Etherial Cat

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.

Hmm... It's like, you interact with a person and follow the flow without having necessary special expectations about what this is, at first. Usually, you don't decide ahead either whether you are going to be friend with someone or not. There is a lot of detachment on the outcome at this stage. Then the thing takes off because there are some natural compatibility and there are cues given on both side that something is building up on the attraction level. For female, it is particularly reassuring because at this stage you know that the guy isn't there only to dip his dick and really likes you and vice versa. Starting right away with sexual/romantic intent comes off as fishy, especially if a platonic relation is not offered. And if you are a woman, you might get worried that he's only interested in your because it happens that you are his type physically, which comes off as a bit shallow.

Notice that it is you and Lucas who have been talking about friendship. In your case, you've been talking about it twice in capital letter. Friendship is not the right word, the idea is basically that you start platonically when you get to know someone. And it takes a bit of time to decide whether or not you vibe. At this point, it is totally ok to do a first move. Friendship is not a dating strategy and I don't think anybody here has ever claimed that it was a good one. In fact, there has been a few threads about how it is a bad idea to befriend women in the hope of dating them. That's not what is being talked about here.

I'm not talking about trying to become friend with a girl with the purpose of perhaps dating her. What is being discussed here is the case when you have a day-to-day relationship with a girl in your vicinity until you realize you want to date her because "there is a vibe". Ideally, you'd have plenty of people with whom you build acquaintance relationship/ friendship around. That's before initiating a potential move toward more because attraction is building up on both side after getting to know to each other. Anyway- this advice was directed toward female. Not male. But it also works that way sometimes for men.

This works also from a masculine perspective, by the way ?. I'm not saying you can't go through other means, but mocking Emerald's advice like you did doesn't make sense to me. Also... On my side, no sex before I know who is the person getting inside of me. I'm totally grossed out by the idea of letting a stranger in my body. I think this should be a standard and I would probably screen out anyone who's getting easily in bed with people based on mere sexual attraction without a deeper underlying thing. I anyway already do it.

The advice is far from being off. Usually, the way this works is that you notice someone you know in your circle and your interactions turns to something deeper than the surface level thingy. You see that it clicks, that you share interests and your energy are compatible. Slowly the vibe changes from normal to ambiguous. What is great in that context is that you get to know the person outside the context of just seduction. Because seduction is involving the persona and has this inherent competitive approach where both party want to win over the other one by being on its best behavior. The issue is that you don't get to see who that person is for a while in that way. Through spotting someone and getting to know each other on a more friendly base, you get to bypass a lot of that parade which I find undesirable.

3 months is rather short. You might scare the dude . Do you think your want to move in might be linked to the difficult place you are at emotionally due to what's up with your mum? If so, you could ask him if you could stay over at his place for a few days/weeks and kinda test the water. I also think it's better to go slowly and this looks like a fair compromise. If I were you, I wouldn't be keen on moving in directly without seeing how you actually spending some time together for a while works.

Thank you!

Thank you. Yes I really think that recognizing that pick-up has the ability both to help you develop your skills and lure you towards unattractive behavior and misconception is key.

I think you are missing the point here. Of course women love the fact that men are trying to make themselves more attractive for girls. But pick-up is un umbrella word which includes a lot of practices that are ultimately counter-productive and unattractive. I'm all for maximize dating related development lines, but I'm going to pin point at where traditional pick up is off. And one of these place where it is off is when men see relationship is a zero sum game or a win-lose or a lose-win. Typically, reading our comments and thinking that our agenda is to prevent you from becoming more attractive is one of these misconception. What we want to do is to create win-win solutions and help men to become truly attractive. And not waste your time and energy operating from common pitfalls which are widespread in the pick-up communities. Another important point is to start listening to women instead of assuming by default that we are stupid and don't know what we like. Relationships without proper connection and discussion are doomed to be a train-wreck. Making yourself more attractive starts here with learning how to listen without thinking that we are here to take away your power.