Reoccurring pattern in this section

[RendHeaven]

6 hours ago, Hulia said:

But not dating! His perspective here is disgusting.

Oh boy. lol

[Hulia]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

@Hulia I think the word dominance here is used exclusively within the sexual context. Otherwise, Leo is feminist and encourages treating all women with respect (me too, btw). Dominance doesn't mean anything other than taking leadership in initiating sex and building up sexual tension/attraction.

I still insist that a lack of confidence is a prior problem. Leo should teach how to be confident and not how to show masculinity. Unconfident man is focused too much on himself during the date - is he masculine enough, does he say the right things, checking a girl only for reaction on himself and planning his next steps.

A confident man would forget himself and be interested in a women, be full of ATTENTION. That is what would make him irresistable and not being a shell or similiar bullshit. In fact we are completely at Leo´s area - abandoning the SELF and living effortlessly. I don´t know why he deviates in the matter of relationships and sees it as a separate part of life.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Hulia

[Gesundheit]

@Hulia I don't know. It seems you're conflating different things here. Confidence has nothing to do with attention, ime. In fact, most of the times, attention is interpreted as high interest, which in turn is interpreted as neediness, which is the biggest turn off. 

Confidence is something else entirely. It means being grounded in my own worth regardless of anyone else's opinions, including the girl/woman I'm interested in.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Hulia]

5 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

In fact, most of the times, attention is interpreted as high interest, which in turn is interpreted as neediness, which is the biggest turn off. 

 Obviously there are different kinds of ATTENTION. Selfless attention is not needy, since it´s not looking for a reward, it´s just there for the sake of itself - Attention (capital letter!). 

In fact we made a loop and landed at your quote in the initial post.

[Gesundheit]

4 hours ago, Hulia said:

Obviously there are different kinds of ATTENTION. Selfless attention is not needy, since it´s not looking for a reward, it´s just there for the sake of itself - Attention (capital letter!). 

I've heard several dating coaches saying that the amount of time a man spends with a woman equals attention. If he spends too much time on her, that's too much attention, and it's perceived as needy and unattractive. And the evidence suggests that a lot of women are attracted to unavailable men who don't give much of their time to her. The more non-sexual attention a man puts into a relationship, the less sexual attention the woman will put. And vice-versa. So it's a delicate balance. No one likes someone who's 100% available all the time. The moment a guy becomes too much available is the moment his woman will lose respect for him and start giving him less sexual attention. That's what dating coaches say about attention, and I find it true in my direct experience. Sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you refer to something else when you use the word attention. Please be clear with what you mean.

P.S. I prefer to stay clear and move away from terms such as selfish and selfless when discussing pragmatic issues. I don't think it's the most effective way to communicate ideas.

4 hours ago, Hulia said:

In fact we made a loop and landed at your quote in the initial post.

If you feel that way, then maybe think twice before posting. I'm not here to comfort you. I'm here to understand your perspective. What you do with mine is up to you.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Gesundheit

[intotheblack]

7 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Although, I don't particularly think that women are more developed than men, even regarding relationships. The fact that women care about intimate relationships doesn't automatically mean higher development. It's rather just different playing fields, so to speak. In the women's league, I agree that it is probably the case like you're suggesting. Women who are more mature usually seek a stable relationship, but again that doesn't necessarily apply for men. I think you're making the female perspective universal here. However, I don't claim to have perfect understanding here, so I could be wrong.

Btw i was referring more to the women on this forum that they are more developed.  But it has be known for ages that girls reach emotional maturity at a faster rate than boys. Im talking about emotions and intimacy. 
emotional development does come with spiritual development.  For men and women.
The more you self actualise the more emotionally mature you become, that is when you really become a man or a woman.  Most people stay at the teenager stage of development because of trauma or upbringing.  Emotional maturity comes with commitment and honesty.  Commitment to really cherish your loved one.. and that goes both ways. 
 

8 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Another thing that I don't find quite accurate is the description of the clash as women vs. boys. A more accurate description imo would be women vs girls lol.

That was just kind of a joke to describe the dynamic of the people who clash on the forum.  The more mature women clashing with the more immature guys.

 

8 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

I get it, though. Balance is better. You don't want an overly masculine nor do you want an overly feminine partner. You want a man who's integrated both the feminine and the masculine. However, I get the impression that you (ladies) think of Leo's dating advice as some political reformation for the new world order. When in fact, it's just advice for struggling males that don't yet have perfect relationship with their masculine side, that's all. It's like you're taking this issue to heart as if Leo's advice threatens femininity somehow.

Yes balance of course. 

and no, I was just commenting on how much people take everything leo says about dating as gospel instead of finding their own truth.. then become close minded to anyone else’s perspective. 

 And yeah I understand that people need guidance, it just ends up sounding like a Reddit forum or Craigslist most of the time. Lol. 
 

[Hulia]

35 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

I've heard several dating coaches saying that the amount of time a man spends with a woman equals attention. If he spends too much time on her, that's too much attention, and it's perceived as needy and unattractive. And the evidence suggests that a lot of women are attracted to unavailable men who don't give much of their time to her. The more non-sexual attention a man puts into a relationship, the less sexual attention the woman will put. And vice-versa. So it's a delicate balance. No one likes someone who's 100% available all the time. The moment a guy becomes too much available is the moment his woman will lose respect for him and start giving him less sexual attention. That's what dating coaches say about attention, and I find it true in my direct experience. Sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you refer to something else when you use the word attention. Please be clear with what you mean.

P.S. I prefer to stay clear and move away from terms such as selfish and selfless when discussing pragmatic issues. I don't think it's the most effective way to communicate ideas.

If you feel that way, then maybe think twice before posting. I'm not here to comfort you. I'm here to understand your perspective. What you do with mine is up to you.

Hey, are you trying to intimidate me with all that commands: be clear, think twice.. Otherwise, what? You won´t be available to understand my perspective?  

I would never-never have a date with somebody instructed by dating coaches. And I would very soon loose any interest towards a guy who doesn´t know what he wants, who is not sure, if he wants to see me, to hear me, to feel me. Like Leo instructs teenagers here - try with one, try with the other, with the third, with the forth, tills some desperate chicken gives you waht you want  

[intotheblack]

 

9 minutes ago, Hulia said:

Like Leo instructs teenagers here - try with one, try with the other, with the third, with the forth, tills some desperate chicken gives you waht you want

Hahaha so true 

[Gesundheit]

1 hour ago, intotheblack said:

Emotional maturity comes with commitment

In the women's league, yes. Because it serves a woman's survival agenda. Men are different. I don't think we can apply the same metrics on men to measure their growth and development, because it's a completely different league. Men and women are fundamentally different, biologically, esoterically, and culturally.

@Hulia Stay on topic, or take your emotional reactions somewhere else. This discussion has nothing to do with your person or my person.

[RendHeaven]

30 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Stay on topic, or take your emotional reactions somewhere else. This discussion has nothing to do with your person or my person.

Gee what a great listener you are...

[Gesundheit]

@RendHeaven Umm, fuck off?

[RendHeaven]

3 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

I'm here to understand your perspective.

@Gesundheit Someone's antsy 

[Gesundheit]

@RendHeaven This is what I'm calling out:

"Hey, are you trying to intimidate me with all that commands: be clear, think twice.. Otherwise, what? You won´t be available to understand my perspective?"

If you can't see how it’s sarcastic BS and has nothing to do with topic (which btw is very similar to what you're doing) then please fuck off.

[RendHeaven]

@Gesundheit She has a point. Your tone is highly aggressive and condescending.

Why should anyone take you seriously when it seems like all you do is lash out in response?

(not saying that that's actually what you're doing; key word = seems)

[Gesundheit]

@RendHeaven You're confusing assertiveness with aggressiveness. Stop derailing the thread with this nonsense. That's assertiveness.

Fuck off = aggressiveness.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Gesundheit

[jerrypua]

15 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

I'm trying to integrate women's perspectives here alongside dating coaches advice.

You don't need women's advice at all peasant.

All the info you need to attract pieces of pussy is already outside... why reinvent the wheel?

 

[Forestluv]

Overall: tone down the personal spats and crude language. 

[Gesundheit]

26 minutes ago, jerrypua said:

You don't need women's advice at all peasant.

All the info you need to attract pieces of pussy is already outside... why reinvent the wheel?

The wider the perspective, the better.

[jerrypua]

Just saying cuz most of the time women will tell you what they think they want, but not what they really want.

When they're giving you advice they're not looking out for you but them.

They don't care about the truth in female attraction but their survival.

They do not care about you little guy.

That's why you have to be very careful who you listen to and I guess the first rule of the game should be:

You do not listen to women's advice.

Some girls (if they're sufficiently conscious to know what they really want which is few) may be honest enough to tell you the truth, but... here we're talking about the average Jane's advice when it comes to dating.

On a different note, remember that all advice, insight or idea is pure hypothesis, and hypothesis without experience and feedback is just mental masturbation.

So, whoever's advice you take, go out and take it to practice and see if that really works in the real world, otherwise you're your wasting your time.

[Preety_India]

2 hours ago, Forestluv said:

Overall: tone down the personal spats and crude language. 

Glad that you're at least coming to the dating section. 

How is it going?