Teal Swan: Why Women Like Assholes + Why Women Aren't Attracted to Nice Guys

[lmfao]

@aurum God tier breakdown there, you keep churning good post after good post 

Edited February 17, 2021 by lmfao

[Axiomatic]

@Phenomenon "I have you pegged bro"

Damn bro! you got me! Im gonna listen to everything you have to say now. please send me more paragraphs about how I should be and act. Ill definitely listen with your 7 post ass. 

 

anyone who says "I have you pegged bro" gets an ignore from me

Edited February 17, 2021 by Axiomatic

[Preety_India]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

BINGO. Stop right there

Bingo. You're supposed to teach something higher. Everyone knows what survival is.. 

We dont watch your videos to learn that. We come to you for high consciousness. Not survival shit. 

Bingo. 

 

Edited February 17, 2021 by Preety_India

[Phenomenon]

@Axiomatic I know you're listening. It's hitting the back of your subconscious. It'll take time though, and the more you block it out a heck of a lot of time, like trauma time. I'm done here anyhow. Have a good one.

[Axiomatic]

If 7 post head ass is talkin to me, i dont see it.  

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, aurum said:

We need to define what we mean by "an asshole" and "masculinity".

Some of the women in this thread seem to be picturing a guy who just runs around insulting people and slapping drinks out of their hands. Such a guy would be demonstrating low social intelligence and would be unlikely to have strong social ties. Not going to be attractive, even from the most selfish survival perspective.

The women also seem to be conflating what they want in a man with physical attraction. I.e, the kind of guy I'm looking for isn't an asshole, so this can't be correct. Because they seek intimacy and connection, an asshole does not fit that picture. He will not meet those needs.

The men are essentially arguing these are two different phenomena, and that you can be attracted to a guy who you know is not overall what you want and is not good for you. Hence the stereotype of women coming back again and again to the "bad boy" that hurts them. Also that higher consciousness traits like kindness are only desirable to women once they are already attracted to a man, as this allows her to not get screwed over by that same lower consciousness behavior.

The men seem to be picturing an "asshole" as someone who is socially dominant and aggressive in going after what they want. Even if it boarders on the sociopathic. Such a man would likely have many social connections and resources.

Teal's argument in the video is that women are not inherently physically attracted to low empathy, selfish type of behavior. That this is actually a shadow of real masculinity. And that any attraction is only for other reasons, e.g that he displays other masculine qualities or that she is reacting a past emotional trauma. Since most "kind" men have been emasculated, she must take the good with the bad in many cases.

Leo and others are arguing that low empathy, selfish type of behavior is inherently physically attractive due to survival gains from that behavior. And that actually developing empathy can reduce one's attractiveness in the eyes of women as it weakens one's desire to assert their own survival agenda. Empathy and other similar traits are desirable in long term relationships, but it has little to no relevance for short term attraction.

This whole debate seems to rest on top of a deeper question, which is what does it mean to be human?

What are we really "wired" for?

Are we wired for selfishness, survival and low consciousness behavior? Or are we wired for something "higher"?

Well said! 

The blacked out part is the part that I was taking exception to earlier.

Being Shadow Masculine and having low empathy and low emotional intelligence honestly isn't attractive at all from the female perspective once you've gained some life experience and worked through some things. It's actually very repulsive. 

Now, lots of women might respond to that. But it isn't an indicator that these men are extra attractive. It's more of an indicator of codependent tendencies and weak boundaries in women and a lack of discernment relative to Shadow Masculinity and Positive Masculinity.

I brought up the example of how successful Donald Trump has been with supermodels... but he's clearly not an attractive man.

And I think the questions at the end are important.

I think there's a strong tendency for Leo and others on the forum to boil human sexuality down to simply being a reflection of survival needs. And I understand that that's exciting to be in touch with. There's a real psycho-sexual button there.

But it's overall a very reductive way to think about human sexuality which is far more complex.

We're wild animals, yes. But we're also beings capable of higher consciousness. And if we base our sexual behaviors and choices on the nature of the beast alone, then there's a problem there.

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

Bingo. You're supposed to teach something higher. Everyone knows what survival is.. 

We dont watch your videos to learn that. We come to you for high consciousness. Not survival shit. 

Bingo.

Before one can soar with the eagles one must first realize oneself as a pig, sleeping in the mud along with all the other pigs

[Gesundheit]

2 hours ago, Preety_India said:

And women don't have emotions?

Are women your objects?

Sigh.

[Axiomatic]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Before one can soar with the eagles one must first realize oneself as a pig, sleeping in the mud along with all the other pigs

bingo 

[Preety_India]

Yea women get attracted to assholes like Donald Trump?

But is Donald Trump attractive?

For a woman like me, he is repulsive. 

I want high consciousness.  I can change the rules of the game called life. 

It's all in your hands. Baby you gotta understand. 

 

Edited February 17, 2021 by Preety_India

[Lyubov]

“Survival” is this forums subtle code word for bad

It’s kind of annoying and I think a bit reductionist 

[Axiomatic]

2 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

“Survival” is this forums subtle code word for bad

It’s kind of annoying and I think a bit reductionist 

IT'S ALL GOOD BABY! We havin a good time out here 

[Emerald]

36 minutes ago, Phenomenon said:

 

^ Like I said @Emerald . Wow I'm good at psychological analysis.

He's not able to escape the simplifications and model something a little more nuanced and complex. He's an experience based person, he needs to be shown more examples. So have compassion for him to this end. He relies on autobiography more than modelling, which explains a lack of adaptation in this conversation. So to you Emerald, you have to learnt o expand your understanding as to why various breakdowns in communication might occur, its not just because the person is "narrow minded" there's various reasons for that from brain profile to ideological conditioning.

I think @Leo Gura may find empowerment in viewing human sexuality only/mostly through that survival lens. It's certainly the lens he focuses on the most. And what he says is somewhat true from that perspective. But the over-use of that lens is itself distortional and reductive.

I was really obsessed with this lens too, back when I was 20. I had recognized a repression of my feminine sexual/animal core. And I became obsessed with sexuality from the paradigm. And it's very intoxicating in a way. 

Now, the animalistic perspective is a perspective where men have an inherent advantage over women.

So, I can see why over-focusing on the animal nature can be comforting from the male perspective and a bit anxiety provoking form the female perspective.

There was a lot of anxiety woven into my focus towards that perspective back then... but it was also worth it to dive so deep. It just felt like my sexuality was ouroboros eating his own tail. It seemed to self-cannibalize... and it was every bit erotic and frustrating. And it makes sense because to be female from the animal and spiritual perspective is to yield for life to be. It's a complete reversal of everything else that relates to survival and life. Female sexual arousal is like a planet in retrograde.

Now much later, I developed that ability to have integration between the animalistic perspective and the higher consciousness perspective and saw how those things intermingle so intimately from the lowest most animalistic behaviors to the highest most exalted form where God makes love to reality.

Now, it could be Leo's intention to get people in touch with their animal nature in order to have such a transformation. But I don't really think it comes through in a helpful way. There's a lot more to untangle once you find it. 

And I think there is a strong chance that I could have become attached to the pleasure and comfort of that perspective if I were a man. I think I would have dug a couple layers deep into human sexuality, found something empowering and exciting, and stayed there. I was always lamenting that that was not possible. I didn't have that chance to find something that was both empowering and exciting until digging layers and layers deep.

But I can also recognize from my present state of mind, after having dug through this so much that the animalistic perspective alone will never be satisfying from the female perspective. You really need to integrate the animalistic perspective with the perspective of the heart to really make a woman feel satisfied... and ideally the heart coupled with spirituality.

Edited February 17, 2021 by Emerald

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

“Survival” is this forums subtle code word for bad

Then you've misunderstood.

Survival isn't bad. It's inescapable.

We talk about survival a lot because you're completely wrapped up in it without realizing it. And there's nowhere else to go.

[aurum]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

BINGO. Stop right there

So would you say you subscribe to a sort of Hobbsian, survival of the fittest view of nature and human history? Or are you just trying to hit us over the head with survival so we'll recognize how biased and selfish we acting? Maybe both?

It's something I'm curious about because my study of history, biology and my own experience has lead me to slightly different conclusions. But perhaps I'm not understanding your argument.

13 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I think there's a strong tendency for Leo and others on the forum to boil human sexuality down to simply being a reflection of survival needs. And I understand that that's exciting to be in touch with. There's a real psycho-sexual button there.

But it's overall a very reductive way to think about human sexuality which is far more complex.

We're wild animals, yes. But we're also beings capable of higher consciousness. And if we base our sexual behaviors and choices on the nature of the beast alone, then there's a problem there.

I agree, sexuality is more complex than we often say. Undoubtedly it boils down to meeting some sort of "need", but what is that "need"? That part is not so obvious.

If we consider that there is inherently a spiritual component to sex, where we desire to actually dissolve our ego, it becomes even less obvious to me how sex can only be about survival.

What would you consider a choice based on higher consciousness when it comes to sex?

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, aurum said:

So would you say you subscribe to a sort of Hobbsian, survival of the fittest view of nature and human history? Or are you just trying to hit us over the head with survival so we'll recognize how biased and selfish we acting? Maybe both?

Both

Your entire nervous system is shaped by survival. All your sexual desires are obviously pure survival, or else you'd buy a goat and stick your dick in it. Where you stick your dick is purely a matter of survival. Since it makes no difference otherwise.

Contemplate why you prefer a human over a goat.

Some things are so obvious they go overlooked.

[Preety_India]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Your entire nervous system is shaped by survival.

Your entire heart system is not shaped by survival though. It is shaped by high consciousness. 

There was a reason why the ancient Egyptians stored hearts in the mummified bodies and threw the brains out. They were clever people. 

There's a reason you say "will fuck your brains out " instead of "fuck your hearts out. "

 

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Both

Your entire nervous system is shaped by survival. All your sexual desires are obviously pure survival, or else you'd buy a goat and stick your dick in it. Where you stick your dick is purely a matter of survival. Since it makes no difference otherwise.

You're forgetting that all of reality is basically sex... the intermingling between feminine and masculine forces. 

There's biology involved in human sexuality, sure. And to be out of touch with the body is to be out of touch with the reality of how the feminine and masculine interacts within an individual human being and in a sexual scenario. 

But you're not mentioning how many analogues of sexuality exist within in the reality of existence and the reality of being human. 

It isn't just a purely biological reality. it's that too. But it's a very multi-faceted gem. Don't get fixated upon one facet. 

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But you're not mentioning how many analogues of sexuality exist within in the reality of existence and the reality of being human.

Dualities of all kinds interplay with each other in the Universe, of course.

But your selection of sexual partners is survival. Even the desire to be next to another human is survival and it's a biased activity.

[Lyubov]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Then you've misunderstood.

Survival isn't bad. It's inescapable.

We talk about survival a lot because you're completely wrapped up in it without realizing it. And there's nowhere else to go.

yeah for sure, I know to be finite is to always have an ever present element of survival to it. nothing bad about that. I think it's just overused here as a reductionist way of dismissing more complex systems and labeling things as automatic and low conscious when really they are more complex than that. masculine/feminine interaction has a huge survival element at it's core but I would not label it solely as that especially in more developed societies where people are doing things more for their personal interest/preference for experience rather than survival.