Normalization and generalization in dating.

[mr_engineer]

@Consept If you want to disagree with me, that's fine. But, I'd suggest you fully listen to what I'm saying before making up your mind. 

The masculine epistemology is facts-first. It is the way we see the world. It was previously animistic and superstitious, then science evolved and now we have this materialist-paradigm which is a part of the masculine epistemology. It is physically oriented towards physical survival. There is no doubt about its usefulness. 

The feminine epistemology is feelings-first. Now, I'm going to make the claim that a lot of New-Agers make, which is that your emotions are the key to your intuition. And, that energetically, we are all One. There is no separation on that level. So, it is spiritually oriented. 

Now, here's what religion did - it put men at the helm of everything, including being in positions of power in religion. When the pastor preaches to you who you are, what your morality is - this forms your identity. Because the pastor is a man, his understanding of the world, of religion is male-biased. Biased towards the masculine epistemology, facts-first. This is why heaven and hell are physical places in the Bible or whatever other scripture. (Keep in mind that morality also includes what's right vs wrong, what's true vs false. And what you hold as 'true' is your entire worldview. And if you disagree with people on what's 'fundamentally true', they will call you 'insane'.) 

This enterprise of defining our fundamental worldviews got taken over by science later on. It started defining 'the material world', who we are, what our physical needs are, etc. Again, the scientific-method is very physically oriented. I like to make the joke that if women ruled science, the scientific-establishment would be a lot less hard-nosed evidence-based and a lot more like the Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardry. (Does this remind you of the witch-trials?!) 

Come present day. Where we have these materialistic ideas of what men want and what women want. 

Now, what do women actually want? In their terms? Women want a man who makes them feel safe. If you ask women what they want, this is what they will tell you. 

Now, why do they pursue men with money in practice? Because we have been conditioned by a materialistic establishment that we are physically separate beings and that this is how physical survival works and money and power are the way to go. So, women's safety-meter makes them attracted to men with resources. 

What happens when a woman becomes enlightened?! All of this changes! Because, she's able to perceive that on an energetic level, we are One. And, that what you are attracted to is actually what you perceive to be able to meet your emotional-needs. And that emotional-need, is safety! (This thing about perception is big in marketing, by the way. Their market's perception of them is everything, that's how branding works.) 

The single biggest emotional-need that humans have from each other is love, connection, intimacy. And, when you don't have that, you are lonely. And this roots all of mental-illness. And, the human body actually perceives these needs to be more important than physical needs. The proof of that is that when a loved one dies, the body will prioritize processing the grief of that over eating food. 

When you use a feminine epistemology to perceive reality, this is what you actually see. You just need someone to teach you to do it. Which is by feeling your emotions. 

And, when you see that, your ideas of what will make you safe change radically. You stop assuming that a rich guy will make you feel safe. You stop wanting to go for narcissistic rich men and you will want to go for men who are more empathetic! 

Why does enlightenment help us get to seeing this? Because in the process of enlightenment, you do self-enquiry. And you disidentify from your physical body in that process. That is when you are able to perceive that the '3D physical body/physical world' is actually a construction of 5D building-blocks, so to speak, which are energetic/emotional in nature! This is where you can really disidentify from a masculine epistemology, because you disidentify from your body and mind. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by mr_engineer

[mr_engineer]

The reason I keep harping on the part where you embody your Life-Purpose is that it is one of the few ways to get rich that isn't narcissistic. And it is one of the few ways to bring in and keep genuinely good people in your life. 

If you are a narcissistic rich guy, the kind of women you attract will also be narcissistic gold-diggers. Who are totally lost in the rat-race. If what you want is love, not ideal. Even though, very interestingly, this is the redpiller's wet dream. 

[Consept]

@mr_engineer

Where I disagree fundamentally is your claim that women are not naturally evolved to be attracted to physical attributes or the ability to require resources. I'm not excluding that they are attracted or can be attracted to deeper things. But what you're suggesting is essentially a conspiracy theory that all the powerful men have gotten together over the years to influence what women are attracted to and that it has worked on them. It would be easier to just go with the reality that women's attraction has evolved over millions of years and men have tried to subvert that without lasting success as you can't change evolution that quickly. 

If you go as deep as what you're suggesting, the need for a romantic monogamous connection would most likely fade away and you'd just connect with people in general, rather than what you said you're doing which is improving your career and making yourself more confident so that you can find a woman that's suited to you and then get her in a one on one relationship, if you have enlightenment you won't need all of that. 

But anyway as a say you are fundamentally wrong on evolutionary biology, in that you're dismissing the whole field to hold up your theory, which to me doesn't make any sense as a lot of the findings literally play out in the real world. The fact that you're dismissive of such relevant research of what you're talking about would suggest that your mind isn't open to truth, you have decided upon your idea and it fits into your untested reality which is why it's hard for you to shift from it or even acknowledge different points of view. Have you noticed that you haven't conceded a single point or said you understood where anybody who engaged with this thread has come from, despite the fact most that have are way more experienced on the subject than you are? You should question why that is.

 

[mr_engineer]

17 minutes ago, Consept said:

Where I disagree fundamentally is your claim that women are not naturally evolved to be attracted to physical attributes or the ability to require resources. I'm not excluding that they are attracted or can be attracted to deeper things. But what you're suggesting is essentially a conspiracy theory that all the powerful men have gotten together over the years to influence what women are attracted to and that it has worked on them. It would be easier to just go with the reality that women's attraction has evolved over millions of years and men have tried to subvert that without lasting success as you can't change evolution that quickly. 

Why don't women tell you this to your face when you ask them what they want in a man, in that case? If you claim to know more about what women want than women do. 

For example, if you ask a man what he wants in a woman, he will have no issues describing the physical stuff. But, when you ask a woman what she wants, saying 'I want a rich guy' won't be intuitive, for sure. It'll be these airy-fairy things like 'confidence', 'someone who makes me feel safe', etc. This whole part about 'getting rich making you confident' is a male rationalization of what they're saying. And it doesn't have to be this way for every individual man. 

Now, yes, I am also making the claim that I know more about what women want than women do. The difference is that I do have female opinions backing me up. And I believe that some women have more consciousness and awareness than other women. 

17 minutes ago, Consept said:

If you go as deep as what you're suggesting, the need for a romantic monogamous connection would most likely fade away and you'd just connect with people in general, rather than what you said you're doing which is improving your career and making yourself more confident so that you can find a woman that's suited to you and then get her in a one on one relationship, if you have enlightenment you won't need all of that. 

Let's go even deeper. A 'romantic monogamous connection' is an illusion! And there is no 'need' for it. 

Now, why would I choose to create it, then?! Because it will be something worthwhile to experience. If you are God constructing all of reality, might as well construct a reality that feels good, than not. 

17 minutes ago, Consept said:

But anyway as a say you are fundamentally wrong on evolutionary biology, in that you're dismissing the whole field to hold up your theory, which to me doesn't make any sense as a lot of the findings literally play out in the real world. The fact that you're dismissive of such relevant research of what you're talking about would suggest that your mind isn't open to truth, you have decided upon your idea and it fits into your untested reality which is why it's hard for you to shift from it or even acknowledge different points of view. Have you noticed that you haven't conceded a single point or said you understood where anybody who engaged with this thread has come from, despite the fact most that have are way more experienced on the subject than you are? You should question why that is.

What you people are saying is highly cynical and limiting when it comes to finding love. And, I refuse to accept that. 

And, you keep bringing up this stuff about survival-drives. This has nothing to do with love! I don't actually buy it when you say that you have more experience than me. I have had some amazingly high-quality connections with women, platonically. I just didn't sleep with them. Apart from that, I'd say I have my fair share of experience experiencing 'love' and 'feminine energy'. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by mr_engineer

[Consept]

2 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

Why don't women tell you this to your face when you ask them what they want in a man, in that case? If you claim to know more about what women want than women do. 

For example, if you ask a man what he wants in a woman, he will have no issues describing the physical stuff. But, when you ask a woman what she wants, saying 'I want a rich guy' won't be intuitive, for sure. It'll be these airy-fairy things like 'confidence', 'someone who makes me feel safe', etc. This whole part about 'getting rich making you confident' is a male rationalization of what they're saying. And it doesn't have to be this way for every individual man. 

Now, yes, I am also making the claim that I know more about what women want than women do. The difference is that I do have female opinions backing me up. And I believe that some women have more consciousness and awareness than other women. 

Women and men may not be aware of why theyre attracted to what theyre attracted to, you would only be aware if you looked into evolutionary biology of humans. Women of course may say theyre attracted to confidence but the reason this is attractive is because it means that the man is likely to have confidence in life and be able to gather resources as well as look after the woman and her children, if throughout history low confidence men were able to gather resources more effectively then low confidence men would be more attractive. With men the reason why youth and fitness are attractive is because that signals fertility in women, this is why looking young is very important for women in terms of attraction. Wearing lipstick for example makes women more attractive to men as red lips are signal that the woman is ovulating as this is what happens naturally, men are not actively thinking about these things, theyre just thinking that the womens hot, but these are traits that have evolved over millions of years. 

'Getting rich making you confident' is a strawman, i didnt say you should get rich and then it makes you confident, its the other way round which is why confidence is actually more attractive than just having money, confidence is an indicator that you are resourceful and you can get what you want. If you got rich without being confident then youre trying to mask your lack of confidence. There are plenty of rich guys that are terrible at attracting women. 

 

3 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

Let's go even deeper. A 'romantic monogamous connection' is an illusion! And there is no 'need' for it. 

Now, why would I choose to create it, then?! Because it will be something worthwhile to experience. If you are God constructing all of reality, might as well construct a reality that feels good, than not. 

You choose to create it because you have these desires in you from your biology, if you were asexual or lost all your testosterone you probably wouldnt be bothered with attracting a woman, you definitely wouldnt have the thought process of improving your life situation so that you can have what you need to get the right woman. Your goal of attracting a woman is from your biology and from your ancestors and how they evolved , you may not like this and try to rationalise it by saying that all attraction is low level and youre above it but the fact is your still spending a good amount of time planning how youll find the right woman, this is not just a choice that you made for the sake of it. Take these biological urges away and you definitely wont choose to have that experience. 

 

3 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

What you people are saying is highly cynical and limiting when it comes to finding love. And, I refuse to accept that. 

And, you keep bringing up this stuff about survival-drives. This has nothing to do with love! I don't actually buy it when you say that you have more experience than me. I have had some amazingly high-quality connections with women, platonically. I just didn't sleep with them. Apart from that, I'd say I have my fair share of experience experiencing 'love' and 'feminine energy'. 

As i said love and attraction are two different things, no matter how much you talk you can not change what women are attracted to as much you cant change what youre attracted to and the fact that you wouldnt even consider an 'unattractive' woman because of the 'work' you put in would suggest that. I'm not saying that you cant and shouldnt try and get to true love, but i would say i think its actually quite difficult in romantic relationships, it is hard to have unconditional love in these circumstances, there will always be conditions on the relationship. 

In terms of experience, its not something i want to prove, but i am 37 and can guarantee you Im a lot more experienced than you are in this respect. Ive also had these deep conversations with women in intimate, vulnerable settings so when I speak it is from direct experience. I have actually learnt the most from women from my experiences with them and my initial ideas about them completely changed after these experiences, I dont know how old you are but if i talked to the me at lets say 18 I wouldve been completely clueless but probably thought i knew everything 

[mr_engineer]

@Consept I don't want to be a slave to my biology and I don't want a woman who is either. Believe it or not, there are women out there who recognize the importance of emotional-needs in relationships and for whom they are a priority over biological needs. 

Yes, biological needs exist. But, as I said earlier, it's a question of priorities. That is what shapes the way you do this. 

Does your experience say that? If it does, tell me more about it. If not, it was a pleasure discussing this with you. 

[Consept]

10 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

@Consept I don't want to be a slave to my biology and I don't want a woman who is either. Believe it or not, there are women out there who recognize the importance of emotional-needs in relationships and for whom they are a priority over biological needs. 

Yes, biological needs exist. But, as I said earlier, it's a question of priorities. That is what shapes the way you do this. 

Does your experience say that? If it does, tell me more about it. If not, it was a pleasure discussing this with you. 

Bro, I actually dont know how to explain it any better as much as ive tried. Of course most if not all women and even men actually, need their emotional needs fulfilled its very important. But without the biological needs being present there probably wouldnt be romantic relationships, it would just be close friendships if anything. As i said if you didnt have the biological need to be with a woman romantically you wouldnt care in the same way, asexual people, if they wanted a partner, would care more about compatibility and having a companion, they most likely wouldnt care about any biological needs. You on the other hand have said you wanted an attractive partner, therefore your biological needs are going to be inseparable from who youre attracted to and decision of who youre going to be with is not independent and not just based on emotional needs first. 

If my experience tells you something you dont agree with you want to dismiss it? Very open minded bro. But ill leave it here anyway