Etherial Cat

@Parththakkar12 So, you are telling us that women are evil for having the right to deny sex from guys who only want to use them to dig their dicks?

This is not a male vs female issue, so there is no need to frame this as such. And also calling out the women on the forum for pointing out at this totally inadequate behavior is kinda strange because a lot of men have been also disapproving of his action as well. What are you doing out of this? What he did was not okay and he knows it. You are making him a disservice by siding with him and encouraging his spite.

100%

What is this non sense? What you've done is not okay and you should stop being in full denial or taking any type of satisfaction from it. Taking any type of pride, joy or relief, or having a fire "sparked in your eyes" is the sign of a major dysfunction. Stop approaching girls and go talk to your psychologist instead.

Probably one of the most profound and empathetic post written in a long time. I see what you see. Though, sometimes it is hard to keep this in mind, reading some of the stuff being said. Kudos to you for not getting triggered and staying so firmly grounded.

Aww... so adorable!

You've got this girl.

In general, I really question the idea of building a relationship with someone out of wanting something specific from them. Nowadays, I just meet people trying not to have much expectations to what it will develop into and let life do the sorting. When you meet a person, it is normal that they enter the acquaintance zone for a while. It takes time to discover someone and know who you are dealing with and what is the underlying potential of the relation. It allows to check the overall compatibility. Even when you enter an actual romantic relationship, you kinda have to act the same. Detachment of outcome is important. You need it to stay grounded and not be needy. That's also what makes someone attractive. Here is quote from Rumi I just found on patience and accepting the process..

You should talk about this with your psychologist during your next appointment.

Yes, of course. Your average bum is most likely a broken, unhealthy, low consciousness human. But let's not forget that you've got also people who give up on social status and material possession, because they see little meaning in it and hang out in limbo for a while after severing the tie with their previous life. You can't exclude the idea of meeting the Eckhart Tolle or Siddharta Gautama of the world in odd position at some point perhaps even hanging around your local train station. Eckhart Tolle was literally a bum hanging in parks and sleeping on London benches. Yet, even with that he was largely of higher value for society back then than your average psycho driving a Porsche and working in the City. The dude was fully enlightened and about to become a great spiritual teacher! So you can be a bum and still be high value even if it doesn't show. What I mean by that is that someone's value is not entirely tied to stuff that you can observe and quantify. And also from one day to the other, a "high value", financially at ease individual can lose it all. So I'd beware of assigning value in people mostly to transient/added things, outside of who they are on a character level for reason such as this. Most of the value you've got depends on who you are as a person and occurs on the being level. These are very desirable qualities, of course. But you can have all of them and still be an ass. These exist through different expressions. Basically they need to be incarnated with wisdom and balanced through some integrated feminine energy as well. So I'd say that they are great, but not sufficient. In a nutshell, ticking all of these boxes can still land you the Ramzan Kadirov of the world and someone who will not make a good partner. The "lofty spiritual values" are kinda necessary for these qualities to be complete. Otherwise, what you've got is very likely a shadowy, ego-driven sort of masculinity. So... Aren't we agreeing here?

I've bought the book on audible like 2-3 days ago. It really seems like a book that deserve a read.

Why aren't you driving a Ferrari, or going systematically for the most appealing superficial thing then? You might as well find much more value on a car that suits your actual needs and wants than jumping on the flashiest thing available- knowing that it comes with a set of inconveniences as well. Yes of course. I'm not denying this. It's very likely that I would be very much unattracted to a homeless hunchback. There is a threshold for sexual attraction, and a relationship can only flourish if the parties involved are able to sustain their bodies and not be too worried about their survival. So I would totally try to avoid this extreme, because it has very clear problem in there. But also, a homeless guy can be of far greater human value than a successful athlete. For instance, Rumi fell in love with Shams who was a penniless wanderer. And I've also read that Shams wasn't particularly attractive. We value in others what we value in general. And for me, at the end of the day, I value stuff like consciousness, self-love, respect, integrity, development and all that jazz. And while I also appreciate cash and physical attraction, I'm also well aware of its limitation. That's it. It's not that I am trying to be a special snowflake but that's the reflection of my experience.

A 6th tall player with a 10 million home can still be of low relationship material. Successful athletes like Tristan Thompson, or O.J Simpson are great illustration for that. It doesn't take much to see how these were premium quality mate for their female partners... Absolute trash! Anyway, I feel like you're missing the point here Leo. Of course, a wealthy, physically attractive man is much more appealing than its opposite. But it is not the sole criteria for value. These factors are great but not enough to guarentee a successful relationship. And the missing elements are what I am mostly interested in.

You shouldn't be valuing women just because they are hot. It's foolish. And she'd be an idiot to get in a relationship with you if that's what you care most about. If you value hotness primarily in a partner, you are missing out on all the other aspect that makes a relationship great. Hmm... No! Not at all high value. ? You are projecting your own masculine value system on women as a group in general. Your "bad boy with good vibes" has as much value to me than an old McChicken who's been sitting in the trash for days.

If you want to have a relationship with someone, it is clear that you should be attracted to them to some extend. But attractiveness is also subjective. A good bank balance is basically survival capital and it is of course very appreciable. But this shouldn't be part of the relationship goals. Ideally, you'd wish to have your own great bank balance instead of finding a partner with one. Otherwise, you are using your partner as an object towards a bank balance. Charm/conviviality is a nice quality. But it's great to have in any relationship with humans. In my opinion, your three "objective factors" are valuable to you, and while I see the appeal in them they are not "objective factors" and I don't base my value in a partner in them. So you're just projecting your value system on everyone else.

Value is extremely subjective though. Not everyone value the same things. I see that usually the men on this forum do not assign value to the same things as the women do, so the word "value" becomes an obstacle to a mutual understanding. This concept is a shape shifter and that's also a key element to keep in mind. More than only objective elements, I value things such as compatibility, common interests, intimacy, easiness, aligned vision, etc.. Also, I don't value a relationship with a man I'd be worried to lock "down". Let alone one that would make me feel like I need to bend over and crush my integrity to keep him. A rule that I have is that I want a man to be excited about me in the same way as I am excited about him. And I'd recommend everyone to have the same standard because it's important for the health of a relationship to have two parts that are feeling equally important, to avoid neediness and enmeshment.

??? You've nailed that analogy. McDonalds would also make a wonderful family name for Chad. Chad McDonalds. He lacked a surname and this one would fit him just perfect.

I feel like you didn't get what I said. Love is not selfless. Love is loving oneself and Oneself with a capital O at the same time. You cannot love in a total selfless way because your human form is limited by essence. It has prerequisites to maintain itself alive and in good health (physically, mentally etc). Self-love and self-respect are not concepts of a wounded ego. Self-love and self-respect is taking care of who you are and that doesn't mean it is taking care of your ego. Enlighten being all still have human needs. And fulfilling these needs do not make them selfish but self-loving. There is nothing wrong with needs as long as you do not operate from a place of greed and delusion. Eckhart Tolle, Ramana Maharshi or the Buddha operate/ed from SELF-LOVE and not from SELFISHNESS. There is two mode of operations. The way toward devilry or the way toward consciousness and universal love. When you are attracted towards selfishness, what you do is that you are acting against your holistic best interest and needs for the sake of a mental illusion which is the ego.

Yes, but that's being attracted to people who are driven by Self-Love. An unattractive morbidly obese guy with smelly feet, cumulating all the unattractive traits you have mentioned is very likely someone who is having a lot of emotional and self-esteem issues. Very "poor self-love", most likely. Humans are attracted to healthy behavior. And while Self-Love is attractive, devilish selfishness is repulsive. Two selfish asses are also not a match. What we like as human is to love people who are lovable and being lovable ourself. And of course, we want to love ourself as well. Putting yourself in danger or in financially trouble is not love. Forcing yourself to like someone who is not loving itself is not love either.

The type of selfishness being described here by Preety is not an egoic driven selfishness but a self-love driven one. Body integrity is self-respect. If both gender acts towards an egoic selfishness, they drift apart. If both gender acts towards Self-Love, they converge. People tend to confond these two facets of "selfishness". One leads to devilry and is unconscious, the other to harmony and is conscious.

Depends what is hiding behind the concept of selfishness maybe? Selfishness in the traditional lingo is the fulfillment of an ego-made sense of self's agenda without caring for your meta, holistic Self which is all what is. And this is "bad". But selfishness as a misnomer for Self-Love and giving yourself what you need and can enjoy while being still loving to "others" is totally fine and even optimum. This is the real "selfishness"... being so selfish that you give to all fragment of Yourself what it needs and deserve, beyond the little ego .

I'm gonna stop it here.

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.

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.

Yeah... but on a longer timeframe than the current hookup culture.