zazen

It does come across that way, or thats how she feels although there was honesty from the start. In our liberal society with hook up culture around its easy to think you can relate with someone in different ways such as friends with benefits, open relationships, polyamory stage green getting traction etc. Thought by being honest it could be kept on that level, but I guess everyone is different. The friendship route afterwards is to make her not feel used.

Thanks everyone for the input! I thought the moral thing to do is be friends to take care of her through the process, but if she can't handle it then obviously need to leave. We'v spoken, the attraction is there but Im not ready for a relationship as have other priorities in life. I think that's the hardest part, is her knowing I like her but can't be with her at the same time out of practicality ( seems cold hearted ). Compatible in heart just not in situation. Would be easier if one of us just didn't like each other, as no one wants someone who doesn't want them generally. @aurum Yeah, everyone has their own agency over their emotions and actions at the end of the day. I think it's in us men to want to protect so that instinct kicks in also, especially people we care for. @Thunder Kiss That makes a lot of sense according to attachment theory, can be tied to abandonment issues. Thought that maybe its possible to show a new path forward and that not all guys can be so cruel. A lot of guys maybe scare away after break ups or the players ghost girls which in turn bitters them even more and makes it harder for them to trust men in the future. To avoid this and leave her better than I met her, felt i'd go this route to put her trust back into men. Usually men and women get to know each other sleeping together a few times before figuring out if their a match and ending things. These kind of experiences makes one feel bad for the emotional trauma it can cause just in order to find that relationship you eventually want to be in, and yet it seems the only way to get it in the end. Honesty is the best policy to help you sleep better at night when dating, knowing that at least we'v done our part morally, and if people get hurt that is their own journey to get stronger through. On a side note: If you logically tell girls your not looking for anything serious, but yet with your actions start to show boyfriend behaviours ie (buying gifts, daily calling/texting, overly affectionate and soppy) that triggers their emotions in such a way it can confuse them and start to mess with their heads. Guys can start to easily fall into this frame as it is enjoyable to do these gestures, but it does send the wrong signal, even if you've said nothing serious is wanted.

Yes, part of strengthening yourself is accepting/integrating parts of yourself and not being internally fragmented, this in turn allows you to actually be more relaxed around people which is a show of emotional health/strength. Disowning parts of yourself will leave you weaker.

Dropping off (leaving women better than you met them) is as important a skill as picking up if you want to do it more morally. Although in the dating game, isn't it harmful for women to sleep around anyway? I know there is social stigma and no one should be judged in these old ways as its politically incorrect, but is it actually factually correct that it can be damaging? Open sexuality is pushed now days a lot, what will the consequences be in our coming decades. The red pill has this concept of alpha widow where a women compares the past alphas or fun guys they used to sleep with and carry that emotional baggage to the next relationship ruining it and the pair bonding ability with the next guy, how much of this is true or pure scare mongering negativity? I guess as a woman ages and wants commitment from a nicer less fun guy but who has stability its a reality check and she goes with this type of guy out of need to mother children, but then ends up bored and divorces not wanting to feel the pressure of having to have sex with someone she doesn't get attraction towards anymore.

I think he means being real and genuinely yourself. If the real you is man of strength emotionally mentally etc then when you are yourself you exhibit that strength, and women can pick up on whether your faking it or not. The problem when guys are told be yourself, and them selves are their weak selves or awkward etc they can scare off women. Be your strongest self would be more accurate. A strong man can still have feminine traits that round him out, in fact only along side some feminine traits is he his strongest self.

It would be ideal to find mature partners, although it is lacking today. I guess people are commenting on a general rule for the general population. That vulnerability includes the woman's vulnerability to seek out a strong partner to be there for her emotionally in ways she may struggle to herself, and for the man, a woman can be there in a inspiring, encouraging fashion, not necessarily to carry all his burdens.

@Lyubov Leo is spot on. I'll add that women's base line experience of life is fear, being the more vulnerable sex physically this is hardwired into their biology and so they seek security through strength, and men seek to show their strength. Most people aren't evolved or mature to acknowledge the vulnerabilities in either sex and to have compassion for them, and even if they do, their biological response on a attraction level will do its own thing, in this case drop. She loves you, but is not in love with you as much after seeing weakness. Her sense of security was threatened as she saw weakness in the man she depended on for that security (be it emotional, physical etc), this is all mostly unconcious of course, so its not to become bitter towards her, its just nature. Women have a hard time carrying the burden of emotion as it is, being weak as men burdens them further and so they need to seek strength elsewhere or in absence of finding it become strong them selves and develop more masculine traits (sometimes too excess) at the expense of their femininity which is their more natural disposition. Women love differently, learn this and set expectations accordingly. Men have other men to out let their emotions to, or out lets such as sport, exercise, meditation etc. We need to be strong, not weak as men,but still have space for moments of weakness. Unfortunately even moments of weakness can be enough to turn some women off. "" The folly of man’s nature lies in the belief that the loyalty quintessential to woman’s maternal instinct will be available within a romantic context. He believes rather foolishly, that as his mother loved him, the idealised girlfriend could. He sees how women love their children, and upon making such an observation concludes that women are capable of great love. This is true, they are. Only sadly, this great love is a love reserved solely for children, it extends not to man. As such, man has an idealisation of woman’s love, not a realisation. Man desires that which is unattainable to him, unaware the love he desires is maternal in nature, unable to be felt for him. Nature plays a cruel trick on the psychology of man. It gives him a very pure, high quality love in his childhood. It gives him a template for woman’s love that he comes to expect as standard of all women. He is taught by his mother’s love that unconditional loyalty, noble character, gentleness, sacrifice and trust are intrinsic of the feminine essence. And so as he grows from a boy into a man he comes to the rather logical conclusion that if he is “a good man,” he can expect to be loved by his lover in much the same way. His mother, well-meant but quite incorrectly likewise affirms this notion to him. This is a wicked lie, but a man whose heart is yet to be broken does not realise this. He thinks woman’s love is immutable. He knows not that her love for child is different from that of her love for him. And so man longs to be loved like a child, not realising such a love is reserved for children. Believing that the love he covets is romantic love, when truly it is maternal love. Such a man of course lacks the experience or nuance of mind to make this distinction. And so the tragedy for this man is learning that women do not love men like they love children. ''

Check this out brother.

The battle of the sexes is the only war where crushing the opposition isn’t victory. We need to understand each other better. Teal swan is pretty good in this regard.

I guess it comes down to dating with integrity and being honest. Although, most women don’t want to come across as easy or to be used either so saying all you want is sex will get shut down a lot. At the same time, to become better and find out what you like/dislike, how to have and maintain a relationship etc you have to go through much dating experience, but in doing so you know it can cause emotional heart break. In the past there were social/religious conventions and women’s financial dependency on men which kept them together, but not so today. And no man really wants a woman to be with them grudgingly in a slave/master dynamic. If we know that for women, sleeping with many people can have negative affects on them should we do that in order to get better to finally have the happy relationship we want? Aren’t we contributing to an emotionally wounded society that we’ll have to live in/raise kids in and so ruining the very society we want to have those kids in or live in, in the future? Amongst the red pill community there’s a catchphrase to ‘enjoy the decline’ but they are living in that very society themselves, which they don’t seem to see. Maybe the middle way would be to date around but not sleep with everyone as to minimise emotional trauma. And if you really want to get good at sex to please your future relationship go the escort route so your not a rookie or scared of sex when you finally get to it.

Disclaimer: These are not my words but an interesting thread I came across elsewhere and would like to share, and have a healthy discussion on. Just a definition of Hypergamy : the action of marrying or forming a sexual relationship with a person of a superior sociological or educational background. Women's instinct to mate with superiors genes basically for the betterment of the species (evolution) Unless you're chad, famous or a sociopath - you won't have multiple women in love with you at the same time. Unless you're a ridiculously beautiful and sweet woman - you won't ever marry an "elite high value man™" Hypergamy and polygamy whilst complementary, are not sustainable. They are not sustainable, because they exclude the vast majority of the population. Most men are by definition, not elite high value men. Most women are not exceptionally beautiful and chaste, nor of the correct temperament and genetics to be marriageable for an elite man. The role of religion in society, in large part, is to regulate the dysfunction that results from these instincts. It forces the men who can have many women to pick one, and all the average woman who think they deserve a top 0.1% man to date a man at their own level. So civilizational monogamy is probably the greatest gift of religion. It essentially ensures the vast majority of the population gets a mate, by curbing natural instincts and holding people accountable to their families and communities. Atomised irreligiosity breaks this. You won't "fix society" if you allow hypergamy and polygamy to run amok unchecked. Without adequate social pressure, most women would rather die alone surrounded by cats, than date a man at or just above their own level - especially if a superior man used and left her before. A woman who has had sex with top tier men thinks she is deserving of a top tier man for marriage and refuses to "lower her standards" - not realising that she never met those men's standards for marriage to begin with - hence why they're gone. Men sleep with women they wouldn't marry and can detach emotion from sex. So women are not only naturally predisposed to feel entitled to the best for no logical reason whatsoever, irrespective of their own value and what they bring to the table, but are furthermore susceptible to even greater delusion when said men give them an oxytocin induced taste. This is why the dating market, like so many markets, needs regulation. When it's laissez-faire, the majority of people lose out whilst a few winners get more than their fill. And society stops working properly when the majority of people are forever single or divorced. Traditional Abrahamic religion of course, is that form of regulation. Extreme feminism is the antithesis, because it is anti-regulation. It promotes a free for all, which naturally means a lot of sex for a minority of men, and a dearth of loving committed relationships for most women. You can, quite literally, trace the problems with the mating market today back to the absence of religion. What other system regulates mating practices? None. Doesn't matter how you feel about God or religion - that's irrelevant. What's important is a functioning system. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As leo mentioned in one of his videos regarding we need regulation on devilry ie in our hunter gatherer days we could get by without much regulation but at scale we need government and regulation or else civilisation won't work. In today's society the only regulation force on our sexuality is ourselves. It is only our level of awareness of our human nature and by choice and consciousness we can make decisions that are good for us in the long term and for society at large. This will be the greatest test of our times.

Monogamy has been a stabilising mechanism in civilisation, small scale tribes can be more easily open sexually as theres a communitarian aspect but at scale it doesn't seem to work too well. Also, evolution doesn't care for emotional health, just to pass genes for survival / reproduction. In todays world physically we can be safe and healthy with open sexuality thanks to contraception, the economy etc but is it safe emotionally? Theres reasons from a biology/evolutionary perspective why women are protective of their sexuality as it means them being handicapped during the birthing process, and having to provide/protect the child, so women naturally want to vet / filter men and obtain their commitment. In the modern age those fears aren't as bad, nonetheless it is hardwired in our biology still. Keeping biology aside, what about from a spiritual perspective. Theres a lot of talk about soul ties etc by the spiritual minded in the west, and in the east we can look to Sadhguru who's explained from a karmic/memory perspective how having multiple partners can have an affect on us. Whether its based in reality, or just a theory / story told to believe in as it functionally works for the stability of the society is another thing. Sometimes its not the stories of god or religion are literally true, but more that just behaving in a way that it is true is better overall for society. A green open love society at least sexually seems very far off, or if its brought about to abruptly in stead of society growing into it naturally can cause emotional imbalance, and no society can function when its people are emotionally imbalanced. A quarter of women in the US are on psych meds, there must be many reasons for this but if open sexuality and promotion of it in the name of equality (that women can do what men can do although for men sex can easily be detached from emotion) is one of the causing contributors shouldn't society really question it. Where rightism is the dark side of male nature (excess rigidity/order/strength) in political form, leftism is the dark side of female nature in political form (excess freedom/chaos/softness of boundaries). Here's Sadhguru's take: 'It's not the question of morality, it's the question of living sensibly.' Its not woman bashing, or sexuality bashing. Indulgence, and repression are two extremes. Question is wheres the middle ground. https://isha.sadhguru.org/global/en/wisdom/article/emotional-security-importance-how-to-build

Guys saying girls not having sex easily is like girls saying the guy won't commit and marry me easily. Men and women are different, in the modern age where equality is promoted equality can't be conflated with sameness. We'r equal under the law and eyes of god/life but still different, just like the fingers on our hand are all equal in their importance yet unequal in size and function. Men project onto women that they can should have sex easily because from the male point of view we can detach sex and emotion/love much more easily, women can't and if they do its either because somethings off from past trauma or their enlightened to the point they have create space between them and their own biology/emotions. Theres a reason women sleeping casually in general have to drink/drug themselves to do it, because its unnatural. If men understand women's psychology they can be more empathetic and relate to them in the right manner. Of course some women do use sex as a weapon to get dinner/expensive dates/attention etc out of men too, this is where men need to be smart and use discernment. We are dual in the way that we have a body and a mind. When relating with someone we'r relating with their body/biology (evolution, hardware which is mostly the same for all men/women) and their mind (social condition/culture, software which differs from person to person and culture to culture) so each person is a unique interplay of the two. All men and women are generally the same in their hardware (evolutionary biology) but differ in their software (psychology social conditioning). There are general truths and also nuances to each person. We use generalisations as a map to understand reality, since its impossible to take every nuance into consideration. This is why people can have different perspectives, or their can be confusion between men and women not understanding each other. @Preety_India You do sometimes take one line or point and make a big deal of it lol its all love, the forum likes you from what I can see.

As Leo mentioned good game is undetectable. Those guys probably never developed those skills for a myriad of reasons growing up, their trying new behaviours which are unnatural to them which comes across in congruent. The better focus would be in their state of BEing, which translates to their BEhaviours. Pick up used to be focused on the behaviour aspect, now more inner game etc their looking at changing the being, which will naturally bring about attractive behaviours instead of the other way round. Although, give a guy a few attractive behaviours to emulate, he starts getting some success, which changes his state of being, which brings about those behaviours more naturally in the end, and more success. Yes, it’s not all evo psych but was just making a point I find interesting. A lot of behaviour can be explained from a human nature aspect and/or a human nurture/social conditioning aspect. Human nature is the hardware, human nurture the software.

I was speaking on evolution which doesn’t care for feelings, just reproduction and survival of the genes. Of course we have emotion and live longer lives now so decisions are made for long term emotional stability and happiness. Another reason how we turned from a polygamous to monogamous society, stability for society and growth of civilisation.

The reason pick up gets frowned upon is because people think the guys learning it are being fake, or that they aren't the genuine article. From a evolutionary psychology perspective, if a guy portrayed he's something he's not ie he has enough resources and strong characteristics to take care of the children / protect provide for the family and she pro created with him only to find out it was a lie, thats literally risking her and her child's life. No man is born great but made great over time through growth. Men build their primary value (strength), women retain their primary value (softness - close to innocence of children). As life happens, a woman under too much strain and under a tough life has to be in her masculine at the expense of her femininity. Sex is the most important thing when you don't have it, anything lacking becomes their new god. As the saying goes the hungry don't get fed. Once you have it in abundance you realise its not all that, and that in fact its best had with someone you have a great connection with. Something with abundance can still have or get options, they just don't exercise those option knowing it won't give them what it wants. Ironically once you take the God pill, and embody godly qualities you have the can have the most abundance yet no longer need sexual relationships but only choose to partake in them out of want. You partake in sexuality, but don't let sexuality take you over.

Why so confrontational with Leo? Its a back and forth thread, and he's responding to you and bouncing back off your comments. It's called vibing, not copy catting.

There are reasons why women are naturally protective of who they have sex with. Men can separate sex from emotions and do it just as a physical act. From a biological view women are more protective sexually as in the past having a child requires protection and provisioning so they naturally seek security of the man to stick around after sex, this is hardwired into women. Today in the modern environment and with technological advancement (birth control, protection etc) to have sex freely isn't a disaster in that way, however our biology is still primal and so reacts in its way to be wary of free sexuality. So its nothing to be ashamed of that you need to have a emotional connection before sex, because you need to feel secure first with the man, to then relax, to then build a connection that leads to you being able to have sex on the basis of trust. Men saying women should freely have sex and that its okay are either projecting from a male point of view how their minds/body works or are coming at it from a more evolved stage where women are able to detach themselves from their biology and so act in ways that maybe aren't as natural to it, but that we ourselves nurture / societally programme ourselves into. Shame comes from the outside, guilt from the inside. Shame is when society tells you how you should be and when you go against it your esteem is attacked. Guilt is when you do something, and internally it doesn't feel right to you, either because it may go against your biology or internal moral compass (which can be subjective).

Today hotness is put on a pedestal but not beauty. What we see is caricature of women not real beauty which is something internal as well as external. In beauty theirs femininity, a certain grace etc. We all truly want beauty, which is deeper than hotness, hotness is purely physical. The body wants the hot body, but something more in us wants something more than just the body also. Men want companionship as well, the physical is maybe what draws us to a woman but not necessarily what keeps men around. One way hot women can be blind sided is they aren't incentivised to build their other qualities as the world is thrown at them for their exterior, and once their exterior starts to fade and they haven't committed to anyone, they have no interior qualities to offer. More youthful men with higher testosterone prioritise looks, but once testosterone starts to lessen as men age and weaken its grip on us, men seek something more than just the physical, some men come to that realisation earlier, it all depends. Older women without physical hotness can still be beautiful, its something deeper. They can be mothers, grandmothers, and even if not biologically they can at least be motherly to their community.

You can go with the flow of your feelings and what feels right in the moment, but that stream can also lead to dirty water. The minute we'r open to pleasurable feelings, the other coin of that is the pain of that pleasure not lasting or being taken away from you, which you become dependent on for your well being. Sometimes it's best not to make long term decisions on short term feelings. Loving yourself ie doing what you love in the moment is one thing, but to also love your future self you must act the right way in this moment, so your future self is happy, unless your strong enough to bear what comes your way which is what self development is all about. If you fortify yourself spiritually, then you can go with your heart, and any heart break that may come won't be a emotional scar that can't heal but a wound that does. Trust isn't just trusting that life will treat you well, but that whatever comes your way you trust yourself to handle it well and come out the other side intact and strong.

Agreed, I meant a quality guy probably won't commit before sex not in general that they won't commit at all. In fact a quality guy should come to the conclusion of how shallow sex can be with person after person to which they have no depth with, and eventually go from breadth of relationships to depth of relationship with one person.

This. A quality guy probably isn't going to commit, the best one can do is at least weed out the completely commitment phobic through questioning, making the guy invest at least a bit, but not taking too long before he just goes off to someone who will give him what he wants with a lot more ease, its a balancing act.

Thats the thing, we on this forum may not view it in a negative light, but the average guy out there views things differently. It's tough at times as us being on forum of self development / spirituality gotta be careful not to project more evolved perspectives onto society when discussing society and the average guy/girl. A lot of the guys who will give a carefree non judgmental attitude towards it when pursuing a girl as to not make her feel 'slutty' / put up defence and so for her to relax and open up sexually. Whether that attitude is genuine or just a facade for the man to get what he wants short term is what women have to be careful and discern themselves with their intuition.