aurum

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    5,621

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by aurum

  2. Posted

    1 hour ago, Cepzeu said:

    @aurum would you agree? I know you are interested in this space.

    Yes I'd say that was well said.

    I had deep insecurities related to female validation in my early pickup days, and they're probably still there to some degree. I'd hardly even care if the sex was terrible with the girl I hooked up with. As long as I "got laid", I'd feel good about myself. The more girls wanted to have sex with me, the more I felt like a boss. I'd even fudge my own lay count in my head to make it larger than it was. Oral sex counts as sex right? I'm so cool...

    Underneath all of that, I basically just wanted to feel desirable. But chasing that through pickup was just a black hole.

    How many girls was it going to take before I get there? 5? 10? 20? 50?

    It was never ending. Much like a millionaire who is convinced their next million is going to bring them happiness, I was doing much of the same thing but with women.

    Now my interactions look much different. They look more like what you described above, although I don't do much cold approach these days. If I do cold approach it's very casual. It's more about being social than anything else, like striking up a conversation with the person sitting next to you on a plane.

    I'm mostly just focused on my life purpose, my friends, my family, my happiness and just being myself. And sometimes women come into my life, and sometimes they don't.

    There is an illusion of control that pickup gives over your dating life. But the reality is that when it's time for you to meet someone, you'll meet them. And when it's not, you won't. Ironically though, I had to go through pickup to learn that.

    So I don't shit on pickup. That would be hypocritical. Any guy reading this who wants to try it, go ahead. It can be a lot of fun. But these same insights are likely awaiting you on the other side of that journey.

  6. Posted

    5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    Also, the notion that a high consciousness woman would not be attracted to status and leadership is like the notion of a high consciousness guy not being attracted to nice tits.

    You can bullshit yourself all you want but you're not above such things. And also don't confuse your inability to get such things as you not wanting them if they were readily available to you.

    But we also need to acknowledge that there are likely degrees to which this is true. For some women, status is way more important than others. Likewise with men and "nice tits", which is already a subjective notion. And that as people raise in consciousness, it's accurate to say these things become less important.

  9. Posted

    13 minutes ago, Flowerfaeiry said:

    Status doesn't have to mean social status or wealth in a corporate America way. It could pertain to being a top yoga teacher, a really talented musician or someone running a conscious business. 

    I agree. And I don’t think that contradicts anything I said. You will attract people who want what you’re offering, so be conscious of what that is.

  10. Posted

    17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    The more feminine the woman the more she will be attracted to status.

    Status sub-communicates that this guy is a successful, proven leader. And that's exactly what the highly feminine craves. That's what "alpha" is: leadership.

    That’s certainly what my years in PUA have taught me. Status, status, status.

    My point still stands regardless. If my hook is status, I will attract women who are interested in status. And this is potentially not going to be the most conscious women who would make for the best relationship.

    I am not suggesting men abandon leadership. I do think that’s essential. I am simply pointing out how chasing status could actually backfire. 

  11. Posted

    On 8/29/2021 at 2:45 AM, Emerald said:

    But women who orient to their sexuality in a masculine way will only be tuned into status and if the guy is the alpha. And they will be unlikely to find a good relationship.

    A corollary to this would be that men who are seeking a good relationship are shooting themselves in the foot by trying so hard to obtain status. If you project all this status as a man, then you are likely only to attract women who appreciate status, and therefore who are in their masculine.

    Or to put it in spiral dynamics terms, Orange attracts Orange.

    It does seem to me that a healthy balance exists, and that women do appreciate more objective attraction triggers to a certain degree. But at a certain point you have to let that go.

  12. Posted

    1 hour ago, Emerald said:

    For men, the objectivity comes in in terms of sussing out the objective attractiveness of a woman in terms of her appearance and other traits. In the attraction phase, women are just a collection of desirable or undesirable attributes to men. But along with this objectivity (which often leads to objectification), men are also non-selective. So even for the pickiest of men it still doesn't filter out the majority of women. But there is an objectivity to his filtering process. It isn't about how he feels. It's about the pros and cons and the objective facts of the woman's ability to meet a standard. 

    For women, there is a subjectivity to the experience of attraction because it's all rooted in feeling. And this means that she's capable of feeling significantly more attracted to a man who is objectively average than to a guy who is objectively more attractive across all or most categories. And even her girlfriends might look at the guy and say, "Really?!?!"

    But she can really see the man as more than a collection of his attributes, and thus subjectively can see him as more than the sum of his parts. Feminine sexuality is truly non-objective... unless she is choosing from her masculine energy. But along with this subjectivity and subjectification of men and seeing men as particular individuals that are as unique as snowflakes, the woman is selective in that she will filter out most of the male population from her consideration. Like, it has to be just that guy. There's only one special snowflake that will do. And she won't want anyone else. 

    So, for men, they tend toward objectivity and even objectification in the attraction phase... but they aren't very picky. And for women, they tend towards subjectifying a given man to where she feels that it's only really that guy that can give her what she's looking for... but this makes women a lot more picky though not primarily on the basis of a man's objective attractiveness. 

    So, men tend to recognize the selectivity of women... but fail to recognize the subjectivity of her attractions.

    And so, in their minds, they turn women into more selective men... especially men who are very objectifying towards women.

    So, there is a projection of hyper-objectification onto women, where they fear women are sussing out men the same way that men suss out women... only with higher standards and more selectivity.

    So a man whose objectivity has unhealthily fallen out of alignment and into objectification who sees women as merely an amalgamation of pornographic traits will be extra terrified that women are looking at him with the same level of objectification. And he projects objectification onto all women who he sees as constantly scrutinizing him for his masculinity and looking to poke holes in his manhood... and maybe they might even be comparing him to other men who are objectively more attractive. Like, "Oh no. This guy is classically handsome. Why would she like me?" or "That guy's dick is two inches longer than me. Surely she'll prefer him?"

    But this insecurity comes from projecting male objectivity (and even objectification) onto women, when our sexuality doesn't really work that way. And then hypergamy becomes this horror story that makes men harden themselves and always have to take women down a peg to feel less secure. And to have to tell themselves that they have female sexuality learned and under control for fear of being scrutinized and objectified. And again... it's much worse if that person has a tendency to objectify women. 

    It’s interesting because I feel like RSD (one of the biggest PUA companies) taught something similar.

    They always railed against guys who believed that their success with women came down to object measures like looks, money or even status. They often would push a narrative that attraction with women was way more subjective and based on how she felt, versus an objective resume type of mindset. 

    It was this fluidity and subjectivity in female sexuality that they taught was the reason you could easily pick up women. In other words, because women don’t care how you look or the money you have, you could go out to a bar and find success right now. All those things you thought you needed, you didn’t. That was the core message I took away from them.

    The reason RSD would always push this narrative was because there were so many insecure guys who refused to believe it. They just could not grasp that women really were not judging their looks that harshly. And they constantly projected onto women how they would get picked up.

    I know you are not a fan of cold approach. But I do find it fascinating that you seem to be saying something similar in terms of subjectivity.

    Where you and RSD seem to diverge is about selectivity. You’re arguing that female selectivity is because of women’s ability to perceive men as unique. While a company like RSD would probably argue female selectivity exists because women are biologically driven to seek out alpha males and then to get them to commit.

    This was also the origin of female subjectivity, as women were looking for subliminal hints of alpha male behavior, like body language or vocal tonality, rather than object measures.

    Thanks for clarifying. I love this topic so these ideas have been fun to play with.

  14. Posted

    10 hours ago, Aaron p said:

    So my focus in life has been philosophy now for the majority of my life...self improvement, growth, spirituality, mysticism etc. (This will continue to be one of my primary focuses)

    And I've had girlfriends, but not very serious ones. I'm only maturing a lot recently see, and I feel like I'm at the point where I'm mature enough to contemplate having proper relationships with girls. 

    Does Leo have any videos about how to make sure your partner is the right one? 

    I mean... logically I could assume that dating is like test driving lots of different cars. The thing is, I haven't been seriously talking to a lot of different kinds of girls...and I've recently got into a relationship with a girl. She seems pretty level headed, she likes spirituality, she's a powerful thinker.

    I think my primary question is this...with having no serious relationships whatsoever up until now, would it be safe to assume that my very first serious relationship should be seen as a testing ground? I mean, the girl seems nice and I resonate with her...but I don't Wana put all my eggs in one basket in a sense.

     

    What's your guys thoughts?

    The right partner is ultimately the one you decide to commit to.

    There is no perfect partner waiting in the ether. You create one by deciding to go all in.

    Of course, there are some people with red flags. I’m not suggesting abandoning all boundaries. But at a certain point, you just have to pick someone and commit.

  15. Posted

    3 hours ago, Emerald said:

    Yes. Male sexuality and female sexuality all have one easy component and one difficult component.

    For men, their easy component is lack of selectivity. Their difficult component is objectivity. 

    For women, their easy component is subjectivity. Their difficult component is selectivity.

    And when men view female sexuality through the male lens, they see the woman's difficult component of selectivity... but they project their own difficult component of objectivity.

    And so, they imagine that women are just hyper selective men who are constantly sussing out male flaws with an objective eye... when that's not the case at all. 

    Can you expand on this? How are you defining subjectivity and objectivity?

    I’m pretty sure I have an idea of what you’re getting at but I’d like to hear it from you.

  16. Posted

    3 hours ago, Flowerfaeiry said:

    Like as a hard rule? Do they not enjoy sex if they don't cum? 

    Multiple men I've slept with seemed fine and even didn't want to so now I'm questioning their fine-ness. 

    Unless they’ve learned tantric techniques of transmuting sexual energy, I seriously doubt those guys were really so fine with that. Especially if they got close to the point of no return.

    If a guy doesn’t cum during sex, it doesn’t mean he couldn’t enjoy the part where he is having sex. But that finishing part is also super important. Otherwise, it’s going to just create a feeling of anxiety, incompleteness or even blue balls. Like if someone teased you really, really badly, but then never delivered the goods.

  17. Posted

    4 hours ago, Vzdoh said:

    @Marcel @aurum I was actually thinking about couples therapy, so I can go together with him and the therapist I know is specialising on addictions (he works a lot) and speaks German, so I think she will be perfect for him. 

    But I will give him a month or two and then mention it that maybe some external help is a good idea ?

    I’m very pro-therapy if you can find a good therapist. Unfortunately some therapists are very unconscious themselves.

    I’m surprised you didn’t mention this problem of him not ejaculating in your previous thread. It seems significant.

  19. Posted

    12 hours ago, preventingdiabetes said:

    In general though, would you say that being a creator is relatively important to our level of fulfilment and happiness in life? 

    Of course it is.

    There is no way you’ll be happy if all you do is consume, consume, consume.

    But of course, you do have to consume to some degree. Eating is consumption. Breathing in is consumption.

    You can’t give a formula for the ideal balance between these two forces. That’s why it’s called balance. It’s done in real time, based on your specific situation, just like walking a tight rope.

    Maybe you need a big adjustment. Maybe you need a small one. Maybe you need more creator, maybe you need more consuming.

    I will say though, I would be biased towards being a creator. Most of our society is set up for you to just be a mindless consumer, and so it’s a safe bet that you likely need to be more of a creator in your life.

  20. Posted · Edited by aurum

    @Onecirrus

    Good insights. And you put it in your own words which shows that you likely are not just parroting other gurus.

    11 hours ago, Onecirrus said:

    I'm so 'cold' I can say hello and people ignore me. From now on, I'll only be going out on 'warm' nights because people are far more receptive to me and easier to spike and socialize with.

    The only problem is that if you make it a rule that you will only go out when you’re already feeling “warm”, that is unlikely to ever happen. Most people need to warm up a bit. That’s why people like to pregame before they go party.

    There’s also valuable lessons to be learned by deliberately going from cold to warm. And you won’t learn those lessons if you avoid the cold phase.

  21. Posted

    27 minutes ago, samijiben said:

    The title says it all

    I feel like our culture (keep in mind I live in San Francisco, which is abundant with hipsterism and on the cutting edge of wacky ideas) has become a little too touchy-feely, thereby denying the importance of healthy competition.

     

    Not in the sense of what you're mental image may be, of a bloody pit of selfish egos fighting for validation from each other. I just mean a competitive mindset to better oneself and reach the top, even if "oneself" is an immaterial construct and just a mere accretion of beliefs. 

    The reason people are touchy-feely is because we are all witnessing the destruction of hyper-competition. That's what a stage Orange society is all about. So you have to swing the pendulum the other way, which may mean that you are against almost any kind of competition for a while (Green). Obviously the ideal is an integration between cooperation and competition, but that will take a long time for society to integrate. We still have many people who vehemently believe in hyper-competition.

  22. Posted

    2 hours ago, BipolarGrowth said:

    but I’m so content with actually doing this that I am just living off credit cards. Before you bitch about overspending, you probably aren’t that competent in the manipulation of money if you have a debt problem ideologically. Also, nothing belongs to any self ever, and you can remain directly conscious of that more-or-less for the rest of your life. I’m just going to manipulate love and Dharma and non-binary tantra for the sake of dual healing mental health and sexuality shadows forever to get my needs met.

    This is going to end badly for you.

  23. Posted

    On 8/23/2021 at 10:55 PM, Onecirrus said:

    Mastery of this is the only thing I really want in my life, but in order to do that don't I have to learn from masters? Wouldn't RSD be a good place to start if I want a career dedicated to this?

    The best reason for starting a career with RSD would be that you’re walking into a engaged, groomed audience. They’ve already attracted the eyeballs for you. Then you’d have to deliver to keep them.

    You’d also get a huge social circle of people who are also interested in mastering social dynamics.

    That said, you certainly do not have to have a career with RSD if you choose to make this your life purpose. And in fact it may be smarter not to. I would only do that if you feel like that’s what you really want and you are seriously committed to that goal. In which case, get started now, because landing one of those instructor positions is not going to be easy.

    To your point about studying from masters, that is not equivalent to having a career with RSD. A career with them will involve many other variables than just being mentored. You could learn from the masters but make a completely different career choice.

    Really it is up to you. That’s the blessing and the curse of the life purpose. You are free to blaze your own path, which also includes the challenge of making hard decisions about what the pursue. Especially in our modern culture that suffers from shiny object syndrome.

    Whatever you choose, just get really good at it. 

  24. Posted

    8 hours ago, Vzdoh said:

    Yesterday we had a chat. I opened with the story about my mom and how difficult I felt and expressed gratitude for how he supported me through that crisis. 

    Then went into things I had issues/emotional reactions to. He apologised and promised to be more open and direct in his communication. 

    And lastly, touched upon how I felt about my basic need for more regular physical intimacy not being met fully. I didn't say anything about his overwork or how he needs to manage his time or anything. Just talked about how I felt and how certain things made me deeply unhappy and unfulfilled. 

    He responded with asking what needs to be done for me not to feel this way or what I need for this to work for me.

    I mentioned more physical closeness, more regular sex, and like waking up together.

    And we agreed to make Sunday our day, no conf calls or other work, starting this weekend. 

    Let's see how it goes. I am happy for now ?❤️?

    Thank you guys for all your inputs! 

    Love and light! ❤️?

    Glad to hear!

  25. Posted

    @KennedyCarter

    I've done a lot of balancing of my masculine / feminine over the years.

    When I was a boy, I often didn't resonate with hanging out with the other boys in my school. It just seemed like the whole purpose of guys getting together was to hurt each other, both physically and emotionally, as much as possible. And given I didn't have a lot of positive male role models in my life, I didn't really form a good relationship with masculinity.

    It wasn't until I went to an all-guys high school and joined a fraternity in college that I started to really appreciate this idea of "being a man". My understanding was immature, but I was beginning to see what masculinity could offer.

    As I come up on age 30, I feel much more balanced. I'll never fit some of the stereotypes around men, but I feel that I've begun to mix and match the feminine and masculine energies in my own way.