Teal swan - what a woman needs from a man in a relationship

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

I've been wondering lately how different my personality and life trajectory would have been on a 50-50% soil...

I suppose I wouldn't recognize myself and be a totally different woman.

Yes. As I see it, the Masculine keeps on taking the lead, with mental blocks which are making it difficult to perceive and to understand the needs of the Feminine. And this creates a trust crisis where female are frustrated at male and seek emancipation from the masculine leadership.

The communication between the two pole is distorted because a lot of men aren't in touch with their Feminine part, because it was necessary for survival. 

I also think that up to this day the Feminine perspective is not represented so men tend to miss a severe piece of the puzzle.

I also have the impression that I am fluent in speaking masculinity (as a second language), while a lot of men struggle to form sentences and refuse to speak femininity. Which of course would be the prerequisite for an optimal leadership.

Femininity used to be assimilated to weakness as cultivating its value would most likely kill you, in a though environment. I can understand why we still have collectively this prejudice. The negative emotions related to how dangerous it is for survival, as well as the basic soil, doesn't help it's culture. 

I definitely wonder that too. I'm genuinely not sure how I would be if the soil were truly balanced. I suspect that people raised under such conditions would have such a leg up over people in present day society.

But we do have a core nature. So, that would always be there.

Also, that's a really good way to put it. Women really do have to be fluent in masculinity to get along in this world. But men are even discouraged from learning anything in the feminine language... and there are very few outlets to truly learn it. 

And before, it was always the masculine side of humanity needing to harness and control Mother Nature. At present, the circumstances are very different, which means that we actually NEED to integrate the feminine to survive as a species. 

Before it was humanity's lot to polarize as much into the masculine as possible to counterbalance the powerful forces of nature which is feminine. Now, society has grown so much in terms of masculine development that an imbalance has occurred... which is why we have an environmental crisis on our hands.

So, before humanity was the most "fit" to its environment by being patriarchal. But now, in order to remain "fit" to the environment, we MUST integrate the feminine as opposed to defaulting to the old femininity-repressing patriarchal ways of survival. 

[Hulia]

9 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Then, we threw off gender roles and lived in rebellion and defiance of them, which allowed us to grow more as people but also disconnected us in some ways from our natural energy.

And now, we hope to neither go into conformity nor rebellion against the old gender roles. We will do what feels good because it feels good... not because someone says it's what should be.  

It feels good because it has been done for thousand of years and not because it´s the only right thing. We are always awkward to try something new. That´s all.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Hulia

[Hulia]

7 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

What if being intimate means understanding the person through and through? Isn't that a kind of containment as well? 

Of course it is!

[Lyubov]

I think what @Emerald is describing is to be attune. I differ with having to understand her being required. I think it's more so about listening and acknowledging how she feels to the best of your ability. You don't have to get pulled in necessarily or even fully understand, just listen. I think guys fear this cause they can get sucked in and start becoming servile. I don't think you have to do that to be a good listener. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Lyubov

[Emerald]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What I said does not preclude intimacy.

You are asking for feminine containment and then immediately asking for a gay friend. You can have one but not both.

What you said does actually preclude intimacy. 

To have intimacy men and women must communicate and understand one another deeply. Otherwise, all you have is your projections onto the other person.

It isn't enough simply to make a woman feel feminine... because even making a woman feel safe being feminine around you requires you to really understand her.

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

I think what @Emerald is describing is to be attune. I differ with having to understand her being required. I think it's more so about listening and acknowledging how she feels to the best of your ability. You don't have to get pulled in necessarily or even fully understand, just listen. I think guys fear this cause they can get sucked in and start becoming servile. I don't think you have to do that to be a good listener. 

Attunement is important. But to attune is to understand. 

You can't have attunement if you're not seeing things clearly. If you don't "get" someone, you can't attune to them.

[Lynnel]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

It probably feels like torture because it's triggering some wounds or dredging up some shadows in you.

I mean, I can somehow understand where the guy is coming from.

The video was amazing, but when Teal listed all of the possibles actions you would need to undertake to create containment for a woman, I thought to myself, good heavens, I'm not certain there exists in this universe a woman deserving of such work if you have to do 40+ of those at the same time

[Lyubov]

7 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Attunement is important. But to attune is to understand. 

You can't have attunement if you're not seeing things clearly. If you don't "get" someone, you can't attune to them.

Attunement leads to understanding and is a goal of it but I think a man also has to be careful to not get sucked in when trying to understand, becoming ungrounded. I've done this before with becoming overly agreeable or trying to solve her problems. Understanding should not come at the cost of the man maintaining himself and I think a lot of guys make this mistake and thus fear being "simps." 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Lyubov

[knakoo]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

But all this comes down to the way that boys are socialized to suppress their feelings and instincts and put on a culturally masculine persona. Men and boys are expected to armor themselves and never show weakness. And there's a lot of social consequences when they do.

So, anything relating to softness, femininity, and intimacy will be a trigger. And there's a lot of fear of social rejection underneath all of that. So, there's a lot of uncomfortable emotions and extreme responsibilities to avoid... hence the avoidance.

Do you know if this is especially an issue in the US compare to Europe ? Is this neurotic fear of intimacy really the norm ?? 

[Emerald]

Just now, Lynnel said:

I mean, I can somehow understand where the guy is coming from.

The video was amazing, but when Teal listed all of the possibles actions you would need to undertake to create containment for a woman, I thought to myself, good heavens, I'm not certain there exists in this universe a woman deserving of such work if you have to do 40+ of those at the same time

She does say at the end that you shouldn't go about doing that logically by just remembering to do all those things.

It's more like, if you step into your masculine energy and align with what feels good about "containing" a woman, that it will come instinctually in large part.

It's not meant to be a chore or something to overthink about. It's just what feels good. 

It's kind of like, if there were a video about things women can do to please a man. And the woman gets overwhelmed and a bit indignant about it because it's all in the abstract and theoretical.

But when she's with a guy she's attracted to and feels safe with, it genuinely feels natural and good to please him that way. 

It's the same thing. It's a natural outgrowth of being in alignment with masculine energy and having a deep intimate relationship with a woman. 

[Hulia]

Honestly I don´t understand what we are here speaking about. What this Teal suggests in her silly video might work for a relationship of 1 month or so. But if you have a long-term relationship, are you serious about that rubbish? really?, everything will change thousand times - her role, his role, the life circumstanses, the relationship itself. There will be moments when you´ll have to be shell for him and vice versa. The more open-minded and flexible you are the helthier the relationship. 

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

Attunement leads to understanding and is a goal of it but I think a man also has to be careful to not get sucked in when trying to understand, becoming ungrounded. I've done this before with becoming overly agreeable or trying to solve her problems. Understanding should not come at the cost of the man maintaining himself. 

That's more of a boundaries and personal sovereignty issue. It doesn't have to do with intimacy.

This can come up when someone has an issue with codependency and is dealing with enmeshment trauma where they orient to themselves like a character in someone else's story. 

Actually, it has so little to do with intimacy that intimacy is literally impossible from this standpoint.

A man has to bring his personal sovereignty and authenticity into the relationship for any intimacy to be possible what-so-ever because intimacy has to do with being seen, heard, and understood while also being able to see, hear, and understand the other person without projecting onto them.

The same is true for a woman.

[Emerald]

6 minutes ago, knakoo said:

Do you know if this is especially an issue in the US compare to Europe ? Is this neurotic fear of intimacy really the norm ?? 

I don't know. I have clients all over the world, and it all seems pretty similar.

But yet again, I have a very particular kind of target audience that's interested in self-exploration. So, I couldn't honestly say. 

But I have noticed that all people have some degree of struggle with this. And it's simply because most people are raised to see their own emotions as something to tune out from or repress. And this creates deep issues with opening up, being vulnerable, and having intimacy in relationships and friendships. And boys/men are hit extra hard with this in particular. 

[Lyubov]

3 minutes ago, Emerald said:

That's more of a boundaries and personal sovereignty issue. It doesn't have to do with intimacy.

This can come up when someone has an issue with codependency and is dealing with enmeshment trauma where they orient to themselves like a character in someone else's story. 

Actually, it has so little to do with intimacy that intimacy is literally impossible from this standpoint.

A man has to bring his personal sovereignty and authenticity into the relationship for any intimacy to be possible what-so-ever because intimacy has to do with being seen, heard, and understood while also being able to see, hear, and understand the other person without projecting onto them.

The same is true for a woman.

hmmm yeah good point. it can be a little tricky though cause passion can be so powerful that I just get sucked in and then am a little worried about seeming weak and turning her off. 

[Emerald]

4 minutes ago, Hulia said:

Honestly I don´t understand what we are here speaking about. What this Teal suggests in her silly video might work for a relationship of 1 month or so. But if you have a long-term relationship, are you serious about that rubbish? really?, everything will change thousand times - her role, his role, the life circumstanses, the relationship itself. There will be moments when you´ll have to be shell for him and vice versa. The more open-minded and flexible you are the helthier the relationship. 

There will always be changes in the relationship. 

And one thing that Teal doesn't mention in the video (probably for simplicity purposes) is that all people have both a masculine and feminine polarity.

And so, women can use her masculine polarity to contain a man's feminine side.

Though, because typically women have a more pronounced feminine side and because men have a more pronounced masculine side that the dance will involve the man containing the woman more often when done in a satisfying way for both partners. 

Now, one exception that she brought up is that a lot of men have not experienced containment in childhood, and will look for a mother to contain him in a partnership. And this really doesn't feel good to a woman.

So, while there are times for women to contain men naturally, if a woman feels like she has to push herself into her masculine polarity constantly, this isn't going to feel natural or good to her... unless she is in the minority of women who are naturally more masculine and are also attracted to men.

But yes, there are ups and downs to a relationship. And this is more of a dance of containment than a static thing. And flexibility is required.

But it simply isn't going to feel good to most women to play the mom or the masculine role more than what naturally lines up with her polarity. 

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

hmmm yeah good point. it can be a little tricky though cause passion can be so powerful that I just get sucked in and then am a little worried about seeming weak and turning her off. 

The main thing about personal sovereignty is to be in touch with your own feelings.

A person with issues with boundaries, codependency, and a lack of personal sovereignty ends up projecting their own sovereignty onto others... who then become like an authority figure to them.

And then that person starts to look at the other person and tries to make decisions by thinking "How are they going to feel about this?" as opposed to making decisions by saying, "How do I feel about this?"

And what Teal Swan refers to as containment requires that a man be in touch with his personal sovereignty so that he can lead the dynamic and she can surrender and be receptive.

So if a man is out of touch with his own sovereignty, then no intimacy is possible.

A man who is enmeshed and simply exists as a character in the woman's story, cannot contain. The woman then has to contain the man in her story.  

Basically enmeshment and containment are polar opposites. That which is enmeshed cannot contain that which it is enmeshed with.

[IAmReallyImportant]

@modmyth

I think at the end of the day it comes down to be compatible in a relationship. All this man and women shit is completely obsolete. Some women are more masculine and some men more feminine, so it balances out.

What is written here is partially discriminating and I also get upset, but you don't have to listen to people who claim that they are "high concious" but then write such things.

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, modmyth said:

This overall discussion makes me feel like I was an alien dropped onto Earth yesterday. I empathize with aspects of it, for sure, but as a whole as a woman, not really. I really am trying to relate though...

Does this not seem like an impossible or superhuman standard for men to reach, as in aspects of what are being asked for directly contradict a man being an emotional rock in all ways? How does this work out with what men also need and desire, or is it just supposed to balance out somehow? Logistically I don't see how it works out practically.  Yes, we all have things we want, desire, feel that we need from others, and is ideal. But how does this work out with the relationship of what reality is like, what men are actually like, vs. what is ideal?

I think it is immensely draining to ask someone to take perfect (or nearly perfect) responsibility for you all the time, period. And then to be open emotionally, stable, warm, etc.? It's asking for an arm and a leg.

Furthermore, a lot of these associations of what masculinity and femininity seem more rooted in human history than the primal masculine and feminine are, at least from my perspective. What Teal speaks of is a rather heteronormative version, which is fine. I always tend to say, people want what they want and there is no sense in negotiating with true desire by imposing shoulds on top of it, for both men and women. But back in most of human history, there was more of a social structure for men to provide a certain kind of containment (without getting overly idealistic and unrealistic about the past), especially financial support and support within a greater social system, and there was also a greater sense of belief and confidence in what masculinity meant. Even in relatively "good" situations though, men (especially of means) visited prostitutes and had mistresses to have their emotional and sexual needs/ desires met that just would not get met in their marriages. (Not to mention that many, many marriages, especially among those of means, had nothing to do with love and attraction from the outset anyway). There are cases where men could be "good" in the sense of providing a sort of containment that was described in the video but not in a classically monogamous way generally... it was by compartimentalization. There's really nothing to go back to?

But as an example of what I just don't get... the feminine needs the masculine in order to exist? Huh? I don't get it. Certain aspects of feminity (in relation to masculinity and under conditions, sure. And likewise is true too. This is a chicken and egg scenario. Realistically, who gets to go first? The men because masculinity is defined by initiation?  How is a man going to learn or give himself these ideal traits in order to give you what you need without learning them directly from a woman? And if not you, then who? And if we fail to get what we want in some way or another, does it not fall back into our hands, and is our responsibility one way or another? Responsibility isn't really a masculine or feminine trait, is it?

I find myself thinking about how in a number of creation myths (excluding the Abrahamic tradition and a number of other traditions, of course), the primal feminine begat the masculine. And then once the masculine existed, of course the primal feminine existed in relation to the masculine. There are different models though....

This is where Teal's perspective in this video is limited... probably for the purpose of simplicity. She keeps it mostly to one facet of the discussion around polarity so that people can get an idea of what it is in terms of relationships between men and women.

But polarity is a lot more complex than just the gender binary. 

From some perspectives, there is no binary at all. Everything is one. Which is true.

From other perspectives, you could say that everything is infinitely Yin and Yang... which is also true. 

Basically, all people contain a unique masculine/feminine signature. And for a person to have a relationship where these energies are engaged, it's best to find someone who has a complementary masculine feminine signature to your own.

So, for simplicity sake (though it is more complex than this still), let's say that there is a straight woman who is 80% feminine and 20% masculine... she will be most polarized to a man who is 80% masculine and 20% feminine. To add an extra layer of complexity, these percentages happen across many different spectrums of traits within the personality.

So, polarity and compatibility are a lot more complicated to understand logically.

Ideally, what you want is for the feminine side of the woman to be contained by the masculine side of the man... and to have the feminine side of the man contained by the masculine side of the woman. 

And there's always a dance happening here. 

Also, you'll want to have your own masculine side containing your own feminine side. 

The main thing is being able to get in touch with your natural polarity and going with whatever naturally feels good in tandem with that natural polarity, and things will flow better from there.

[knakoo]

1 hour ago, Farnaby said:

@Emerald

I also think this need to run away could also be linked to us men sometimes finding it emotionally easier to deal with a group of friends than with our girlfriend/wife. It's like a nice space where we can talk about stuff in a way that would trigger most women. So, in a sense it's an opportunity to not have to walk on eggshells.

 

29 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

I think what @Emerald is describing is to be attune. I differ with having to understand her being required. I think it's more so about listening and acknowledging how she feels to the best of your ability. You don't have to get pulled in necessarily or even fully understand, just listen. I think guys fear this cause they can get sucked in and start becoming servile. I don't think you have to do that to be a good listener. 

You talk like women are so different from you and so hard to understand !

Maybe I have a lot of feminine energy in me or something. It is so fascinating to read about men who see women as these mysterious creatures.

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

@modmyth

I think at the end of the day it comes down to be compatible in a relationship. All this man and women shit is completely obsolete. Some women are more masculine and some men more feminine, so it balances out.

What is written here is partially discriminating and I also get upset, but you don't have to listen to people who claim that they are "high concious" but then write such things.

While it is true that some women are more masculine and some men are more feminine and that's valid, this is not true for most people.

And the man/woman, feminine/masculine perspective is actually REALLY important to look at, as this is where all the wounds are that have to be addressed.

To invalidate that perspective altogether is to repress and close off the ability to heal those wounds.