respond sexually to super-normal stimuli around the more subtle sexual dimorphism of our species. 

We can see it in the way that some cartoonists depict cartoon characters... with an unrealistic exaggerated distinction between male and female characters.

But that's not reflective of what's actually true as we are not 2-d characters.

All human beings are 95%+ similar to one another. But we're very attuned to subtle differences, so we only focus on the 5% that's different. So, we like to think of men and women as very different, when we're 95% the same.

And we want people to fit neatly in little Masculine and Feminine boxes.. but we don't. And those who expect themselves to will often feel shame.

But these categories are valuable in that they show us where our resistances are. But they're incredibly unhelpful if we try to shove ourselves into either box... and doubly so if those boxes are more based in social constructs than in Yin/Yang.

But in terms of Masculine/Feminine relationship dynamics, the key to understand is that they're subtle and the differences are only meaningful because we are so much the same.

And these dynamics arise naturally without need for performance or orchestration... and without getting the mind too much involved.

When you're trying to orchestrate it, you've already lost the real thing. And you're just play-acting.

It really only arises in a meaningful way that strikes a deeper chord when you find it on the inside instead of an idea put on from the outside.