It's better for WOMEN to be ADORERS: understanding the balance of attraction

[StarStruck]

It's better for WOMEN to be ADORERS: understanding the balance of attraction

This is so true from my own exp.

This is my own twist:

The woman adores the son of man, son of man adores the son of god, and the son of god adores god himself.

In other words: man as an intermediate for this channelling of love.

Last week I had some things happened during my LSD trip with Christic energy. It was transformational.

[Spiral]

Must say, I’m a bit skeptical.  How does this play out in practice?

Edited March 20, 2023 by Spiral

[Something Funny]

@Lila9 can you recommend any?

[Emerald]

Men like the idea of an adoring woman in fantasy, but they don’t actually respond very well to it in reality.

And men certainly don’t fall in love by receiving adoration.

These male/female dynamics are important to understand…

- Women tend to fall in love by receiving.

- Men tend to fall in love by giving.

The more he gives and invests, the deeper he will love.

And the more she allows herself to receive of him, the deeper she will love.

This is the archetypal lover and beloved dynamic.

The lover must always adore the beloved a little bit more than that beloved adores the lover. 

And when a woman looks up to a man and has the default frame of adoration, it subtly communicates that she sees his value as higher and her value as lower.

And it foists the man up onto a pedestal and into the Feminine receiver/selector mode, while she tries to play the part of the Masculine giver as she gives her adoration unconditionally.

This is why doing things for a man to get him to be interested backfires.

This includes cooking for him, having sex with him, adoring him, cleaning for him, etc.

Men will certainly enjoy these things. But he won’t feel compelled to pursue because a woman in giving mode is in her Masculine energy.

Men are compelled to pursue challenging woman who make them chase a bit. This requires the woman to have relatively high standards to spark her feelings of adoration.

[Emerald]

It’s funny. I posted my reply before I watched the video.

And he’s saying similar things to me but only with women in the adorer mode and men in the adored mode.

But it’s archetypally backwards where women are in the Masculine lover mode and men are in the Feminine beloved mode.

Men don’t like being beloveds.

[mr_engineer]

19 minutes ago, Emerald said:

It’s funny. I posted my reply before I watched the video.

And he’s saying similar things to me but only with women in the adorer mode and men in the adored mode.

But it’s archetypally backwards where women are in the Masculine lover mode and men are in the Feminine beloved mode.

Men don’t like being beloveds.

LOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL. 

That is very funny. 

You're trolling, right?! 

[Emerald]

6 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

LOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL. 

That is very funny. 

You're trolling, right?! 

No, I was genuinely surprised to watch the video and find that he was speaking about similar archetypes and dynamic… just flipped around.

[mr_engineer]

16 minutes ago, Emerald said:

No, I was genuinely surprised to watch the video and find that he was speaking about similar archetypes and dynamic… just flipped around.

As a guy, what I can tell you is that being adored is much better than being the adorer. 

Being the adorer is conditioning from movies that's unnatural. 

It's an immature phase you go through when you're young, where women seem like these unattainable goddess-like beings. Because of which you screw up in your decisions of who you go for. Then, you learn and you get wiser. Then, you go through another 'b*tches ain't shit' phase. Which is also immature. Then, when you meet compatible women, you develop a discernment in terms of the right women for you. And then you make mature decisions with women. 

Do you honestly think that the 'adorers' 'adore' the one woman they 'adore' for good reasons?! Or, is the reality that they're young, they lack life-experience and if they knew what's out there, they would change their minds immediately?! 

[Emerald]

13 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

As a guy, what I can tell you is that being adored is much better than being the adorer. 

Being the adorer is conditioning from movies that's unnatural. 

It's an immature phase you go through when you're young, where women seem like these unattainable goddess-like beings. Because of which you screw up in your decisions of who you go for. Then, you learn and you get wiser. Then, you go through another 'b*tches ain't shit' phase. Which is also immature. Then, when you meet compatible women, you develop a discernment in terms of the right women for you. And then you make mature decisions with women. 

Do you honestly think that the 'adorers' 'adore' the one woman they 'adore' for good reasons?! Or, is the reality that they're young, they lack life-experience and if they knew what's out there, they would change their minds immediately?! 

Of course, don’t put a woman up on a pedestal.

But the archetypal story is Masculine Lover and Feminine Beloved.

And this dynamic where the man is more in the Lover position and giving love, and the woman is more in the Beloved position and receiving love tends to lead to deeper pair bonding and a mutually loving relationship that feels like home.

And it gives way to a stable and comfortable family to raise children within.

The opposite dynamic will lead to a situation where the woman loves and adores the man, and the man is pretty detached from the woman.

And she’ll feel the need to chase him. So, it will put her in her Masculine energy.

And the relationship will be like a very exciting and emotionally disregulating roller coaster ride where the woman will feel insecure and unable to relax because she senses he doesn’t love her.

Needless to say, this wouldn’t be a good dynamic to raise children in.

[mr_engineer]

@Emerald Isn't this a slippery slope into objectification for the woman, though?

Here's the thing - for someone to adore you, you have to stand out in some way. And, if the way you stand out isn't your choice, that's objectification. 

So, wouldn't any individual have to put in some effort into their personality and how they stand out? 

And, doesn't this run counter to the notion that 'you shouldn't chase men'? Because the point of standing out is to get this adoration, right?! 

[Arcangelo]

The title of the thread is cringe, and click baity for women.

 

[Something Funny]

@Lila9 wow, thanks 

[Emerald]

30 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

@Emerald Isn't this a slippery slope into objectification for the woman, though?

Here's the thing - for someone to adore you, you have to stand out in some way. And, if the way you stand out isn't your choice, that's objectification. 

So, wouldn't any individual have to put in some effort into their personality and how they stand out? 

And, doesn't this run counter to the notion that 'you shouldn't chase men'? Because the point of standing out is to get this adoration, right?! 

These are archetypes. I don’t make the rules.

But objectification simply means to view someone as an object… which means nothing about choice or standing out.

And the lover and beloved dynamic doesn’t have much to do with objectification. Though we could say that the beloved is the “object” of the lover’s desire.

But more than objectification, it’s a reflection of the archetypal love dynamic… from the mundane to the spiritual.

In terrestrial form, typically the man embodies the lover more often and the woman typically embodies the beloved more often. Though a healthy relationship dynamic oscillates a bit.

And on the spiritual level, God is the lover and all parts of its creation are his beloved.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Emerald

[Something Funny]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

These male/female dynamics are important to understand…

- Women tend to fall in love by receiving.

- Men tend to fall in love by giving.

The more he gives and invests, the deeper he will love.

And the more she allows herself to receive of him, the deeper she will love.

@Leo Gura what do you think about this? Doesn't it go against traditional pickup theory of being detached and not over investing in the girl? Which is supposed to make her more attracted to you?

@Emerald doesn't it go against women having a motherly role in a family? It's a feminine role to give love, care and empathy to children and masculine role to provide for them and protect them.

To me it makes sense that giving love is feminine by nature and should translate into other areas as well, no? Why would that be different in a man to woman relationship? 

[Emerald]

9 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

@Leo Gura what do you think about this? Doesn't it go against traditional pickup theory of being detached and not over investing in the girl? Which is supposed to make her more attracted to you?

@Emerald doesn't it go against women having a motherly role in a family? It's a feminine role to give love, care and empathy to children and masculine role to provide for them and protect them.

To me it makes sense that giving love is feminine by nature and should translate into other areas as well, no? Why would that be different in a man to woman relationship? 

A common dynamic in pick up is for men to usurp the power of the Feminine Beloved role to their own benefit. That way, they can awaken love in the woman without being in love themselves.

In this way, they can gain relationship to a woman (or women) without any of the vulnerability or loss of control that is required of the Lover.

And if they succeed at awakening love in the woman, she will shift out of her natural power and into the Masculine role to try to keep him.

—

The mother archetype is a different archetype from the Lover and Beloved.

But insofar as the Lover and Beloved apply in parent-child relationship, the parents play the Lover role and the children are the Beloveds.

Both nurturing and protecting are part and parcel to the (Masculine) Lover archetype… while being on the receiving end of that love and protection is when the (Feminine) Beloved is embodied.

But love is seen as culturally Feminine. 

But the Lover (the one who gives love) is archetypally Masculine.

It extends the most vulnerable parts of itself to give love deeply to all of its beloved creation.

The Lover archetype is repressed in men in our culture because we have a society that overvalues the Warrior and King archetypes in men… but undervalues the Magician and the Lover archetypes in men.

[Something Funny]

16 minutes ago, Emerald said:

In this way, they can gain relationship to a woman (or women) without any of the vulnerability or loss of control that is required of the Lover.

I can't help but feel that you only think that this is a good idea because you are a woman and of course as a woman it would benefit your survival if guys behaved this way.

Like honestly, as a guy, why would I risks going through all that trouble, be vulnerable, increase my chances of being taken for granted or friendzoned when I know that I can do the opposite and get a girl get super attracted and attached to me with much lesser risks?

If I am genuinely attracted to her as well and don't plan to mistreat her in any way then what's so wrong about it?

Edited March 21, 2023 by Something Funny

[Something Funny]

@Emerald also, to be honest, men also want to receive love and attention...

 

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Something Funny

[Emerald]

17 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

I can't help but feel that you only think that this is a good idea because you are a woman and of course as a woman it would benefit your survival if guys behaved this way.

Like honestly, as a guy, why would I risks going through all that trouble, be vulnerable, increase my chances of being taken for granted of friendzoned when I know that I can do the opposite and get a girl get super attracted and attached to me with much lesser risks?

If I am genuinely attracted to her as well and don't plan to mistreat her in any way then what's so wrong about it?

Take it slow. You don’t have to be super vulnerable up front. 

But for mutual love to happen, it must gradually unfold and you must both surrender to it.

This takes time and trust.

In the meantime, you can engage with the lighter aspects of the Lover - being playful, fun, flirtatious, etc.

It’s best to start out really chilled out about connecting.

But if a man tinkers around in the Lover role in the initial stages of attraction and hooks the woman… and then shifts himself in the Feminine Beloved role, where he is up on the pedestal… she will be in love and he will not.

He will be detached and she will be falling all over herself to keep him because she will sense his detachment and get really anxious that he will leave.

Not a healthy dynamic.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Emerald

[Emerald]

8 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

@Emerald also, to be honest, men also want to receive love and attention...

 

 

It’s not black and white. All people have the Masculine and the Feminine in them.

The woman’s Masculine side must also be the Lover to the man’s Feminine side.

For most, the dynamic will probably be around 80/20.

[Something Funny]

@Emerald okay, most of it makes sense now, but I am still skeptical abaout this part

5 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But if a man positions tinkers around in the Lover role in the initial stages of attraction and hooks the woman… and then shifts himself in the Feminine Beloved role, where he is up on the pedestal… she will be in love and he will not.

He will be detached and she will be falling all over herself to keep him because she will sense his detachment and get really anxious that he will leave

Why would I not love her. I feel like I would really appreciate it if a girl expressed her love to me. That would actually enable me to express love back to her.

And if she was only in the receiving role then I would restrict the amaount of love I express towards her. And would eventually breaak up with her probably cause what's the point of being in a relationship like that when you don't even feel loved...