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

[Emerald]

12 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

@Emerald It's a stunning paradox indeed, that to truly help these men (or any struggling person) you have to slap them across the face and put them in their place; but also, to truly help them, you have to be 110% accepting of them with no will to change them.

The best teachers, I believe, will manage to honor both sides of this coin fully.

I understand.

My heart goes out to you and all women here, truly.

Sometimes I'm moved to tears thinking about how I could've/would've/should've listened to women more. 

And then I resolve to be better next time, and yet I still manage to not hear them with a totally open heart.

And I'm well aware that my resolve is rare among men. If even I sometimes stick my head in the sand, then men as a whole are buried miles underneath land wedged somewhere within a continental crust

Sometimes it is necessary to be really straight with someone to get through to them. Other times not so much. 

I'm usually in two minds about things. On one hand, I can get a more transcendent perspective and have all the patience and understanding in the world once I can see the situation as an impersonal chain of cause and effect. On the other hand, I'm human and have deep wounds relative to this dynamic just as everyone else does. And the wound of the feminine is about being suppressed and ignored. 

So, on one hand, I can stay in the transcendent perspective where I can see people's embattlements. But on the other hand, these conversations are like lemon juice in wounds. And even though I've acclimatized to the lemon juice by exploring these wounds in myself a lot and I've also healed certain wounds, there are still concentrations of the "lemon juice" that can make me feel really frustrated especially when it comes to insisting something is untrue that I know to be true and vice versa.

It's like trying to tell people the sky is blue and they try to tell me it's red.

And I say, "Yes, sometimes it's red. But only in certain situations. But most of the time it's blue." And then a bunch of sunset enthusiasts reply, "Nah! It's red. All the books I've read have told me the sky is red. And I experienced that the sky was red a bunch of times." And I go, "I get it that you like it when the sky is red, you're a sunset enthusiast. But generally speaking, the sky is blue." And they go, "What do you know about the sky, you're just a sky enthusiast. We're sunset enthusiasts, so we know better. We've experienced the sky being red many times."

And I go 

[soos_mite_ah]

3 minutes ago, Emerald said:

It's like trying to tell people the sky is blue and they try to tell me it's red.

And I say, "Yes, sometimes it's red. But only in certain situations. But most of the time it's blue." And then a bunch of sunset enthusiasts reply, "Nah! It's red. All the books I've read have told me the sky is red. And I experienced that the sky was red a bunch of times." And I go, "I get it that you like it when the sky is red, you're a sunset enthusiast. But generally speaking, the sky is blue." And they go, "What do you know about the sky, you're just a sky enthusiast. We're sunset enthusiasts, so we know better. We've experienced the sky being red many times."

And I go 

I like this metaphor. I honestly feel similarly when I'm in this section of the forum. 

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

@Emerald 

Ever heard of condoms, safe sex, etc...?

Yeah, of course, there are men with avoidant attachment style. But that's beside the point.

Men are polyamorous regardless of attachment styles. It's just the way it is. It might not make logical sense from the evolutionary perspective, but it makes absolutely perfect intuitive sense from reality's perspective.

You're the expert on masculine and feminine polarities, so you probably know better. This should be obvious to you on an intuitive level. Although, granted that your logical mind won't like it. But what can we do? It is what it is.

Men do have more biological impetus to seek indiscriminate sex. But this doesn't mean that it's good for survival. If that drive goes untempered by the human drive for connection and pair bonding/community building, this impulse can create a lot of survival issues for our species. 

Sure, it modern day we have condoms and other forms of contraceptive. But we are wired for nomadic times. And in that situation if men sought indiscriminate sex outside of his small hunter/gatherer group, he's leaving the woman and his children very susceptible to death. So, it isn't good for procreation and the survival of the species... nor is it great for the chances of him passing on healthy offspring. 

So, it isn't good for survival when the drive is used out of tandem with other pro-social drives including the drive towards fatherhood, even though it is something that would be enjoyed by many men.

Now, it is quite natural for men to be sexually attracted to many women, if that's what you mean. Generally, men do have a polyamorous sex drive, in greater degree to which women have a polyamorous sex drive. 

But men also have a strong drive for connection, community creation, fatherhood, and pair bonding. These are also male instincts. 

So, if a man never wants to have deeper relationships that go beyond base-line sexual attraction, there are strong chances that he is having issues with avoidance and/or issues with setting boundaries and that this is an indication that he's suppressing some of his instincts.

Though, of course, there are many people who simply don't resonate with the whole pair bond and have children thing. And that's fine. But often a lack of interest in deeper relationships can denote fears of intimacy.

[knakoo]

36 minutes ago, DnoReally said:

Im reading this thread, everyones sharing their feelings and then.. and then

 

Haha ! I think part of it is that Leo just love being provocative

[knakoo]

Reading this thread I think David Deida might me right ! haha

 

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

And women never say, "Don't listen to men about what they want. They don't really know."

Women not only don't care what men want, they get offended and call men gross and shallow and sexist for wanting it.

So please spare us.

Imagine if men on this forum started a thread about the ideal pair of tits they want and how women should be more understanding and accommodating on this matter. It would be called outrageous and sexist. Even though there is no fundamental difference between wanting a big pair of tits vs wanting a man who offers you "feminine containment".

Women routinely misrepresent what they are attracted to in men. This confuses many men. Hence I say some of the things I say to men, to clear up that confusion in their minds. The situation is asymmetrical because men do not misrepresemt what they are truly attracted to in women. It would be like telling everyone how vegan you are, but when you get to the restaurant you always choose the pork ribs rather than the salad. It's important for the chef to know that what you really eat is the ribs vs the salad so he can plan accordingly, regardless of what you tell yourself in your head.

Women's attraction is less honest and more convoluted. A man's attraction is more direct and straight forward.

So false equivalence indeed!

[Gesundheit]

55 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Now, it is quite natural for men to be sexually attracted to many women, if that's what you mean. Generally, men do have a polyamorous sex drive, in greater degree to which women have a polyamorous sex drive. 

But men also have a strong drive for connection, community creation, fatherhood, and pair bonding. These are also male instincts. 

Exactly!

BUT, a man can have meaningful relationships with multiple women. He is not limited to one woman. This dynamic has existed throughout history and up until this day (now, it's called cheating). Society used to regulate polyamory into polygamy, which to me seems like the perfect middle-ground for both men and women. Everyone gets what they want. The man gets variety, and the women get stability. Very responsibly. Very straight-forwardly. No avoidance. No tricks. No manipulation. The masculine is satisfied, and the feminine is safe.

In modern times, though, polygamy is demonized. And so men are not able to experience their full masculinity, because modern society represses true masculinity. Men are not allowed to experience their masculinity in its full potential. So, guess what? This will create a shadow. I think the shadow looks glaringly obvious with all the incels, red pillers, etc...

Women nowadays want to keep their men only for themselves, and therefore unknowingly limit their masculinity. And then they complain and wonder why they're not satisfied with them anymore. "Why is my husband not man enough?" or "Why is he cheating on me?". Well, now you know why. That's because y'all ladies are too damn possessive that it eventually comes back to bite us all in the ass.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Gesundheit

[John Iverson]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Women not only don't care what men want, they get offended and call men gross and shallow for wanting it.

So please spare me.

Imagine if men on this forum started a thread about the ideal pari of tits they want and how women should be more understanding and accommodating on this matter. It would be called outrageous and sexist.

Why women are like this, what made them like this? 

[Gesundheit]

1 minute ago, John Iverson said:

Why women are like this, what made them like this? 

Ego. Possessiveness. Blind selfishness.

[DnoReally]

@John Iverson  Don't bait me into an evolutionary psychology rant, I might get banned

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, John Iverson said:

Why women are like this, what made them like this? 

We are all deeply self-biased, men and women. But we must play games and deny it otherwise we appear too selfish and dishonest to ourselves, which undermines survival.

The function of survival is to be selfish while denying that you are doing so, portraying yourself as an innocent angel.

Notice how you do this all the time throughout your life, not just about sex. Governments and corporations behave this way too.

[Bando]

It seems like there's two points being made here, one talking about attraction the other talking about what it means to have a long fulfilling relationship. These are two separate things which both require different approaches, don't know why these threads always end up the same way, ill give it 5 more pages before it gets locked lol.

[knakoo]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Women not only don't care what men want, they get offended and call men gross and shallow and sexist for wanting it.

So please spare us.

Imagine if men on this forum started a thread about the ideal pair of tits they want and how women should be more understanding and accommodating on this matter. It would be called outrageous and sexist. Even though there is no fundamental difference between wanting a big pair of tits vs wanting a man who offers you "feminine containment".

Women routinely misrepresent what they are attracted to in men. This confuses many men. Hence I say some of the things I say to men, to clear up that confusion in their minds. The situation is asymmetrical because men do not misrepresemt what they are truly attracted to in women. It would be like telling everyone how vegan you are, but when you get to the restaurant you always choose the pork ribs rather than the salad. It's important for the chef to know that what you really eat is the ribs vs the salad so he can plan accordingly, regardless of what you tell yourself in your head.

Women's attraction is less honest and more convoluted. A man's attraction is more direct and straight forward.

So false equivalence indeed!

There is a difference in the sense that a big pair of tits play a role in the man's attraction, whereas a man providing feminine containment is mainly what a woman is looking for in a relationship. If a guy is actually looking for a big pair of tits as an essential criteria in a relationship, then it would be totally fair to call him shallow !

A man looking for a nurturing and loving woman would be the equivalent of a woman looking for a man providing feminine containment. 

On the other hand Big tits would equivalent to an man being charismatic/confident. You can argue that feminine containment is all about the man being confident, but then that just mean you don't get it. It is much more than that.

[Jodistrict]

Sex relations have deteriorated since the 1960s.   It use to be common for people to have 50 year wedding anniversaries.   The rigid sex roles gave guidance on what to expect and how to act.  Also, women in former times were psychologically stronger than they are today.  It also doesn’t help that postmodernists insist on inventing new genders by playing word games to confuse things even further.     

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Bando said:

It seems like there's two points being made here, one talking about attraction the other talking about what it means to have a long fulfilling relationship.

Yes, because these biases are baked into the male and female survival agenda.

To a man, the attraction is most relevant. To a woman, the relationship is more relevant. And each side will stress what is most relevant to them out of their selfish needs while discounting the importance of the other.

Self-bias 101.

[nahtanoj]

@zeroISinfinity lol

[RendHeaven]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

To a man, the attraction is most relevant. To a woman, the relationship is more relevant. And each side will stress what is most relevant to them out of their selfish needs.

This rings so fundamentally true.

I think there is a general misunderstanding that long term relationships = genuine happiness while short flings = hollow pleasure.

Hence, people take the female survival agenda of "long fulfilling relationship" to be more spiritually pure than the male survival agenda of "raw attraction" (conflating the focus on attraction with short flings and hollow pleasures).

In my experience though, the male survival problem of attraction is perpetually omnipresent. Even when I find myself in a long term relationship. She WILL leave if I lose my masculine sexual core. I must remain attractive if I desire to keep her. No negotiation.

Women don't really face this problem. It's not their responsibility in a relationship to "remain attractive." In fact, it's hard for them to become unattractive unless a decade goes by without them exercising lol, but such an extreme is still categorically different from the energetic attractiveness of a man which can devolve in a matter of days if he allows himself to be complacent.

That's just my biased male perspective.

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

She WILL leave if I lose my masculine sexual core. I must remain attractive if I desire to keep her. No negotiation.

Women don't really face this problem. It's not their responsibility in a relationship to "remain attractive." In fact, it's hard for them to become unattractive

Lol. What are you smoking?

Women worry all the time about the guy leaving her for a hotter, younger girl.

As a man you gotta suck ass for a woman to leave you once she's in love with you. It's effortless to keep women. It's much harder to keep men. A woman's reproductive value is dropping every year. A man's value increases every year if he's doing personal development work.

In this respect, relationships are much either for men than women. The hardest part for the man is the attraction phase -- which is why men focus on it almost exclusively.

Quote

That's just my biased male perspective.

Indeed

[Gili Trawangan]

I still get a slight sense of guilt when I read these threads, or watch Teal Swan's video, because a part of me thinks that I should perhaps try to offer a woman containment and just try to build a so-called healthy relationship. Sounds good on paper, even though I don't want to have children. Then I look back to my experiences and realize that every time I've tried to do that I got burned. Every single woman I've ever developed feelings for ended up cheating on me. Now, granted, that's as much a refection on the way I was at the time as it is on the women.

However, the one time I actually had a relationship for three years, and she was adamant about how much she loved me and how I was the one for her, I saw self-agenda and survival at play. She wanted children and I didn't. Even though I clearly told her I didn't want to have children, she somehow found a way to get pregnant (supposedly while being on birth control). I didn't push her for an abortion, even though I felt I got played. And as soon as I accepted my responsibility the tables turned. She went from "you're the only one for me" to "you know, we don't have to stay together. We can just have the baby and then go our separate ways". This happened literally overnight. It turned out to be a miscarriage, but that was a sight to see. Her priorities were clear once she had got what she wanted.

The problem I think many men have is that they long to be loved by a woman for who they are. And then reality kicks them in the ass over and over again, because women can be as ruthless as a cruel dictator. So can men, of course, it goes without saying. I'll come out and say it, I have a problem with trusting women. I don't give myself fully to women because every time I tried I got burned. I have the sense that as soon as she's not getting exactly what she wants or needs, she's out the door in three seconds (or even worse, first she finds another guy and cheats, then she's out the door).

The worst thing I can think of, from a man's POV, is offering the woman containment to the best of one's abilities, only to have her walk out a few years later because she's no longer getting whatever her agenda requires. And those years of offering containment, to the detriment of our own agenda (when we build something, we like to go all the way), simply go to waste. It's a gamble, for sure, and I understand those who are willing to take it. I also understand those who are not.

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Gili Trawangan said:

a part of me thinks that I should perhaps try to offer a woman containment and just try to build a so-called healthy relationship.

Of course you can and should still do that.

Containment is offered by being a strong man.

And nothing I say is anti- healthy relationships. One leads into the other. Once she falls in love with you, THEN you can offer her all the perks of a highly conscious and empathetic man. But not before.

Be like chocolate candy: hard exterior, a soft interior. She gets to taste the soft interior if she's willing to open her legs for you. In the end, this is what she really wants as well, so it will be a win-win. But just don't go discussing this strategy with her because she will never explicitly agree to it for game reasons. It must be implicit. Which is why you should not seek dating advice from women.