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

[Gesundheit]

5 hours ago, mmKay said:

@Leo Gura 

WHY am I attracted to a certain size and shape of titties , a tight ? peach ass and a cute "symetrical" face? 

I just cant crack it.

I've spent LONG time contemplating booties and I can't figure out why do I get so turned on and attracted when I see it.

I just do. And IDK why. But when I see it I instantly know if it would be smash or pass. 

Most of it is conditioning/media brainwashing.

Welcome to the unenlightened state.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Gesundheit

[mmKay]

17 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Most of it is conditioning/media brainwashing.

Welcome to the unenlightened state.

nah, it's the most authentic raw natural desire I've felt. It's not some kind of conditioning for sure .

[Gesundheit]

18 minutes ago, mmKay said:

nah, it's the most authentic raw natural desire I've felt. It's not some kind of conditioning for sure .

Ha!

So, are you claiming that if you were blind you would still be attracted to them ? as much?

+

Where does that most authentic raw natural desire go after you ejaculate? Why does it not remain true at all times?

Edited March 9, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Preety_India]

2 minutes ago, mmKay said:

nah, it's the most authentic raw natural desire I've felt. It's not some kind of conditioning for sure .

Actually @Gesundheit is right about it. It's how your brain is trained

It's the kind of porn you watch. If you were fed Japanese porn everyday  you will suddenly start getting attracted to Japanese women. But that's what the brain was fed with. 

Years of evolutionary processing and mating has trained and wired the brain to like big tits.. 

But this wiring can be replaced although it's hardened with time. 

But it can be changed. You can be induced to like or dislike anything in this world by simply feeding your brain and autosuggestion.. 

My brain has been trained to only find tall guys attractive. This is culture conditioning because everywhere I see a couple with a tall man and short girl. But If I'm constantly bombarded with a culture that assumes that shorter men are sexy, one day I will get used to it and start liking it. 

The example is in front of your eyes. 

In the 1920s people used to think that a big butt is socially unacceptable or gross. Girls with big butt very easily considered ugly. 

But see today at the trend. Girls like Kim Kardashian are famous for their large butt. The culture has shifted to like large butts. 

So now women want to have large butts because now that has become more attractive. 

The same thing goes for black dudes 

 

In 1920s a black dude would be considered unattractive because of racist theory surrounding black people. 

Today black dudes are one of the most sought after in the attraction game. Look at how many models of any race want to fuck a black dude. 

Kim Kardashian married a black dude. Would have been impossible in the 1920s.

 

Attraction is a brain game, like porn and video game. It is inherently meaningless. 

You can be attracted to anything once you get culturally and socially trained for it. There are no set rules. 

You can also unwind or lose your current attraction. How? Through trauma and experience. 

For example If you always dated a woman with big tits but every time she cheated on you and you got hurt, eventually you will stop looking at girls with big tits because all those girls will remind you of your ex girlfriends. You might even begin to hate big tits out of a reflex. Then you will turn your attention to small tits in the hopes of looking for luck there. 

The human brain is subject to continuous change. This includes anything including dating. 

If you didn't like Japanese food but you were force fed Japanese diet for years in a prison, you will start liking Japanese food. And stop complaining about it. 

In essence the human brain gets used to any survival thing present in the environment and starts accepting what is given to it. 

 

 

[Emerald]

5 hours ago, Etherial Cat said:

Well, isn't it the whole point of the conversation?

You keep repeating everyone that relationships are inherently biased towards survival. You frame absolutely everything towards this agenda, and dismiss any attempt to bring consciousness/love and truth to them.

Mind you, if you would hold this discourse in any other section (which you don't) I might not consider that you hold double standards. But check out how when it comes to business and politics, which are equally survival oriented, you're fostering and enforcing a position of conscious politics/businesss.

In fact, you do this for all sections BUT this one, bringing up plenty of biological essentialism to explain why survival gets to be at the forefront.

Surely. I agree that this is the standard. But again, assuming that a bunch of spiritual speakers with years of experience in relationships aren't seeing the limitation of the chimp game is selling ourself short.

What appears low consciousness and survival oriented to me is to boil down women primarily to their sexual value. Big tits and various explanation about reproductivity (which I really wonder why someone who doesn't want kids insist upon somewhat... much logic). And I have the feeling to be beaten in the box of wanting "Strong Emotioneless alpha Chad" as a justification for the low consciousness standards. 

The truth is when I read this thread, I have the feeling that someone conscious as you are is just falling upon a myriad of self-deception mechanism so he can justify his devilry and keep on banging hot girls with big tits. And this doesn't look much conscious because it simply isn't, hence the heavy enforcing suddenly on survival...

 

Yeah, too much weight in a reductionistic perspective on human survival and relationship as opposed to a holistic perspective on relationships that integrates the spiritual, mundane, and intellectual perspectives as well. He already has the foregone conclusion that relationship equals survival and nothing more, and he’s really attached to that.

It makes him see relationships as some zero-sum battle of the sexes where nothing of a higher consciousness is possible.

I understand why though. Men have an advantage from the survival  perspective, and it feels more comfortable to their ego as it helps them feel more in control and able to serve their biases better to block out any other perspective on relationships. Men usually stay jammed in this perspective because of insecurities that they feel about their own worthiness, so they like to frame the situation in a way that gives women a false sense of scarcity.

But with Leo and others who are theoretically interested in a more conscious orientation to the world, it is frustrating to see them staying only with their biased perspectives that are relatively true and comfortable to them and not the holistically true perspectives that will pop them out of their comfort zones. 

He even lumps a lot of things in with the survival perspective that aren’t a feature of that paradigm. It’s like whatever serves his preferences, he frames as survival... which is great for him being able to rationalize away his delivery and immature orientation to relationships.

What I see is that most of the women here are perfectly okay with men being more geared towards attraction but that men are really not okay with women being geared towards relationship. And that they feel it’s some battle between what will take precedence, as opposed to understanding that these things go together as two sides to one coin.

Meanwhile, most women are usually pretty good at pleasing me through making themselves attractive... but most men are struggling in the department of being a mature lover.

[Preety_India]

1 minute ago, Emerald said:

Yeah, too much weight in a reductionistic perspective on human survival and relationship as opposed to a holistic perspective on relationships that integrates the spiritual, mundane, and intellectual perspectives as well. He already has the foregone conclusion that relationship equals survival and nothing more, and he’s really attached to that.

It makes him see relationships as some zero-sum battle of the sexes where nothing of a higher consciousness is possible.

I understand why though. Men have an advantage from the survival  perspective, and it feels more comfortable to their ego as it helps them feel more in control and able to serve their biases better to block out any other perspective on relationships. Men usually stay jammed in this perspective because of insecurities that they feel about their own worthiness, so they like to frame the situation in a way that gives women a false sense of scarcity.

But with Leo and others who are theoretically interested in a more conscious orientation to the world, it is frustrating to see them staying only with their biased perspectives that are relatively true and comfortable to them and not the holistically true perspectives that will pop them out of their comfort zones. 

He even lumps a lot of things in with the survival perspective that aren’t a feature of that paradigm. It’s like whatever serves his preferences, he frames as survival... which is great for him being able to rationalize away his delivery and immature orientation to relationships.

What I see is that most of the women here are perfectly okay with men being more geared towards attraction but that men are really not okay with women being geared towards relationship. And that they feel it’s some battle between what will take precedence, as opposed to understanding that these things go together as two sides to one coin.

Meanwhile, most women are usually pretty good at pleasing me through making themselves attractive... but most men are struggling in the department of being a mature lover.

Totally totally agree. I wish women were given more space on this forum. 

Then we could be more open about what we want.

It feels like a woman's perspective is constantly heckled at. 

 

[RendHeaven]

@Emerald Do you honestly believe that your preferences are NOT survival?

You have to appreciate that Leo has seen the dark, twisted, backsides of survival that most humans deny. 

That which is not-survival certainly exists, but it's in our nature to pretend we've transcended survival when really that claim itself is naught but another layer of survival.

From LEO's POV, all of us, you and I included, are vastly underestimating survival. Hence that's all he talks about.

From our POV though, it's in our best survival interest to not understand him, and to dismiss him as "falsely framing everything as survival, because we see past survival unlike him"

[Farnaby]

@Emerald I think being geared towards intimacy vs. attraction is not the problem here and IME it's a false dichotomy. As you said (and I agree with it) we wouldn't be deeply satisfied without any intimacy in our lives. We both need it, men and women, or at least that has been my personal experience. 

However, what I think was triggering some men in this thread is the harsh judgement they received when they were blunt about how we like big tits, beautiful women, etc. As if this was in some way a less conscious/evolved preference than the need for intimacy. This, to me, is clearly coming from a place of spiritual ego, as in "we're better/more evolved than you because we value intimacy over physical attributes". 

I also think there are some deep feminine wounds around physical attributes, because as soon as someone mentions big tits a lot of women tend to feel objectified, like a piece of meat, etc. But then, at the same time you demand 100% honesty from us, no games and so on. So it's kind of a double-bind and contradictory message. 

IMO, if we truly want to be more conscious and spiritually developed, we need to be honest about our more instinctual desires, instead of judging them as "less than".

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

Totally totally agree. I wish women were given more space on this forum. 

Then we could be more open about what we want.

It feels like a woman's perspective is constantly heckled at. 

 

Yeah, lots of resistance. 

But also, it’s important to understand that women have lived in societies that are masculine oriented and thus need to be fluent in male perspective to get by. There were multiple times as a child/teenager where I would become wrapped up in thought and find myself thinking, “maybe I would understand this better if I were a girl.” Then suddenly realizing, “Duh... I am a girl.”

Contrast this with men who have specifically been discouraged from seeing things from the female perspective because society punishes men for deviating from masculine culture norms. 

So women are typically going to understand men a lot better than men are able to understand women. On top of that, there’s a lot of misrepresentation of the female perspective and also tons of resistance that men feel in relation to the feminine because of their indoctrination.

[RendHeaven]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But also, it’s important to understand that women have lived in societies that are masculine oriented and thus need to be fluent in male perspective to get by.

Wow, yeah, I take that totally for granted.

Are you willing to list a few concrete examples of being "fluent in male perspective to get by?"

(you know, because as a male I need a list of concrete examples to grock a lesson )

[Preety_India]

19 minutes ago, Farnaby said:

@Emerald I think being geared towards intimacy vs. attraction is not the problem here and IME it's a false dichotomy. As you said (and I agree with it) we wouldn't be deeply satisfied without any intimacy in our lives. We both need it, men and women, or at least that has been my personal experience. 

However, what I think was triggering some men in this thread is the harsh judgement they received when they were blunt about how we like big tits, beautiful women, etc. As if this was in some way a less conscious/evolved preference than the need for intimacy. This, to me, is clearly coming from a place of spiritual ego, as in "we're better/more evolved than you because we value intimacy over physical attributes". 

I also think there are some deep feminine wounds around physical attributes, because as soon as someone mentions big tits a lot of women tend to feel objectified, like a piece of meat, etc. But then, at the same time you demand 100% honesty from us, no games and so on. So it's kind of a double-bind and contradictory message. 

IMO, if we truly want to be more conscious and spiritually developed, we need to be honest about our more instinctual desires, instead of judging them as "less than".

Imagine if your child never fought back or talked back at you. You might wonder if they have Stockholm Syndrome. 

 

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Farnaby said:

@Emerald I think being geared towards intimacy vs. attraction is not the problem here and IME it's a false dichotomy. As you said (and I agree with it) we wouldn't be deeply satisfied without any intimacy in our lives. We both need it, men and women, or at least that has been my personal experience. 

However, what I think was triggering some men in this thread is the harsh judgement they received when they were blunt about how we like big tits, beautiful women, etc. As if this was in some way a less conscious/evolved preference than the need for intimacy. This, to me, is clearly coming from a place of spiritual ego, as in "we're better/more evolved than you because we value intimacy over physical attributes". 

I also think there are some deep feminine wounds around physical attributes, because as soon as someone mentions big tits a lot of women tend to feel objectified, like a piece of meat, etc. But then, at the same time you demand 100% honesty from us, no games and so on. So it's kind of a double-bind and contradictory message. 

IMO, if we truly want to be more conscious and spiritually developed, we need to be honest about our more instinctual desires, instead of judging them as "less than".

Again, I have no issues with men being attracted to big tits. I’m just saying that this isn’t equivalent to women being geared towards intimacy. 

What’s triggering is being solely appreciated for having big tits... especially because women age. So, if a man is only interested in women for having nice tits... that lines women up to be on some pump and dump assembly line of male conquests. This is especially triggering because we’re so oriented towards intimacy which can’t be had in that scenario where men are solely orienting to their biases.

This is why women who have a decent self-esteem will filter out men who are overtly focused towards liking big tits and other physical attributes. Such a man is detrimental to our emotional and mental wellbeing.

So, I’m not saying men’s biases are not valid. Nor am I saying that they should be Ignored.

I’m just saying that if women solely pursued their biases and disregarded men’s biases (which they typically don’t as women typically like to make themselves attractive), then there wouldn’t be any disastrous consequences. It may not be as much fun for men. But that’s about it. 

But if men solely pursue their biases and disregard women’s biases towards intimacy and connection (which happens A LOT of the time) then that incurs a high cost to women in particular but also to the health and wellbeing of society at large. 

The realm of dating/relationships/sexuality is under the blanket of the feminine principle for this reason as the feminine principle is geared towards species-preservation where the masculine principle is geared towards self-preservation.

And as such, women’s biases are more in alignment with species-preservation and human survival and wellbeing as that perspective inherently yields more pro-social outcomes. 

That doesn’t make men’s instincts less conscious in some way. But the sole pursuit of those instincts is unconscious and can lead individually to lack of fulfillment for both partners... but it can also lead to social decline if all men decided to only pursue their physical attractions without regard to anything else.

So, while men and women both have their biases, the outcomes of these biases are very different.

Also women tend to be very attuned to men’s biases, while men tend to just be attuned to their own without a deeper awareness of what the female bias is.

[Emerald]

49 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

Wow, yeah, I take that totally for granted.

Are you willing to list a few concrete examples of being "fluent in male perspective to get by?"

(you know, because as a male I need a list of concrete examples to grock a lesson )

One way is based in representation. This is the one that stands out the most. 

Male characters in media being both over-represented and better represented as 3-dimensional people. Contrast that with most female characters being underwritten and not seeming like real people... usually written by male writers. 

Also, there was a trope of the tomboy, depicted as an attractive woman who had all the feminine charms... but deeply masculine sensibilities. These were the best and most sympathetically written female characters at the time, while other female characters were usually written as bitchy and mean or simply too perfect to relate to.

And so, because of a lack of real feminine representation, the characters I identified most with and aspired to be like were male.

And then, until I hit my teen years, most texts would just use “he” as the general pronoun.

So, I just got so used to identifying with “he”. And then girlhood/womanhood was always depicted so ideally and 2 dimensionally that I could never identify with it.

And so, even though these are fictitious representations, it has lined me up to have a habit of defaulting to seeing things from men’s POV because I’ve been indoctrinated to identify with it. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Emerald

[roopepa]

I like Nahm's advice: feel good. What anyone ever wants, man or woman, is to feel good. If you are feeling great, people will be naturally attracted to you, as you have what they seek.

These conversations always make me feel like shit.

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, roopepa said:

I like Nahm's advice: feel good. What anyone ever wants, man or woman, is to feel good. If you are feeling great, people will be naturally attracted to you, as you have what they seek.

These conversations always make me feel like shit.

That really is what it boils down to. 

But these are important conversations to have. Otherwise having a relationship that feels good is not possible. You have to clear out the gunk first.

But of course, the goal is to feel good.

[Farnaby]

@Emerald hmm, do you really believe that deep down we're only attracted to physical attributes? Maybe I'm repressing my masculine side or I have a stronger "feminine" side than the average man, but I wouldn't be satisfied only with big tits. 

I think most men are also seeking intimacy, love, connection. We're just less in touch with those aspects or talk less openly about them because society has taught us that those are "girly" things. 

Having read a lot of your posts, I'm pretty sure we actually agree on that part: we both have similar needs and long for similar things, it just manifests differently and maybe in a different order when first meeting a person (i.e us being more focused on "hotness" and women more on personality traits and so on).

But I also think that women have been conditioned to put on a façade that says "hotness isn't important to me, I mostly value intimacy and personality". I'm not a woman so I can't speak for you, but I've noticed these incongruencies between what women say and how they act. Of course, we do this too, it's part of the game and ideally I would like everyone to be more honest so we can stop hiding our truth. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Farnaby

[Karmadhi]

@Leo Gura Honestly i would recommend you to shoot a very long detailed video talking about these dating stuff on purpose, tackling it from every pov ever so these gender wars can ease down. I am surprised how you have the nerve to still keep replying to the same comments (including mine, i am also guilty here).

 

[zeroISinfinity]

This thread is still going on. 

[jjer94]

Been lurking this thread and laughing my nonexistent ass off 

As a recovering nice guy, I figure I ought to share my experience with all of this.

Lots of insightful people on here. I think @Emerald's perspective is the most integrative one on the thread.

Relationship dynamics are incredibly nuanced — they're a tricky interplay between psychology, spirituality, biology, culture, and other systems. Everyone's at a different place, with different beliefs, different wounding patterns, etc., so different sets of advice will land differently for different people. 

Like a hyper-masculine dude would take well to listen to Emerald's advice about getting in touch with his feminine side — learning how to feel feelings with self-compassion and self-acceptance, even the ones that hurt. Learning how to express those feelings safely. Learning how to hold space for a woman's feelings without needing to fix or control them. 

I, on the other hand, have spent most of my life feeling my feelings and holding space. I was the highly sensitive boy who cried every other day, who had friends-that-were-girls who friendzoned me, was constantly bullied by hyper-masculine men...so I learned to repress my masculine energy pretty early on.

I am very familiar with holding space for all emotions, for myself and others. I do believe that intimacy (into-me-see) is about having the feminine safety to be able to healthily share any emotion ("I feel _____") and have it be accepted. 

But I am a stereotypical socially anxious beta male. I don't need to learn how to get in touch with my divine feminine — it's the divine masculine that I struggle to embody. It's the decisiveness, discipline, grit, leadership, reliability, drive, protectiveness, and focus that I crave to embody now more than ever. And I can't forget the biological element of this — that hormonally speaking, men are (generally) more wired to embody these qualities. 

I don't shun my inner nice guy anymore, though. I believe that nothing grows in shame — to try to "kill" the nice guy or be something other than what I am is counterproductive. It's the paradox of acceptance — accept the fact that you are what you are right now, and then you can change. You'll want to change naturally — to grow and express your genetic potential. 

While a lot of my fawning nice guy dynamics can be immature and manipulative, I can hold compassion for myself that I've had to be this way to survive the environment I've lived up to this point. I can also appreciate the niceness that is genuine, as well as my ability to be highly empathetic and considerate. 

The issue I find is that while there's a ton of role models of women who express their divine feminine, there are very few role models of men who express their divine masculine. Beyond Deida's Way of the Superior Man, Robert Bly's Iron John is a decent, poetic map for recovering nice guys. There's also Glover's No More Mr. Nice Guy and his men's circles around the country. I also recently discovered Sacred Sons, which seems like an awesome place to develop divine masculine. And who can forget Harville Hendrix and John Gray.

Now, and especially in the pandemic, we men are more lone wolves than ever. I think that's another huge factor. We've been taught this neoliberal nonsense of the rugged individualistic man that has never been in the history of humanity how men have behaved. No man is an island. Some of the best healing, I've found, comes from group work with other men. One of the best ways to kill polarity is to treat a woman like one of your bro friends instead of as your partner. Best to meet those bro needs with other bros. 

Anyway, my two cents. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by jjer94

[Parththakkar12]

1 minute ago, zeroISinfinity said:

This thread is still going on. 

Yes it is. And here we are, bumping it for no good reason.