A Metaphor for Pick Up in Relation to Female Sexuality

[Consilience]

6 minutes ago, Bando said:

Theres a difference between conceptualy understanding meaningless sex won't make you fulfilled but its another thing to go through the act of having "meaningless sex" and then seeking out a more high quality experience. Most of the guys on this subform who make these pua threads are at the beginning stages of learning how to attract women in their life. Its irresponsible to tell them "Meaningless sex wont make you happy" when they cant even verify that out for themselves. Thats like a millionaire telling somebody whose poor, "Don't worry man having money doesn't make you a happier person."

Theres nothing profound in this thread, its common sense pickup is only attraction theory and you cannot build a healthy relationship out of attraction. Once your in a good place you then can focus on relationship building skills. 

You guys also have the wrong perception of pick up its does not equal "approach random girls and harass them", thats the type of vibe I get from you ladies when you speak on it. Its about being able to express your desire in an authentic, attractive way to woman you meet anywhere whether in your social circle, online or at a bar. Theres so much more to it then just cold approaching girls and you would know this if you were a guy that was actively dating women.

Pick up is only the beginning stages a man has to go through to develop the abundance mindset needed so that if a woman isn't a good match for him he can leave and find better. Women don't even understand how many options they have when it comes to dating they think the same applies to most men, when that cannot be further from the truth. As a young guy even if your confident your options will pale in comparison unless you learn what attracts women and force yourself to take action to gain experiences.

I don't care how self developed you are if you don't believe you can attract the right people in your life you'll never develop the right boundaries needed to have a successful relationship. You must go through the experience of dating and sleeping with multiple women to understand this. Its foolish to bank on the probability that the first woman you date is going to be the right one for you. 

What you find out as a young guy that has no experience dealing with woman is that its pretty difficult to attract women you want in your life thus some men will turn to pick up and those are the lucky ones. The rest just live a live of quiet desperation believing there's nothing they can do and settle for toxic relationships because they cant do better.

To the men who are in the pick up stage of their life, embrace it and go through it don't let the other members on this subforum gaslight you into believing its not necessary to develop if done correctly it will be one of the best experiences in your life that will positively shape your character.

 

/thread

Thank you sir, this is pretty much the perfect response. 

[RendHeaven]

1 hour ago, Bando said:

Thats like a millionaire telling somebody whose poor, "Don't worry man having money doesn't make you a happier person."

Bingo, I sniff this off of all of the forum girls a mile away. They feel like they have the "higher perspective" (and in many ways they do) so they're antsy to rush men to the finish line but they have no respect or acceptance for the male journey and the "lower" level of development that men need to personally go through first before coming out of the other end.

An even higher perspective simply accepts everyone where they're at, but it's hard to relay that to women who feel unheard.

1 hour ago, Bando said:

You guys also have the wrong perception of pick up its does not equal "approach random girls and harass them", thats the type of vibe I get from you ladies when you speak on it. Its about being able to express your desire in an authentic, attractive way to woman you meet anywhere whether in your social circle, online or at a bar. Theres so much more to it then just cold approaching girls and you would know this if you were a guy that was actively dating women.

Thank you. Yes.

It's almost comical seeing the mischaracterizations of pickup here. It's clear that the ladies attacking pickup have never seen a single pickup seminar or read a single pickup book, but they're very self-righteous in their judgement.

The toxic forum noobs screeching about approaching is not an accurate account of pickup. Leo writing "go approach" is not an accurate account of pickup.

This whole situation feels like the mirrored opposite of men calling out "toxic feminism" and refusing to identify as feminist... such men only do that because they think feminism is about women demanding superiority and generally being irritable - they attack feminism without even studying what feminism actually is.

Likewise, our lovely forum girls think pickup is about objectifying and harassing women and generally being irritable - so they attack pickup without even studying what pickup actually is. They're attacking the wrong thing!

Attack the corrupt individual and collective egos that are responsible for objectification and harassment, not pickup itself!

1 hour ago, Bando said:

To the men who are in the pick up stage of their life, embrace it and go through it don't let the other members on this subforum gaslight you into believing its not necessary

It really is gaslighting...

Edited July 20, 2021 by RendHeaven

[LastThursday]

58 minutes ago, Bando said:

To the men who are in the pick up stage of their life

I wasn't aware this was a stage in a man's life, but I suppose that was a figure of speech?

The question is, is pickup necessary for a man to get sex, love, confidence or shape his character? The answer is of course no. 

Can pickup provide all those things in one package? Potentially, yes.

Is pickup and the way it's talked about on this forum objectifying women? Yes.

[Preety_India]

Personally I'm sick of the objectification of women on this forum.

 

[Nos7algiK]

3 hours ago, 4201 said:

But you are never going to "solve" this core issue that "men generally don’t understand women". Personally I don't entirely agree with this statement. A more accurate one would be "people generally don't understand other people at all". They don't even understand themselves. There are a lot of very big systemic factors at play in this issue, namely the way boys and girls are raised in our society. Your attempts to help with this issue may be noble but I strongly doubt your solution will have the effect you desire, this desire "to change men".

This pretty much sums up the issue. I believe it only serves to harm out own personal development to make statements such as "men generally don't understand women" when it's a person to person concept regardless of sex. To be more accurate, it's a lack of self understanding as you already stated. But by saying "X doesn't understand Y" that only mean you as "Y" also fail to understand "X" to the point where that statement can no longer be valid. 

Many of these blanket statements or generalizations about the sexes I can somewhat agree with or at least see where the other person is coming from. But, this isn't a normal dating advice section. This is a forum based on self-actualization and the main goal of that is to understand ourselves and everything that comes with that. Once this is accomplished it's very easy to understand other. But, it's a bit more complicated than a logical processing of "other" due to the nature of the self and how it's both infinity and nothing at the same time. Rater we become extremally receptive and in-tune to the consciousness in our awareness that would be labeled as "other". Having an inner knowing, strong intuition, rather than an educational understanding. Part of this goal also is to dissolved gender serotyping or dynamics within relationships or social structures. If we can not merge the feminine/masculine as one and look at it from a whole. No matter what advice we give then it will also be within the extreme dualistic nature of said paradigm and will forever be a vicious cycle of the same repeated issues.

Edited July 20, 2021 by Nos7algiK

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, 4201 said:

I don't think that's how it works. You are never going to "change men". Naive men or men who believe in such ideas are going to go through life and get hurt because of them and learn thanks to them.

I'm trying to inform people about female sexuality and how it diverges from the viewpoints shared in pick-up. Let's cool it on the men getting hurt by knowing about the distortions of pick-up narrative. They will get far more hurt if they can't separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of what's actually true and what's simply useful to them.  

If you get frustrated because of something you dislike about a group of men, no attempts to change them will ever work in reality (perhaps you'd change 4 or 5 but this is a constantly changing demographic which attracts people who has those problems). The only way out of this frustration is to accept them as they are, they are part of reality, even if their beliefs are inconvenient to you.

That's a very defeatist mindset you have. You discount the power that people have to change other people's minds. And I am speaking the truth of my experience, which mirrors the experiences of most women I've spoken to on the topic. So, I will not stop speaking truth and dispelling falsehood just because some people aren't yet in a position where it's useful to them. And I will point out misrepresentation wherever i see it.

It's like I'm trying to go out there and "educate billionaires" on the unequality there is in not paying taxes, doing it from a place of frustation. Yeah as if... It'd be nice if we could just educate conservatives on vaccines too. In practice it's much more difficult than that, the target demographic must be open to what you have to say in the first place.

Many men are simply confused and don't know these things about female sexuality. I've gotten a lot of positive comments from men who are receptive to understanding more about how female sexuality is from a woman's pov. And it may not help them in the attraction process... but it will make them much better lovers in a relationship context if they remove the projection of falsehood from female sexuality and begin orienting to the deeper nature of it.

After all why would you need to be understood by a bunch of lonely men online? There are more developped people out there if that's what you want.

It isn't about them understanding me. I am not seeking a relationship with them and they don't need to understand me in particular. But they would be wise to understand the difference between truth and usefulness.

If they don't, they will get themselves stuck in a useful illusion... which is the most dangerous kind of illusion as they are the hardest to escape.

Plus, the illusions they hold about female sexuality often create misunderstandings that lead to self-esteem issues. In fact, many of the guys who struggle with meeting women are struggling because their views on how female sexual attraction work are incorrect and anxiety producing for them.

The very best thing for them, self-esteem wise, is to know the truth because the truth is genuinely much nicer to men than the falsehood they believe.

The truth may not give them techniques to get laid, but it will give them a more humanized view of women as opposed to seeing us as all-powerful demon angels up on a pedestal judging male worth and working only on our own selfish agenda. And this will confer a much calmer and more detached attitude when they're around women.

But you are never going to "solve" this core issue that "men generally don’t understand women". Personally I don't entirely agree with this statement. A more accurate one would be "people generally don't understand other people at all". They don't even understand themselves. There are a lot of very big systemic factors at play in this issue, namely the way boys and girls are raised in our society. Your attempts to help with this issue may be noble but I strongly doubt your solution will have the effect you desire, this desire "to change men".

Generally, people don't understand people.

But women do understand men a lot more than men understand women because the male perspective and male sexuality is much more well-known and well explored. And this does confer some major benefits to women, though the downside is that women are chronically misunderstood in the most ridiculous ways.

I think you'll find many women are quite fluent when it comes to understanding men because maleness is often seen as the default and we're used to adapting and identifying with it.

There were even times in my childhood where I'd get so deep in thought, and I would come to the conclusion that "maybe I could understand this better if I were female." And then I would realize that I was female. I was just so used to identifying  with maleness and to male pronouns because that was the default general pronoun at the time. And most humanized characters were male. So, I was very used to conceptualizing myself as male as many girls raised in my generation did.

But most men are nowhere near fluency when it comes to understanding women because men are usually discouraged from identifying with femininity. 

I would sincerely ponder on this desire to change men as any desire to change other people doesn't seem to be functional in my opinion. 

Again, I come here to spar and help. It is my way of crystalizing insights and sharpening my blade. But I am extra frustrated right now. So, I've been a bit sharper in recent months. 

 

[soos_mite_ah]

12 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

In my experience, whenever men say "don't ask a fish how to hunt," they're generally responding to claims such as "I want a guy who's nice and treats me well." Like yeah, we don't doubt that you want that, but you've conveniently assumed that the guy in question is already attractive. No matter how much an unattractive guy "treats you well," you're not going to spread your legs for him... because he's unattractive.

If you listen to any woman talking about the whole "nice guy" phenomenon, you will hear a bunch of people say that being nice and treating someone with respect is the bare minimum and is expected. And because it's the bare minimum, women aren't going to spread their legs for nice. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be nice and treat her well but you have to actually have a personality. And even that isn't guaranteed because you're not going to click with every woman and that's fine.  But if you don't do the bare minimum which is be respectful and do some weird creepy shit, she's not going to give you the time of day and she will be trying to think of an escape plan as yall talk. That's what we're talking about. 

13 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

14 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

You're ascribing how you think men ought to be upon men.

 

And what about it? I can accept the situation with where men ae at right now where many of them can't form close friendships with each other because of some masculine ideal. I can accept that this is in fact a problem. And I can accept that there is a way that it ought to be to benefit both parties and that we should aim for that ideal by accepting and addressing the actual problems by seeing them as what they are, problems that are harming everyone especially men. 

You can be in a place of acceptance and still demand better. Acceptance isn't the same as complacency. 

[4201]

@Emerald Fair points. I'm not saying it's not possible to change people's mind but there are many ways to do this, some more effective than others. I tend to think getting into someone's state of mind and talking to them individually seems to be a better technique rather than opening a big "mega thread" about what you dislike in a group's opinion. But fair enough you might have changed minds with this technique.

You offer an interesting perspective when it comes to understanding the world "as men" or "as women". But it's important to keep in mind we only have our own experience, which we can label "as men" or "as women". Perhaps you've had very deep friendships with a lot of different women which make you somewhat comfortable claiming things about women and men in general. But you could always find a different women who has a different definition of what it means for her to be understood.

The truth is you are a unique invidivual with your unique experience. No matter how much I "understand women" as a group, through various super deep relationships perhaps, it's not like I know you until I get to know you. I think the whole premise of trying to "understand women" is broken and fails to acknowledge the individual that is in front of you.

What's the value in those stereotypes of how men/women behave or want? Perhaps you give it some value because you need those concepts to identify as a teacher or as someone who has a deep understanding of sexuality. But personally, I just think it's better off trying to understand someone entirely on who they are rather than trying to use stereotypes based on their gender. To that I need no education nor concepts nor even understanding, I just need to be in the present moment and attentive to how the person I'm talking to feels.

Again, I come here to spar and help. It is my way of crystalizing insights and sharpening my blade. But I am extra frustrated right now. So, I've been a bit sharper in recent months. 

I sincerely doubt that this identification with "being sharp" nor this debate is helping your emotional state. You may unconsciously be trying to turn your frustration against your ex for not understanding you into frustration against people of this forum for not understanding "women". I just don't believe in this particular method of teaching yet I do believe that teaching is possible, although it is best done from a peace state of mind, from a place of love not frustration.

 

[Jacob Morres]

20 minutes ago, 4201 said:

I just don't believe in this particular method of teaching yet I do believe that teaching is possible, although it is best done from a peace state of mind, from a place of love not frustration.

This

Leo himself says that teachings that come from judgement and criticism are not holisitic and will be very narrow and to generally not trust them.

It's okay. The only reason I know this is because I've been on both sides of the coin. So I have empathy for it 

But I def don't think it's an appropriate (or even useful) method generally.
 

Edited July 20, 2021 by Jacob Morres

[Nos7algiK]

1 hour ago, 4201 said:

What's the value in those stereotypes of how men/women behave or want? Perhaps you give it some value because you need those concepts to identify as a teacher or as someone who has a deep understanding of sexuality. But personally, I just think it's better off trying to understand someone entirely on who they are rather than trying to use stereotypes based on their gender. To that I need no education nor concepts nor even understanding, I just need to be in the present moment and attentive to how the person I'm talking to feels.

 

1 hour ago, 4201 said:

I just don't believe in this particular method of teaching yet I do believe that teaching is possible, although it is best done from a peace state of mind, from a place of love not frustration.

 Well said. This ideology resonates with me deeply and  have had much personal success(friendship/dating) remaining present in this mindset with both men and women.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, 4201 said:

@Emerald Fair points. I'm not saying it's not possible to change people's mind but there are many ways to do this, some more effective than others. I tend to think getting into someone's state of mind and talking to them individually seems to be a better technique rather than opening a big "mega thread" about what you dislike in a group's opinion. But fair enough you might have changed minds with this technique.

It is helpful to point it out the problems in something. Leo himself, did a whole rant video criticizing pick up. So, if you're complaining about that from me pointing out a common issue with it, then take up issue with him too. 

You offer an interesting perspective when it comes to understanding the world "as men" or "as women". But it's important to keep in mind we only have our own experience, which we can label "as men" or "as women". Perhaps you've had very deep friendships with a lot of different women which make you somewhat comfortable claiming things about women and men in general. But you could always find a different women who has a different definition of what it means for her to be understood.

The truth is you are a unique invidivual with your unique experience. No matter how much I "understand women" as a group, through various super deep relationships perhaps, it's not like I know you until I get to know you. I think the whole premise of trying to "understand women" is broken and fails to acknowledge the individual that is in front of you.

What's the value in those stereotypes of how men/women behave or want? Perhaps you give it some value because you need those concepts to identify as a teacher or as someone who has a deep understanding of sexuality. But personally, I just think it's better off trying to understand someone entirely on who they are rather than trying to use stereotypes based on their gender. To that I need no education nor concepts nor even understanding, I just need to be in the present moment and attentive to how the person I'm talking to feels.

Every person is unique on one level. But every person is also very much the same on another level. It just depends on which perspective you take. Both perspectives are valid and produce their own insights. 

But you can't speak about the patterns happening in the forest if you see the individual trees as being totally separate and unique from one another.

No insights can be discussed or gleaned if you lose sight of the forest for the trees. And you can't understand insights about the rule if you frame everything as an exception. 

And if you only see things from the perspective that every man and every woman's sexuality as unique, then you will miss the forest for the trees.

And the forest of feminine sexuality is mostly unexplored. So, it's very valuable for women to speak from their experiences individually. But it's also very valuable to be able to understand that which is universal or nearly universal about female sexuality. 

Again, I come here to spar and help. It is my way of crystalizing insights and sharpening my blade. But I am extra frustrated right now. So, I've been a bit sharper in recent months. 

I sincerely doubt that this identification with "being sharp" nor this debate is helping your emotional state. You may unconsciously be trying to turn your frustration against your ex for not understanding you into frustration against people of this forum for not understanding "women". I just don't believe in this particular method of teaching yet I do believe that teaching is possible, although it is best done from a peace state of mind, from a place of love not frustration.

Actually, it really does. It helps me work through things. I have a hard time expressing anger. And I will sublimate my anger through the channel of debate. It's similar to how someone may sublimate their anger into art, music, sports, etc. 

But this isn't just about my ex and I. Though I have been more irritable lately because I am processing the grief of it. That's why I've been more drawn to this forum. I feel like I can express my anger more easily because most people on here are pretty prickly and looking to spar.

But I've always been very adamant about educating people about female sexuality. I used to spar on here when my ex and I were together, and I'd read to him my responses and the men's responses and how unable to listen they were. And  we would both have a good vent about it, as it is just frustrating. 

 

[Gesundheit2]

8 hours ago, Emerald said:

Intimacy... which means being seen and understood by your another person... is a relationship need for women. It's also a relationship need for a man. Intimacy serves as the foundation for a good relationship.

It's just that men can still experience random sex with a woman without intimacy and still feel relatively satisfied with the experience.

For women, random sex without intimacy is high risk/low reward. The real spice of the relationship for women, is the intimacy. And without that, a sexual relationship with a man is pretty boring as it doesn't even scratch the surface of what's genuinely stimulating for us.

So, don't project men's insecurities onto women's sexuality and relationship needs. 

It would be like you saying, "Most men need sex to feel fulfilled in a relationship" and I would respond by saying... "That's just the insecurity talking." But no... it is genuinely something most men would require in order to feel that a relationship to a woman is fulfilling.

So, from the female perspective, a relationship where the man can't/doesn't see you or understand you is as dull and dry as a relationship with a woman who never expresses sexual desire for you.  

You're right, honey. I see and understand you.

Do you feel fulfilled now? Be honest 

[RendHeaven]

4 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

You're right, honey. I see and understand you.

Do you feel fulfilled now? Be honest 

Ew, that's so condescending.

[Etherial Cat]

Intimacy is like an intellectual/emotional penetration.

The closer you get to where someone "is" at currently and understand him/her, the more intimacy you have.

Most people do not see one another. The more you miss on who the person is, the more you are dealing with an idea of the person instead of seeing them for who they are.

You can be in a room with someone, or have sex with it and not actually being present with the person. You actually miss out on all its internal life, beyond the body.

Making of this a joke or something secondary is sad. Everyone should want intimacy. 

[Gesundheit2]

20 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Everyone should want intimacy. 

Inserting a "should" here shows that you totally miss my point.

Everyone wants intimacy, I'm not disapproving of it. And there are no shoulds or shouldn'ts with the truth. The point is just that it's not wise to derive/expect intimacy from external sources when you are the source of intimacy in the first place, not the other person.

Have you forgotten all the spiritual teachings? You are complete. You don't anyone to complete, see, or understand you.

Consider that you can feel (and have actually felt) intimacy even if the other person is completely indifferent of you. What does that tell you? It's all in your head. You are the source.

Edited July 20, 2021 by Gesundheit2

[Jacob Morres]

5 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Inserting a "should" here shows that you totally miss my point.

Everyone wants intimacy, I'm not disapproving of it. And there are no shoulds or shouldn'ts with the inevitable. The point is just that it's not wise to derive/expect intimacy from external sources when you are the source of intimacy, not the other person.

agree

5 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Have you forgotten all the spiritual teachings? You are complete. You don't anyone to complete, see, or understand you.

Consider that you can feel (and have actually felt) intimacy even if the other person is completely indifferent of you. What does that tell you? It's all in your head.

no way. way too spiritual and not practical. human needs like intimacy with others can take years to transcend . this is 'spiritual bypassing'

Edited July 20, 2021 by Jacob Morres

[Gesundheit2]

Just now, Jacob Morres said:

no way. way too spiritual and not practical. human needs like intimacy with others can take years to transcend 

That's your excuse, and you're free to hold on to it. Doesn't mean the truth shouldn't be spoken.

[Etherial Cat]

13 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Inserting a "should" here shows that you totally miss my point.

Everyone wants intimacy, I'm not disapproving of it. And there are no shoulds or shouldn'ts with the inevitable. The point is just that it's not wise to derive/expect intimacy from external sources when you are the source of intimacy, not the other person.

Have you forgotten all the spiritual teachings? You are complete. You don't anyone to complete, see, or understand you.

Consider that you can feel (and have actually felt) intimacy even if the other person is completely indifferent of you. What does that tell you? It's all in your head.

Intimacy always start with yourself. And you can anyway only understand in other what is part of your experience.

But if you are going to engage in a relationship with another human, having intimacy with them is mandatory. The quality of your relationship with them depends on it.

Communication, agenda, the understanding of feelings and intellectual position, going through the challenges and solving the problems that can arise all depends on intimacy. 

 

Edited July 20, 2021 by Etherial Cat

[Jacob Morres]

6 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

That's your excuse, and you're free to hold on to it. Doesn't mean the truth shouldn't be spoken.

it's literally textbook spiritual bypassing lol 

it's like saying "well all there is, is the present moment, so don't worry about it"

but that's only if that philosophy is truly embodied which takes a lot of work 

[Gesundheit2]

3 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

But if you are going to engage in a relationship with another human, having intimacy with them is mandatory. The quality of your relationship with them depends on it.

 

 

 

 

Absolutely not. Intimacy with another person is synonymous with being needy, since you don't actually need them but only imagine that you do.

If you are going to engage in a relationship with a child, letting them project intimacy onto you is understandable.

2 minutes ago, Jacob Morres said:

it's literally textbook spiritual bypassing lol 

it's like saying "well all there is, is the present moment, so don't worry about it"

but that's only if that philosophy is truly embodied which takes a lot of work 

Then how come I am almost there? I rarely (almost never) feel the need for another human being in my life.