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

[Gesundheit]

4 hours ago, intotheblack said:

Sounds like you just don’t really know what you want.  Which is fine.

How do you mean? I know exactly what I want. I want to fuck different girls. It can't get any clearer.

4 hours ago, intotheblack said:

But stop claiming that all guys have the same mindset as you.

First of all, it's not a mindset. It's a natural inclination. If I come here and say that maternal instinct is a mindset, you will disagree. Well, it's exactly the same thing as the desire to be a mother. On the most fundamental/subconscious level, it's the desire to be a father by spreading seeds everywhere possible.

Secondly, all my guy friends are the same, and I know plenty, like over a 100. And btw, being polyamorous has nothing to do with the worth of said women. So don't feel intimated by this possibility if that's the case. It's not about you. It's about us.

Thirdly, don't take what men say at face value. Of course he won't tell you he wants anyone other than you cuz then he won't get any from you. Navigating this can be tricky. And a lot of guys will lie to get what they want. But obviously, some of them are genuinely deluded, I'll give you that, so they might think they're above their animalistic instincts. I've been there. But now I know the truth.

Fourthly, why do you want me to stop? Even if I was completely wrong, why does it offend you to see me talking like that? Sounds like you're trying to maintain a narrative and you're afraid because it's being challenged by something that you intuitively know that it's true.

Fifthly, it's quite an evident fact that men are horny dogs. This is not a bad thing unless you demonize it. Men are and will always be polyamorous. Ask any man that is not temporarily deluded or has interest in you.

Sorry for destroying your utopian fantasy, but this is the nature of the beast. Some men think that women are angelic creatures. That doesn't actually make them angels. I used to put women on a pedestal when I was naive and deluded and didn't know a lot of women or much about them. In my experience, putting the opposite gender on a pedestal is an indicator of how little you know about them.

Male nature is selfish/cut-throat. Just like female nature. Welcome to reality.

4 hours ago, intotheblack said:

I think the porn is warping your mind a bit mate 

Actually, quite the opposite. Porn is showing me exactly what I want on the deepest levels. I would be lying if I said that I don't want a variety of girls. It's just not how my sexual desire works. You are in no position to assume things about me or to tell me what is right about myself and what's not. It's just your ego reacting to my truth.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Samuel Garcia]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

There is no way to get away from self-focus. BUT we can expand our experience of what "self" is. When we recognize that all is Self, then we can truly care about "others" as an extension of our Self.

But on the more instinctual level, all people need relationships to thrive. Not necessarily romantic relationships, but relationships nonetheless.

I like this point you raise about how we define our ''self''. What I am interested in here is being absolutely self-honest with what we think self is. Without any sort of psychedelic drug, for me it is hard to see other people as myself. Here I am typing here, and it is my responsibility to take care of this human Samuel here and I do not experience other people -- only my own experience. When you mention conscious relationships, it sounds nice seeing a partner as ''self''. But would you agree there is still an underlying bias there? For example, you still still be attracted to a certain person and you may have a great relationship with them. But you wouldn't date a homeless person, or someone who had serious mental health issues. There is still ego there. You'd drop what holds you back and brings you pain. Ultimately you as Emerald still must benefit from the relationship otherwise you'd leave. I don't think you are disputing that. But are you saying we can have ego, and at the same time see all as self?

I'd argue if you truly saw all as self, you wouldn't need social interaction. Because you realise you are not this limited body-mind! That is the point of this enlightenment stuff. You don't need psychological and emotional gain from others at all then what a limiting idea. The sages who supposedly have realised all is self, have given up all there desires. Many of them don't even go out to help the world, when it seems the world needs it. Yet they say all is the Self and don't bother helping others at all. But I  don't see all as self so I do not know. Who knows what is the consequence of seeing all as self? 

I'd think that if you think all is self, then you might want to help others perhaps like a Mother Theresa for example because at that point you don't have social needs. In my opinion, I think there is some self-deception when seeing a partner as extension of oneself. It ultimately serves a purpose, whether to fulfil each other, or to get along in life like in a hypothetical enlightened, celibate relationship. I'm finding it hard to be convinced that relationships are not about fulfilling the individual self's desires. Nothing wrong with that of course.

 

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

So, that's the issue with the way you and Leo seem to be thinking about "selfish" drives. You consider them shallow... but that adds a lot of ideas onto them that simply aren't there.

Wouldn't you consider a guy considering a girl's body as what is attractive in a women of all things shallow? I said this is shallow from a personal development viewpoint, and not necessary true of course. It is what it is. But as egoic humans who want to self-actualise, we can have opinions about it. Equally, we can view relationships where we seek love in another shallow -- because that is not ideal. Nor is it where love we seek is found.

[knakoo]

47 minutes ago, integral said:

@knakoo Fantastic comment, the only reason i know its the truth is because im living it. But i think it takes some lucky life conditions to get the insights to operate this way. Its not going to be enough to describe it to them, they need practical training advice for each step. Also im guessing your personality type is naturally suited for observation and being present.

In the MBTI world, this mode of operating and results described in your comment is a common pattern for some INTJs. Ive seen it many times (star struck attraction women get). 

Im assuming all of this came naturally to you like it did with me? Or did you read a number of books and practiced?

No I used to have a lot of trauma related to my mum and I was hopeless with women for most of my life. It's doing a lot of "pick up" and my awakening process that made it possible to operate this way. I am not sure it is possible for a guy to be this way if he has not awaken to some degree.

Edited March 10, 2021 by knakoo

[integral]

@knakoo I see makes sense.

I think this is a similar attraction a guru has, their presents and communication style is enough to show people a new way to being they never knew was possible. Just being in their presents is enough to change someone.

The women are seeing in you a whole new world, can cause them to change their lives and is the ultimate seduction. 

If i had to discribe it with spiral dynamics, i would say they are intuiting tier 2 for the first time in small dosages. 

[integral]

@Preety_India Check out knakoo's comment, a great insight on tier 2 dating. 

[integral]

1 hour ago, knakoo said:

Following is a amazing post to illustrate feminine containment, that can be present from the first date. I shared it on another thread before but I feel like sharing it here as well.

Step 2 : Building a safe environment, is the most relevant here, but I recommend you read the whole thing.

If you are a guy who has been doing pick up for many years this could be very useful, like it was for me. 

If you are a girl it will give you an example of a man ready for a conscious relationship.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/dnjzzo/dont_try_to_get_her_interested_attraction_is/

 

One thing I see a lot on this sub is questions about interest : "I want to know is she is interested", "I think she was interested but I couldn't escalate", "How to make that girl interested ?" and so on. I feel like addressing that, and would welcome any feedback or comments.

Interest is mental. It's in your head, it's rational, it's in control. Excitement is in your body, you feel it inside you. It's a powerful force that you can't control. Imagine you're going to see a movie, one you tell yourself "oh I'm really interested to see that movie", and the other one "Oh I'm so excited to see that movie !". Do you feel the difference ? In your opinion, which one will you go for ?

I had a discussion yesterday with one of my LTRs. She was telling me about this guy she had a date with. She told me "It went very well. I want to see him again but I'm afraid he will think there is seduction going on between us". I was surprised, and feeling bad for the poor guy, so I asked "well what makes you want to see him again if you don't want any seduction ?". And she told me he was very interesting, a fascinating person and discussion with him was smooth and intellectually stimulating. She would love to see him again. Obviously I told her he would probably like more than that and any guy I know after a date that went well would not be happy if the girl said "Hey I would love to see you again as friends".

I asked her : "but what's different with me ?" (our relationship is still pretty recent, we had sex on the first date and we connect very well physically). And she said something along the lines of "I don't know. I'm just so excited when I see you. I never know what will happen, and when we see each other I feel like my brain just melts and my body takes the lead".

I feel it's something that happens more and more often to me. I used to be all in my head, trying to show I was smart, funny, nice, interesting. I was focusing on looking good, demonstrate value, making money. And I didn't have nearly as much success as I do now. Now I have girls telling me that they have butterflies in their stomach when they think about me, that I'm always in their head. I just had a girl texting me three weeks after having sex telling me it was so profound that she made changes in her life and solved some long-lasting issues since then. So they talk about it to their friends, who obviously are very curious and interested when they meet me, and so on... So I never have to make an approach or use online dating, I just have an endless number of people wanting to meet me, interact with me, and eventually get into sensuality or sexuality with me, if excitement is there.

So, how to generate excitement ?

I think excitement goes in three steps :

Connecting to your body

Building a safe environment

Being in the flow

Step 1 : connecting to your body.

First paradox, you can't generate excitement if you're looking for excitement. Why ? Because "looking for something" is already being in your head. Right now, reading that text, picturing how it would fit in your life, what plans you can do about it, it's all in your head. You're probably asking yourself "is this worth it to read that wall of text ?", "Is this guy bullshitting or is it really an effective method ?". It's all mental.

What you need to look for is connecting to yourself. It's being inside yourself. Not only when you're with that girl, but all the time. Just noticing what goes inside you, without trying to change anything. When you have an emotion, observe how you feel. Don't rationalise, don't avoid it, just stay with it.

Go for yoga, meditation, massages, anything that gets you a connection to your body and sensations. Hug deeply the people you meet, friends and family. Get used to eye contact, be at peace with your body and your nakedness (yes, by that I mean being naked in front of people). Dance, move, let your body decide what is right for it. Danse in the streets, take care of your posture, take time to close your eyes and feel your breathing. Observe the little things around you like the wind in the trees, like children having fun.

When you're with a girl you like, shortcut your thoughts into your body. If you hear a voice telling you "oh my god, I wonder if she wants me to go for the kiss ?", focus on your breathing and sensations. If you tell yourself "oh shit I don't know what to say, she must be bored right now", just breath and put your consciousness in your body.

You're there right here and right now. You're perfect the way you are at this exact moment. Life is an experience, you can sit inside of you and enjoy, look at the movie that goes in front of you, and be present with any emotion or sensation.

Step 2 : Building a safe environment

You know what is preventing most girls to be in their body during interactions ? A perception of danger. During a first date, most guys will be stuck in their head trying to get laid, while most girls will be stuck in their head trying to protect themselves from getting in a situation they don't want.

Anxiety is the number one excitement-killer. It's the best way to not be in your body and even to dissociate (it's when you get completely disconnected from your body because the sensations are too difficult to handle. It's very important you know this so you can identify it and prevent it in yourself and the person you're with).

Number one safety-builder is consent. Basically the girl should feel at any point that she can decide what she wants and nothing is forced on her. There is no pression, no expectation other than for her to choose what she wants. It's especially true in the first steps of the interaction when there is still a bit of tension. Asking "can I touch your hand ?" instead of touching it directly will reassure her. Maybe she will be surprised, telling you "well of course you can, you don't have to ask !", but deep down she can rest a bit a be a bit more in her body.

Ask for questions that have yes / no answers. Like "do you want us to go to my place ?" and not "Where do you want to go ?". If she hesitates, diffuse the tension "Ok, I feel that's a maybe, so maybe we can take it as a no right now and see if that changes at some point". Just let her know that she can take her time to decide, and that anything that is not an enthusiastic yes is a no. That's what safety is.

Final tip for consent, the "thank you for you no" method. Whenever you hear someone declining your proposition, look at her in the eyes and say from your heart "thank you for your no". Why ? Because saying no is hard. Many girls are afraid to say no to guys because they don't want to hurt their feeling, they don't them to be frustrated, they don't want to argue. By saying that you put value on her being able to say what is right for her and affirming her boundaries. That's also great for you because you don't want anyone to do something with you they don't want to do, right ? I can't overstate how powerful it is and how I have seen some girls completely drop all their mental barriers after hearing that. Of course you have to really mean it, if you ask again 3 minutes later or if you show frustration, it doesn't do any good 

Another way to build safety is to have emotional and vulnerable discussion. The question "how do you feel ?" (and NOT "are you okay ?") is your best friend. You can ask it at any moment about anything. Go deep, don't stay on the surface. Learn to be vulnerable. Vulnerability is the most attractive trait in a human being. Scientific experiences have been made that show that we connect through our vulnerabilities (look at "the power of vulnerability" Ted Talk if you haven't already). The more you'll be able to talk about your emotions, your fears, your struggles, your emotional wounds, even your relationship to your parents, the more quickly you will build a deep sense of connection and security. Whatever is shared, especially if that's something emotional, welcome it and don't judge it. Listen attentively, and thank her for being herself in front of you. Most people never hear a thanks for just opening to someone, but that's very courageous. Be willing to show who you are, even the parts you struggle to love, and be open to welcome fully that person.

I need to precise something : you're not trying to please her. If you try to please her and agree with everything she says because you fear she will not like you, you will end up in the "boring zone" (which is the real name of the friend zone, being friends is great, being boring is not). Be honest and don't try to be liked, just try to integrate that person into your world, to make her feel at home in the interaction with you. Like she would with someone she has known for a long time and feel intimate with.

Step 3 : being in the flow

Ok so now you're able to connect to your body at will and are not intruded by self-judging thoughts. The beautiful person in front of you is completely secure and ready to abandon herself to her sensations. So what should you do ?

Nothing. There is nothing that should do. Don't try to impress her, don't try to "demonstrate value", don't try to escalate, and don't try to have sex. Instead, allow yourself to be who you are. What do you feel like doing ? Express what goes trough you. Be vulnerable, be authentic. If you feel awkward, say it, the other person probably feels it too. If you are afraid, share it ! If you want to touch her, ask for it. You want to be with her in a more intimate place ? Propose. You don't have anything to say ? Just contemplate the silence. You feel good ? Just say "I feel good when I'm with you". Smile if you feel like smiling, let spontaneity express itself through you (but don't ask yourself to be spontaneous !), be present and follow your intuition.

Being with the flow means not resisting to anything that life trows at you. She is expressing some negativity ? Don't consider it as a "shit test", it's just the expression of some insecurity. Take care of it. Be caring with everyone, but do not care about anything. Caring about someone is being present for that person, it's being deeply committed to make the experience as truthful and meaningful as possible. Caring about something is taking things personally, it's taking a no as a rejection, it's trying to make the person like you, it's putting expectations on what should happen.

When you're in the flow, you never know what will happen. This is something that I hear all the time "wow, I didn't expect us to have sex / to spend the full day together / to feel something so intense / to have so much fun". Why ? Because I didn't intend for any of those things to happen. I just tried to be present in the moment, listening to my desires and acting on them without expecting anything from the other person. Fulfilment doesn't come from reaching objectives that only generates more objectives. Fulfilment comes from loving the experience no matter what happens and feeling gratitude for being alive right here and right now.

Here are a few words I would advise to get rid of because they all put your power on external forces. You're better off without them :

Shit test : No one is testing you. You're yourself, there is nothing to test about that. Some reactions can generate anxiety inside you, and it's fine. Accept it as any emotion, smile, and stay connected to yourself.

Being rejected : you can't be rejected. You're a complete human being, nobody has the power to reject you. But they can decline your propositions. Start conversations with a closed question : "can I talk to you for a minute ?", "Can I sit with you ?". If you hear a no, just say "thank you for your no" and move on.

Cockblock : You can't be cockblocked if you're in the flow. The situation can change, people can interact, but it's not about you. A few days ago I was about to have a threesome when one of the girls' roommate got in the apartment in tears because of a break-up and we spent the evening giving her emotional support. Was I "cockblocked" ? No, I just adapted, took the change of situation as an opportunity to bring support to someone and made a deeper connection with three people. Use the word "opportunity" instead, it will change your mindset.

Physical type, as in "I'm not her physical type" : There is no physical type. Attraction is not about putting people into boxes. When a girl is attracted to you, she is not having a checklist of things you have and don't have, giving you a grade and then telling herself "hey, that's good enough for me". That's just mental bullshit. Attraction is about what you feel, what goes in your body. No matter how you look, you can still connect with anyone. You can build excitement, you can have a meaningful moment with no expectation.

League, as is "she's out of my league". There is no league. The most attractive guy I know is very average-looking. He's just magnetic, because he loves himself, he connects to his body, he builds the most amazing sense of safety and he is so much in the flow it's like he's synched to the other person. When he listens to you, it's like nobody has ever listened to you before. When he touches you, it's exactly the way you want to be touched. And there is never any pression to go forward or to do anything that is not right for you. The only important thing about appearance is that you love being in that body and you take care of it.

The more you practice being in the present moment, the easier it gets. After a while you'll realise that the girls you find the most attractive are also the ones that you connect with the most intensely. Why ? Because once you're not in your head, you will see beauty as something authentic and personal, not "this girl is pretty because she has nice make-up and good symmetry". You will go for physical features that appeal to you, that make sense to you. And your intuitive mind knows what is right for you.

It was a bit longer than expected, I hope it will help some of you. I can assure you that once you get into that authentic and mindful connection, seduction becomes like a dance. You let your mind go and deeply connect to yourself and the other person. You will see girls having a huge smile whenever they see you, you will have much better sex whenever you want and you will feel love and gratitude in your body and can share that feeling with the world.

I wish you all a wonderful journey.

 

[Gesundheit]

It hurts my spiritual ego to see this much of self-deception/selfishness/bias/ignorance/dishonesty/attachment/ego/closed-mindedness, especially when I see it coming from women who are supposedly more intuitive and spiritual than men. It's just so sad to me that they claim higher consciousness. It seems the women here are so disconnected from their intuitive core and mostly reacting from their logical/selfish mind. It's an exquisite scene of feminism going wrong.

Whoever you are, man or woman, you're a devil. Denying your devilry will only make you more of a devil rather than less.

Wake the fuck up!

[integral]

@Gesundheit There is a perfect song for this let me introduce you to it.

 

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Samuel Garcia said:

I like this point you raise about how we define our ''self''. What I am interested in here is being absolutely self-honest with what we think self is. Without any sort of psychedelic drug, for me it is hard to see other people as myself. Here I am typing here, and it is my responsibility to take care of this human Samuel here and I do not experience other people -- only my own experience. When you mention conscious relationships, it sounds nice seeing a partner as ''self''. But would you agree there is still an underlying bias there? For example, you still still be attracted to a certain person and you may have a great relationship with them. But you wouldn't date a homeless person, or someone who had serious mental health issues. There is still ego there. You'd drop what holds you back and brings you pain. Ultimately you as Emerald still must benefit from the relationship otherwise you'd leave. I don't think you are disputing that. But are you saying we can have ego, and at the same time see all as self?

Seeing someone (or something) as an extension of Self doesn't have to do with dating and relationships. 

There is unconditional love to be had for all things that are Self. But there is no such thing as unconditional relationship. 

Relationships require attraction and compatibility. And while that doesn't preclude the homeless or mentally ill from having relationships, it doesn't mean that you have to have relationship to everyone.

And yes, a healthy relationship means that both partners are benefiting and enjoying the partnership. 

If you begin self-sacrificing what you need/want in a relationship for the other person or the other person starts doing that for you, then it is not Self Loving.

But the ego is just the self-concept... nothing more.

And you can transcend the ego and see through the illusion of self, but relationships will still function conditionally because that is the nature of relationships... egoic or not.

It's important not to mince paradigms. There are the more spiritual paradigms of all being one and unconditional love. And then there are the more relative paradigms where there is separation.. and we have to be able to navigate that separation, even if we are in the state of ego transcendence and recognize the 'oneness' of things.

So, relationship is not inherently egoic. But it does require you to not bypass the truths of the relative paradigm.

Basically, don't invalidate relative truths by writing over them with absolute truths. You must hold space for both perspectives to really orient to life in a wise way.

1 hour ago, Samuel Garcia said:

I'd argue if you truly saw all as self, you wouldn't need social interaction. Because you realise you are not this limited body-mind! That is the point of this enlightenment stuff. You don't need psychological and emotional gain from others at all then what a limiting idea. The sages who supposedly have realised all is self, have given up all there desires. Many of them don't even go out to help the world, when it seems the world needs it. Yet they say all is the Self and don't bother helping others at all. But I  don't see all as self so I do not know. Who knows what is the consequence of seeing all as self? 

The need for social interaction is a fact of our biology.

And to deny the realities of body/mind and to make a distinction and to say that it is invalid is to have a dualistic way of thinking that raises the spiritual perspective over the relative perspective.

So, to truly be in a space of non-dual awareness, you must hold space for both the truths of the absolute and the truths of the body/mind reality. Parsing these things out and invalidating relative truths as lesser than the absolute is to create a false dichotomy.

1 hour ago, Samuel Garcia said:

I'd think that if you think all is self, then you might want to help others perhaps like a Mother Theresa for example because at that point you don't have social needs. In my opinion, I think there is some self-deception when seeing a partner as extension of oneself. It ultimately serves a purpose, whether to fulfil each other, or to get along in life like in a hypothetical enlightened, celibate relationship. I'm finding it hard to be convinced that relationships are not about fulfilling the individual self's desires. Nothing wrong with that of course.

Wouldn't you consider a guy considering a girl's body as what is attractive in a women of all things shallow? I said this is shallow from a personal development viewpoint, and not necessary true of course. It is what it is. But as egoic humans who want to self-actualise, we can have opinions about it. Equally, we can view relationships where we seek love in another shallow -- because that is not ideal. Nor is it where love we seek is found.

Mother Theresa was just as human as anyone else. And she did go through a lot of trauma early in life with losing her mother and had a huge faith crisis in her later years. She was very much human... just as enlightened people are very much human. So, enlightenment isn't about bypassing our human needs.

There is a saying, "Before enlightenment, chop wood carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood carry water." This means that practical work must still me done even after waking up to the truth of enlightenment. 

The same is true for meeting our human physical and emotional needs in the relative perspective. In the same way that enlightenment doesn't allow you to forego your physical need for food and water, it also doesn't allow you to forego your emotional needs for connection and community.

Enlightenment doesn't exist for you to be able to bypass your humanity. It exists so that you can be fully human and to realize your divine nature.

And this may seem strange to you, but your humanity is not lesser than your divinity in existential validity. It is all an expression of the same thing... which is Self. 

But relationships are for meeting your individual human needs. So, it does have to do with our relative nature that is couched in Maya. But so are our needs for food and water.

These needs are unwise to view as something egoic... because they are not stemming from the ego. They stem from the way that our biology and psychological system work. So, whether you are in an egoic perspective or have transcended your ego, you will still need food, water, connection, and relationship. And if you don't get those things, there will be negative physical or psychological consequences.

Enlightenment doesn't save you from the psychological consequences of unmet needs.  

But you shouldn't worry about the ego anyway. If you haven't awoken to the reality of the Self, it will not give you anything to suppress the drives that you assume wouldn't be there if you had. 

Listen to your emotions and your instincts and don't spiritually bypass them under the understanding that they're "egoic". 

Egoic won't mean anything helpful to you until you really experience a taste of what it is to transcend or dissolve it. A lot of people repress things because they assume they're egoic, and they end up facing with unnecessary suffering as a result. 

[Lyubov]

first message, what girls say they want... then they get it and all of a sudden they aren't interested

second comment, what attracts girls but then leaves confusion for guys 

ok my last gender wars comment 

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, knakoo said:

You have multiple girlfriends but you manage to have sex very rarely ? Please let me know how you manage that ! 

I've never said I have multiple girlfriends. You imagined that.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Lyubov said:

first message, what girls say they want... then they get it and all of a sudden they aren't interested

second comment, what attracts girls but then leaves confusion for guys 

ok my last gender wars comment 

I read this as someone who confessed their feelings in the middle of the night when their inhibitions were low. And then texted at noon the next day something to undo the confession for fear of being rejected or too vulnerable. I didn’t read it as fickleness. I read it as a confession and then regretting having confessed.

[Gesundheit]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

Seeing someone (or something) as an extension of Self doesn't have to do with dating and relationships. 

There is unconditional love to be had for all things that are Self. But there is no such thing as unconditional relationship. 

Relationships require attraction and compatibility. And while that doesn't preclude the homeless or mentally ill from having relationships, it doesn't mean that you have to have relationship to everyone.

And yes, a healthy relationship means that both partners are benefiting and enjoying the partnership. 

If you begin self-sacrificing what you need/want in a relationship for the other person or the other person starts doing that for you, then it is not Self Loving.

But the ego is just the self-concept... nothing more.

And you can transcend the ego and see through the illusion of self, but relationships will still function conditionally because that is the nature of relationships... egoic or not.

It's important not to mince paradigms. There are the more spiritual paradigms of all being one and unconditional love. And then there are the more relative paradigms where there is separation.. and we have to be able to navigate that separation, even if we are in the state of ego transcendence and recognize the 'oneness' of things.

So, relationship is not inherently egoic. But it does require you to not bypass the truths of the relative paradigm.

Basically, don't invalidate relative truths by writing over them with absolute truths. You must hold space for both perspectives to really orient to life in a wise way.

The need for social interaction is a fact of our biology.

And to deny the realities of body/mind and to make a distinction and to say that it is invalid is to have a dualistic way of thinking that raises the spiritual perspective over the relative perspective.

So, to truly be in a space of non-dual awareness, you must hold space for both the truths of the absolute and the truths of the body/mind reality. Parsing these things out and invalidating relative truths as lesser than the absolute is to create a false dichotomy.

Mother Theresa was just as human as anyone else. And she did go through a lot of trauma early in life with losing her mother and had a huge faith crisis in her later years. She was very much human... just as enlightened people are very much human. So, enlightenment isn't about bypassing our human needs.

There is a saying, "Before enlightenment, chop wood carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood carry water." This means that practical work must still me done even after waking up to the truth of enlightenment. 

The same is true for meeting our human physical and emotional needs in the relative perspective. In the same way that enlightenment doesn't allow you to forego your physical need for food and water, it also doesn't allow you to forego your emotional needs for connection and community.

Enlightenment doesn't exist for you to be able to bypass your humanity. It exists so that you can be fully human and to realize your divine nature.

And this may seem strange to you, but your humanity is not lesser than your divinity in existential validity. It is all an expression of the same thing... which is Self. 

But relationships are for meeting your individual human needs. So, it does have to do with our relative nature that is couched in Maya. But so are our needs for food and water.

These needs are unwise to view as something egoic... because they are not stemming from the ego. They stem from the way that our biology and psychological system work. So, whether you are in an egoic perspective or have transcended your ego, you will still need food, water, connection, and relationship. And if you don't get those things, there will be negative physical or psychological consequences.

Enlightenment doesn't save you from the psychological consequences of unmet needs.  

But you shouldn't worry about the ego anyway. If you haven't awoken to the reality of the Self, it will not give you anything to suppress the drives that you assume wouldn't be there if you had. 

Listen to your emotions and your instincts and don't spiritually bypass them under the understanding that they're "egoic". 

Egoic won't mean anything helpful to you until you really experience a taste of what it is to transcend or dissolve it. A lot of people repress things because they assume they're egoic, and they end up facing with unnecessary suffering as a result. 

The thing with enlightenment is that it removes falsehood and keeps the truth. So, it doesn't make sense to say that everything remains the same. It simply doesn't. I don't know what ideas you have about enlightenment, but it isn't as simple as realizing an insight and memorizing it forever. It's infinitely a lot more than that.

What you think right now is a need is not necessarily a need after enlightenment. For example, connection and relationships are not really a need. Anyone can survive without them, even in this unenlightened state.  Although, granted, most people won't survive well, but will still survive nonetheless. Watch this particular self-bias of your female agenda.

Before enlightenment, trauma will result in PTSD, shadow, mind-body complexes, bitterness, suffering, defence mechanisms, etc... 

After enlightenment, none. Trauma will not affect you anymore.

Enlightenment will free you from all the unnecessary "needs" that you once imagined are absolutely essential. It will make you a perfect human. Invincible. I've glimpsed that many times, and I'm moving towards it slowly.

The only necessary things to survive are air, food, and water. The rest are imaginary needs that are programmed into our DNA and psyche.

Sex is not necessary for survival, only for replication. Connection is not necessary for survival, only for the illusion of safety. Relationships are not necessary for survival, only for the ego's life story.

[zeroISinfinity]

2 hours ago, Lyubov said:

first message, what girls say they want... then they get it and all of a sudden they aren't interested

second comment, what attracts girls but then leaves confusion for guys 

ok my last gender wars comment 

Say goodbye to your gf. OMG what have you done. 

Prepare to get BSed now. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by zeroISinfinity

[zeroISinfinity]

Imagine sending this to her atm she is having sex with her lover. 

Sorry man just so funny. 

[intotheblack]

@Gesundheit Plenty of women don’t want to have children. But yeah I understand what you are saying, and agree with many parts.  All I was saying is that not all men want that.  Just like not all women want to be a mother.  Personally speaking, I never had a desire for a child.  Yes I have the typical traits of being loving and nurturing and wanting to take care of my loved ones,  but the thought of having a child is a huge responsibility which I’m not ready for, not to mention going through pregnancy and childbirth.  And if I get too old to have a baby I will choose to adopt.  By that point I will be wiser and more capable of bringing up a child.  You’ll probably tell me that I’m going against survival and that’s not what I really want, but that’s how I feel.  Just like there are men who feel differently than their natural survival instinct.  
And there is no utopian fantasy... love is possible and people do choose love over pleasure.  If that sounds utopian then so be it.  
I’ve experienced the harsh side of relationships, and would agree with you that men want to sleep with many women.  Doesn’t mean that some men don’t feel happy and fulfilled in a loving relationship.. or are you saying they only *think* they want that because theyre deluded? 
Yes maybe the relationship won’t last forever, and many fail.  I’d also say that many fail because of the lack of true intimacy and connection.  If you are in a relationship with someone whether they are male or female, if there is distance and no intimacy between you then of course it will fail... and what is the point of having the relationship if there is no intimacy? In that case they may aswell stay single.. a guy I know who is 39 has never had a real girlfriend, he has flings yes.  I’ve saw the side of him that has a longing for a loving partner, but he is an avoidant. 
Basically it all depends on your age and stage of life, also attachment style.  I think up until 30s most people are still exploring themselves and don’t wanna be tied down.  I was the same.. I had 1 boyfriend when I was 19-22 then another boyfriend at age 24-26... looking back though they were both toxic and I don’t count them as *real* relationships... but I learned a lot from them.  The rest of the time I was dating different people and travelling, I didn’t wanna be stuck in another relationship, I moved to another country and was single for 4 years. I’m 32 now and am in a relationship with a guy who is younger than me (shock!) for the past 2 years.. I only look 25 though haha. It started as long distance but now we live together...this is my first non toxic relationship.  Before that I had a pretty cynical view of love and relationships, and still do at times, but it’s all because of past trauma. You are probably one of the guys who think women past age 30 are low value and no good. Do I still worry about getting old and more unattractive in societies eyes? Of course. 
How is the polyamorous life going for you though? Did you actually have a secure loving relationship with someone before? Are the girls you date also non-monogamous ? 

Edited March 10, 2021 by intotheblack

[Hardkill]

22 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Isn't that obvious?

What guy actually likes those toothpick tomboy fashion models? They are good for some avant-garde pretentious art shows, but they are not what the average guy wants to nail.

If you want to know what average guys find hot and high-value, go to a porn site with user voting and search for 5-star rated videos. There you go. Not much mystery to it.

What guys like is very obvious. The problem is that women really dislike knowing what guys like because most of them ain't it

And hey, I get that. If I was a woman I wouldn't like it either. I would think its "gross" and shallow.

Women just want to be loved regardless of their looks. Unfortunately that's not how most men work.

Yeah, I honestly was never turned on by any of those skinny runway model girls and I really don’t see why most men would either. I guess it’s just like how most women aren’t actually turned on by men who look like bodybuilder freaks.

So then, does that also mean that even more feminine looking attractive mainstream female celebs who are broadly recognized around the world as gorgeous like Taylor Swift and Kendall Jenner who don’t have big tits and/or don’t have big round asses are actually not as hot as most of the top female pornstars and playmate models?

Edited March 10, 2021 by Hardkill

[Hulia]

8 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

First of all, it's not a mindset. It's a natural inclination. If I come here and say that maternal instinct is a mindset, you will disagree. Well, it's exactly the same thing as the desire to be a mother. On the most fundamental/subconscious level, it's the desire to be a father by spreading seeds everywhere possible.

You are wrong about it. Many women don´t want to be a mother. I know a lot. I have never had an explicit wish for it. It´s just curiosity and.. idk.. to have some occupation in life and a companian. 

I hate also this assumption that the women like to care and make the nest comfortable and clean and blah-blah.  I don´t like to care. Ok. maybe I am a caring person on a psycological level. But not on a materialistic one. I don´t care if my husband or even my child has eaten enough, delicios or whatsoever. As long as nobody is starving, everything is ok for me. 

I don´t have more predisposition to care ( cook, clean...) than a man. I hate when it is expected of me on the shere fact that I am a women.

It´s a trick of the men allowing then to be lazy and shift all the unpleasant chores to a woman, calling her caring and feminine. No!

[Hulia]

When I had my first job in Germany, they told me something like: At last we have a woman in our department, so that the order will be established and the cafe will become delicious... We guys are too stupid for that. ?????????? And I´ve got the better education and qualifications than anyone in our department. I can tell you, it was a shock for me to hear these offensive words. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Hulia

[Samuel Garcia]

6 hours ago, Emerald said:

If you begin self-sacrificing what you need/want in a relationship for the other person or the other person starts doing that for you, then it is not Self Loving.

But the ego is just the self-concept... nothing more.

And you can transcend the ego and see through the illusion of self, but relationships will still function conditionally because that is the nature of relationships... egoic or not.

It's important not to mince paradigms. There are the more spiritual paradigms of all being one and unconditional love. And then there are the more relative paradigms where there is separation.. and we have to be able to navigate that separation, even if we are in the state of ego transcendence and recognize the 'oneness' of things.

So, relationship is not inherently egoic. But it does require you to not bypass the truths of the relative paradigm

When I say ego, we are talking about an individuals bias -- ie survival for their needs and ideals. So would you agree there is not escaping that? You said relationships are conditional which true. The foundation for a conscious relationship and unconscious relationship is the same -- satisfying Emerald. The conscious relationship sure has more love involved but it is still conditional on you benefitting from it. That is survival.

6 hours ago, Emerald said:

But relationships are for meeting your individual human needs. So, it does have to do with our relative nature that is couched in Maya. But so are our needs for food and water.

Like many, I have sought love in a relationship but that never came to fruition. But just being honest about the years of struggle with women and being honest with myself has cut down the seeking significantly for me recently. Would you say I need an intimate relationship to be happy?

6 hours ago, Emerald said:

Listen to your emotions and your instincts and don't spiritually bypass them under the understanding that they're "egoic". 

Egoic won't mean anything helpful to you until you really experience a taste of what it is to transcend or dissolve it. A lot of people repress things because they assume they're egoic, and they end up facing with unnecessary suffering as a result.

Repressing ego is not helpful for sure. But its good to be honest about it. Men care about physical attraction women care about masculine containment -- both are egoic anyway, They both serve an individual's desires. That is survival, you see? If people realised this, then they would not seek love in a relationship as much as they recognise people care about themselves primarily. How is there an escape from that? There isn't (Well enlightenment but you don't quite agree so let's drop that.)