zazen

We have both drives, but we have been evolved under polyamory far longer than monogamy (coming about since agriculture) so its easier to fall into that mating strategy. We get what we feed, and the current environment is feeding our poly instinct, allowing it freedom to move. If we behave in a polyamorous way in our youth and then expect to be able to be monogamous in our later years that could be an issue and people find it harder, although not impossible. When our ancestors lived till about 30 long term emotional stability wasn't considered, only to mate enough and bear enough children for the tribe. Even then, their was a community that gave emotional stability and that raised the children together, nothing like our more isolated way of life now. Now that we live till 70/80 and as our sexual value depreciates as we age another strategy is needed to ensure emotional stability for each individual, and with that stability of society for it to flourish. Not to say monogamy is perfect, but it was functional and grew civilisation, polygamy doesn't seem to be scalable from the tribal settings to multi million population urban centres we live in now, too much chaos and too many options always leaving people with fomo, or if their with the right partner, the illusion of option with online dating leaves us confused and dissatisfied. Even if our ancestors did sleep with multiple partners it probably wouldn't have been more than 5 from the tribal band, nothing like what we have no going into double digits. The way things are now, it seems people only settle into monogamy when their value in the eyes of others starts to decline and they start to notice this themselves. With dentistry, health conciseness, cleaner air/water and cosmetic treatments we are extending our youth and so people seem to settle later or not when they feel they eventually need to. The flip side is the need to pair bond is still there for emotional stability, and yet its harder due to people getting more set in their ways as they age being less compatible with others habits, their hormones no longer biologically at least drawing each gender to the other, their past experiences/baggage making them jaded, bitter or traumatised to be in relationships.

We have pair bonding abilities, yet not sure if we can still have pair bonds and get sexual desires met outside of that (sexual chemistry fades in long term relationship) to maintain some societal stability, guess thats why the oldest profession existed. A lot of people end up chasing that fresh spark again and again, maybe its natures way of saying now you've mated, go elsewhere or just us humans wanting to feel those intense emotions again of getting to know a new partner, it's novelty. Maybe that biological spark is only to serve its own end of reproduction, for that spark to keep going requires a more spiritual angle than sexual as the body has achieved its goal of making babies.. Seems nature made us to be serial monogamists yet society imposed monogamy for life, when really what comes naturally is to be monogamous one at a time. Quoted ''The natural fallacy is the assumption that because something is natural, it is optimum. In this case: “promiscuity comes naturally to humans, therefore, promiscuity is a good thing.” Almost every religious institution to ever dominate the hearts and minds of a society has preached quite mightily the importance of monogamy. Religion as untrue as it appears, is therefore not only a pre-science way of explaining reality, but likewise a civilizational mechanism for social order. It is the imposition of order on creatures capable of order, but lacking the self-discipline to exercise such order without theological arguments permeating the hive mind. Human instinct is not without fault, and thus by merit of its destructive aspects will undo civilization if left unchecked. Religion inherently acknowledges the flawed nature of the human character and so brainwashes humanity in an effort to reconcile human flaw with human ingenuity. Civilization is a construction that balances on the fragile precipice between human instinct and human imagination. Civilizational progress is therefore contingent on the balance of conflict between our instinct to seek what we momentarily desire, and the loftier pursuits of what our minds envisage. The trade-off’s one must make in the pursuit of either is a warring battlefield, one that permeates the root and core of all that we do. Civilization demands imagination, whilst instinct, the mediocrity of self-gratification. Without the subjugation and noblest oppression of the prior, the freedom-seeking of the latter has a propensity to win. And with that victory, civilization falls.''

Everything that exists is true because it exists. Right now the way you are is the way you are, is truth. I guess when we are told to be ourself it means to be our best selves, we all have the potential to be more. To ACTualise we must ACT. You have POTENTial in you which is potent but only when it is realised. Right now it just a seed, action is the water and nourishment that will sprout that seed. Being needy and nice is your true self now, but it is not all you could be. Love yourself as you are now, but also love what you could be. Self accept, then self improve. We all have needs, but to be needy doesn't help us meet those needs, life is counter-intuitive. A needy person wants 100% of his needs met by others, a healthier person who still has needs but isn't needy, has met at least some portion of those needs himself (say 50%) through his own actions and life, and so when you meet people they don't feel the burden of having to fulfil you, most people are also struggling to fulfil themselves. Meet your own needs first and make yourself feel good through exercise, meditation, good diet and sleep, have passions and hobbies you enjoy, watch comedy and laugh, read good books and write. Get into nature. Then from a strong position its possible to love people and women, and not just the idea of them.

Found this interesting. What is a healthy masculine/feminine? Quoted ''The worst men take on traits of the negative feminine, and the best women take on traits of the positive masculine, whilst the best men take on traits of the positive feminine, and the worst women take on the traits of the negative masculine. Men with negative feminine traits are petty, scheming and entitled. Men with positive feminine traits know gentleness and nurturing. Women with negative masculine traits become willful and arrogant Women with positive masculine traits use logic and hold themselves accountable. Whilst it is a woman's nature to view things emotionally, a highly developed woman can engage reason to act with more fairness. Whilst it is a man's nature to view things practically, a highly developed man can engage compassion to tend to the pressing emotional needs of others. The highly developed woman who can engage reason will never be as logical as the typical man, but she is more so than her sisters. The highly developed man who can engage compassion will never be as emotionally sensitive as the typical woman, but he is more so than his brothers. A woman without emotion would cease to be a woman, and therefore we would not want her to be completely rational, in much the way a man who is very emotional would become too meek, and therefore cease to be a man. Neither's consumed by the other. They possess a helpful fraction. A man who complains women aren't logical enough would not be attracted to a cold logical woman devoid of feminine warmth, in much the way a woman who complains men are too unemotional would not be attracted to a fragile, easily upset sensitive man devoid of male stoicism. The optimal balances or ratios are thus something akin to the pareto principle, with your core nature comprising 80% of what you are, whilst the learned positive attributes of the opposite sex that did not come naturally to you comprise the remaining 20%.''

Great your seeing a therapist, keep it up! I guess it was generalised but of course there are exceptions. Also, society conditions us to also expect this idealised type of love which is unfair both to men and to women for pressuring them to deliver on that. Romanticism, disney and religion played on this idea of the romanticised ideal of love or that theres the 'one' in order to keep marriages lasting. This idea of the 'one' leads to distress and depression to those who believed in it totally only to be cheated on or left. In reality, there are many 'ones' we can be with. Realise, the body may need a mate, the mind may need a mate, but your soul doesn't need a mate for it is non dual. In the past, we lived in tight knitted communities and tribes so we would get different needs met by a number of people. Today as we are more individualised and have less stronger social ties we expect the other partner to be everything for us such as friend, confidant, therapist, mother/father, business partner, soul mate, intellectual etc. Be social in general and have friends, this way you don't put such burdens on single people or your future partner. Nice defined ; from Old French, from Latin nescius ‘ignorant’, from nescire ‘not know’. Be good, not nice or a jerk. Those are both extremes. What is the nice guy ignorant of : of himself, being in touch with himself or his true nature of which there is the lower and the higher, the animal and the divine, the beast and the bhudda. Women essentially seek strength in its many forms, great strength comes from integration within ourselves. Jerks are in touch only with their animal self (their balls), however they still signal strength on a primal level which is why they get the girls. Nice guys are too in their mind and cutting themselves off from their lower nature and so no primal strength is there, only intellectual strength. The good guy is in touch and integrated with all, the balls the head and the heart and so signals the most strength. Women don't like the guy to be the jerk, they like the strength and power that comes with it. You can show strength and power in a healthy manner. Don't be nice, don't be ignorant, become aware of your true self. When you get in touch with yourself and become integrated, you will have power and strength. Exercise to get in touch with your body, do loving kindness meditation to get in touch with the heart and have compassion, continue to understand reality for what it is not what you wish it to be, to get stronger mentally, meditate to get stronger spiritual by connection to soul. And then to communicate that value to the outside world and women, get stronger socially. It's not enough to just have value, social skill skills is about communicating that value.

It is natural to fear that which has control over you and your emotions. The pain of getting pleasure (from a partner) is in trying to maintain that pleasure, keep it, and the pain that would come after losing that pleasure. Pain and pleasure go hand in hand, the rose comes with thorns. That is why, after a few relationships people become distrusting and harder to open up / become vulnerable to another partner because the previous times they did, they got hurt in the process of losing that person. Relationships and heartbreak work in a similar manner to addictions, the other person becomes a source of pleasure for you, and once that source goes away you can have withdrawl, and so need to seek those good emotions / pleasurable feelings elsewhere. You have to self generate it through exercise, meditation, laughter, good diet, friends etc. To let yourself get emotionally invested in someone and give your heart to them, there has to be a high level of trust that they will have your best intentions in mind or else they could cause a lot of pain. It is natural to fear that which can cause pain. This fear can be managed, and in relationships with high trust mitigated although never entirely. Even in deep relationships between man and woman, the fear may not be in that the person will hurt them intentionally, but the fear of death taking that person away always exists, consciously or subconsciously.

Not unconditional in the absolute sense, speaking generally to get a point across. This is semantics and definitions, maybe a better word isn't unconditional but less. The love towards and for your child has less conditions, but the environment you'd wished they'd be safe in is highly conditional for that very reason. More conditions are directed at the environment being safe for them then, and less towards the child. The condition for the child is that they listen to your guidance and lessons in being safe, but far more conditions/variables are at play in the environment you have less control over. What condition would reduce your love for your child, if their not behaving properly? Parents love their children even at their worst due to the maternal instinct which has less conditions on their love for child, than for their man. It doesn't mean their love for the child is unconditional, just less conditional.

That was a copy paste from elsewhere, not my words, hence the quotation marks. The author wasn't referring to love with a capital L whether they are even aware of it or not but more so biological realities of male/female dynamics. Love is fluid and can change, what starts as romantic love in relationships often becomes familial, and so the sex / attraction dries up as incest isn't natural. Keeping this romantic love alive takes effort, understanding and work on both parties. It's not higher, lower its different kinds of love. Of course man also has conditions for his love, but women come with a much greater list of conditions and rightly so for they are more vulnerable and have more to lose in the birthing process. By nature they need to be selective in choosing a mate. Women are more unconditional in their love towards children. The forms love take are equally different. Equal in value, yet different in practice. Like the fingers on your hand, they are all different yet equally valued for their role.

Most other types of love include pain to an extent as they are impermanent. The pain of pleasure is in trying to maintain that pleasure, fear of losing that pleasure, and eventually losing that pleasure. Lower case love is in flux and in relationships has to be constantly worked at and maintained. The only permanence is impermanence when it comes to lower case love. Thats why pure love, with a capital L that Leo talks about is really what we all seek and will bring peace. This is derailing the thread so will stop replying at this level of detail lol.

Love is so fine it can't be defined, we can at least attempt to put the limitless into the limits that is our logic and to have some grasp of reality. Love with a capital L at least doesn't come to an end, it is a process. The other kinds of love (lower case) animal, familial etc do as they are bound by form. We are bound by the boundaries of biology and the material and yet, something more in us is boundless. @Gesundheit2 nice share!

It can on a biochemical level, but there are different types of love. The english language is poor compared to others in defining love, for example arabic has 10 types of love, or latin has eros/romantic, agape/unconditional, philia/friend love. It is a thought, emotion, physical and metaphysical all at once. Hard to define and yet we must define it for it is always, in all ways.

Lesson in this: even if a man is of value, it doesn't matter to a woman unless the woman believes she at least has some access to it or chance of securing it. The essential value of men is strength in all its forms (physical, financial, emotional, mental, social etc). Women wish to secure that strength. As a guy, you must communicate and offer that value in the form of showing at least some attention, initiative, and that you wish to be strong for her. A woman who feels a valuable guy is too unattainable will stop pursuing and move on.

When interacting with women its best to be in the moment as its more a emotional / energetic affair and to not be trapped up in the head. Analyse after the interactions. As your logical you may want to understand human nature which will help dispel any grandiosity women may have and therefore help you to be more relaxed around them. Use your own proclivity of being logical, to study nature, accept it, and act accordingly to it. The following may help de-pedestalise women for you. Not to put down women, but just to see them for what they are, not below or above men. If you view them as above you, you won't attain them because they aren't attracted to weakness, but if you view them as below you, how can you healthily love that which you look down on or detest. ''A subset of high value men who don’t commit beyond sex, have a very rosy-perception of women because they’ve got their game down enough not to face too much difficulty getting laid. These men enjoy the best of what women have to offer without being subject to any of the bullshit attached to it; this gives them a positively skewed bias. Perhaps some men are bitter, but bitter rarely means wrong, if anything, bitterness is the unwelcome by-product of a hard learned lesson, it is neither unwarranted nor devoid of wisdom. This is not to encourage bitterness, but rather to give credit where credit is due. Instinct obscures truth when it comes to the study of women, men are overridden by idealism, lust and paternalism and feel if they accept the darker nature of women then they have to hate women and won’t be able to enjoy them. Therefore a man is prone to retain the myth of the idealised women rather than accept nature, because he wrongly believes acceptance of nature is tantamount to an inability to enjoy women. This is not true at all, sometimes one has to accept reality is not what they want it to be, that women are not angelic as so many men were wrongly taught, but that in fact women are flawed just as men. It’s about a recalibration of expectations to complement reality, rather than continuing to worship the unicorn myth that society has so deeply ingrained. In spite of this realisation, you have to make a commitment to your happiness and make the best out of the flawed nature of human kind. If you can’t or won’t do that, you’re going to go your own way and prove nature right: you need illusions to see women as worthwhile. The inability to grasp and accept nature, instead choosing to reject nature, indicates the person in question has to deceive themselves about the nature of women in order to be capable of enjoying them. Such a person is not at the stage where they can enjoy women, whilst accepting how flawed nature can be, or their idealism of it. Salvation lies in accepting and working in accordance with nature, rather than in denying it. Where woman idealism may stem from 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. Women are incapable of reciprocating man’s love. They love differently. There is a hierarchy of love that trickles down. Man sacrifices for woman, and woman, for child. Rarely does the river flow upward. As such, if man is to believe that women can love to the same extent as he, then he is doomed to disappointment and misery when she invariably acts within accordance of her nature rather than his idealisation. Men who had mothers that never endowed them with the maternal bond find it easier to swallow the truth and understand female behaviour as adults. It is a recurring observation of mine that men deprived of maternal love are better adapted for dealing with women as mates in adulthood. The man who grew up as a neglected boy never foolishly believed that a girlfriend would love him as his mother would, he believed she would love him exactly as his mother did; with extreme conditionality. Essentially man has to be stronger, for it is security she lacks being the more vulnerable sex, and seeks this in man. Children rely on women, women on man, man on himself and his strengths. If I could pin point / generalise the nature of women and men it would be this: women seek to secure strength, men seek to express strength. A lot of male/female behaviour can be explained with these two principles. Love women for what they are, not what you idealise them to be. ''

Generalisations are more useful than nuance in grasping reality, reality is nuanced but if you try to take in all of the nuance you get noise, unless your looking into a specific individual. We have to find ways to generalise all of the information we receive to be able to understand to an extent and then act, otherwise there will be paralysis by analysis. Every man and woman has a hardware (their biology) which is the same for all men and woman, then there is the software (their psychology, individual experiences etc) which is on top and interplays with it and makes everyone unique, but not so unique some fundamentals don't change. Everyone is the same, and yet everyone is the different. Woman's baseline experience of life is from fear, even man is fearful. But woman more so for the other half of the population want to in seminate her, are stronger than her, and this handicaps her for months for child rearing only instilling further fear for she can't fend for herself even more. Woman had to depend on man and tribe more than men, this is why their more sociable than men. Heres a video of teal swan going into this experience of life as a woman also:

I may not be fully correct but will give it a shot at my current level of understanding. Its not impossible, but more improbable. Due to evolution men have a greater ability to abstract/understand/use logic, its not that it doesn't exist in women, just less so. Women are more emotion centric than men, generally in conversation you hear women say I feel rather than men who say I think. Women survival was based on securing the strength of men, mens survival was based on securing the hostile environment. For men to control the environment they had to be more rational/logical and understand the environment, this evolved logic in men over Millenia. For women to control/secure men for survival they require emotionality, social bonding, sexual prowess, their survival relied heavily on their ability to socially bond to the tribe and man. Women are more likely to intuit something, whereas men are more likely to reason something. Women's love is focused more towards themselves and their children, this was a necessary result of a feminine survival instinct that’s helped preserve women and their offspring in a violent, chaotic and uncertain evolution. Mans love for conquering the environment was his survival instinct, he had no one else to rely on except his own strength and that of other men. In general, love flows downwards from men to women, women to children. That is why mans love is more sacrificial/idealistic and the male (even in the animal world) sacrifices for the female. (ie certain male species die after breeding or men go to war to protect women and children). Woman must be protected because they are the life givers and the only way to fulfil the biological instinct to propagate the species. Woman's love is more opportunistic/conditional as it had to be in order to survive, although her love for her children is idealistic/unconditional. This is why the hero's journey or the hero who dies for his family resonates so much. We can see mans sacrificial/unconditional love in animal species, to man going to war, to the conception of a child (sperm dying to reach the egg), to the heroic stories/narrative in culture / hollywood, to him giving up his instinct to sleep with multiple women for the sake and security of one woman and his family, and now to the court system where it is sided to the woman who has more to gain than lose in a divorce. This idealistic/unconditional love men envision and live through comes from their first experience of woman being their mother, men project that this is the love he will receive from all women or his wife only to realise the true nature / hierarchy of love, and that unconditional love flows down not up. This is of course a more biological love than a spiritual love which is unconditional.

Women seek to secure strength. This is the same strength that can be used against them and be a danger, so using their femininity they wish to wield that strength towards their own security and that of their children. This is the underlying theme/attraction towards vampires, beauty and the beast etc. The taming of the dangerous masculine for their own protection and provisioning. This is the continuous conflict and tension in women. The man their with is strong, yet is that strength available to them for their security and will it be there tomorrow. They wish their man to become better in health and wealth for it means security in the wild world they are vulnerable to, and yet at the same time they fear the mans higher status and attractiveness will have other women (more younger/beautiful/charming) compete for him or steal him away threatening their very security. This is why marriage/commitment means so much to women. The man they married in courtship, can end up becoming a shell of himself in the relationship and what is promised in courtship isn't always delivered in relationship. For the man love induced and getting his manhood validated can relax into a weaker version of himself. Biology has done its job of pro-creating and so the sexual instinct is no longer there to drive him to be stronger, he must find a higher instinct, the spiritual instinct to keep on going on in his betterment. Subconsciously, the woman can also herself weaken the man to ensure less competition from other women taking him and so giving her further re-assurance and security. On one level this gives the woman security other women won't compete for him but at the same time she loses the strength of her man which gave her a sense of security in the first place. She knows the one thing that wielded the man to her needs (her beauty) is declining and so wishes to secure the men as it fades. This is why women are extending their youthfulness now days ever more through botox etc as people aren't marrying/committing as young as they used, thus giving women the security the desire. Love and relationship is a constant flux. You can see this ambivalence more clearly in women with daddy issues. The don't trust what they need most, which is the masculine in their life. They need it most as they lacked it, and because they don't trust it to be there due to fear abandonment this makes them very possessive, controlling, jealous which ends up sabotaging their relationships. This dynamic is in women, just not as intense as in a woman who experienced an absent father.

Women seek to secure (long term/commitment) strength (alphaness). Players signal strength but not security, nice guys signal security but no strength. The good guy/ideal for woman is someone who is strong AND commits. The irony is that the men who are alpha find it hard to commit because of all the options they have. Men seek love and pair bonding also, but their dick also seeks variety. Men can have sex without emotion and still come back to the woman they love. One way to cause less break up is to let such men, if they are unable to control that sexual variety drive is to let them slip out from time to time just for sex, nothing more (ie no dates, sleep overs, long emotional talks with other women, protection used etc, its why prostitution is the oldest profession). Alphas can be monogamous with their heart, and polygamous with their dick basically. Another way in the modern age to satiate that variety is porn, which can keep relationships together, although if not disciplined that same porn can dull the mans sexual response to his woman also.

Bando is right, its not just about the number of partners but everything in her life experience which could impact her psychology and current/future behaviour. It's not necessarily in their biology to sleep with many men, yet the current environment/conditioning/women's empowerment/women are equal to men and can do what men can do (equating and conflating equality under the law with equality in our biological make up) has a lot of women doing exactly that. Also, a lot of bad parenting / high divorce rates are causing un healthy coping patterns in the current generations. To show the complexity of each individual think about this. It can be that a virgin who was restricted by her parents, once out the clutches of her parents and with her first husband retaliates against the resentment of not having freedom in her youth and now wanting to explore it as she has more freedoms living with her husband or post divorce / having fomo seeing other girls/guys her age enjoying their freedom. Daddy issues don't just stem from father absence but also tyrannical presence. Another scenario can be a woman who has slept with a lot of people but who is working on herself and realised what she likes/wants won't have any regrets of missed experiences. Another question is if you are her best and she knows it. She could have been with 20 terrible men in the sense they were not as attractive/actualised as you and you just blow her away sexually/mentally/emotionally etc and so she's happy to be and stick with you as you've had the most impact on her emotionally than any of the many other guys in her past.

@TK2021 You get it man. Past behaviour is generally a predictor of present/future behaviour. Of course, people shouldn't be shamed or judged for their past as we all carry the past with us, but its good to know about past patterns if you wish to assess your future compatibility with your partner. If the past is discussed, its because they/you see you in their future. You have to see your partner for who they are now and today, and if their were red flags, or toxic behaviours in the past that wouldn't jive well with you, you have to see if they are conducting them self in that way currently or working/open to address it. Forgive the past, but also don't accept bad behaviour in the present that isn't conducive for a relationship. A red flag isn't a hard no to a person, just a signal to be aware of. Jealousy is a natural instinct, so don't be hard on yourself or let people make you feel bad about it. Jealousy originates generally in women from insecurity (to secure their partner for long term safety/paternity/provisioning) and for men for paternity (to know the kids are his and his resources etc are going to his genetic lineage), thats why mate guarding is a thing. Of course, how this jealousy instinct is played out are acted upon can be an issue and cause toxic behaviour. In the past women would be killed for cheating including the one they cheated with, which is a toxic barbaric reaction, and why harems would be protected from other men. The opposite reaction of weakness is to disown the instinct and put up with bad behaviour a women currently shows in the present, and allowing yourself and self esteem as a man to be disrespected in a relationship to appease your partner. This only builds resentment and a low sense of self woth (ie letting your partner go out with past ex's too much, messaging lots of people of the opposite sex etc). A woman and man should have boundaries in a relationship to ensure the health of the relationship or its no relationship at all. In the current day, a mans jealousy instinct is in over drive, due to women having a past (usually more experience than men except the player jerk types who bed a lot of women), also due to us being in an environment or having global sexual access via internet tied in with no stigma against sleeping with people causally , adding social media into the mix where women/men can have hundreds of followers. It is something men of today have to contend with and not what our brains are evolved for. For relationships to work in the modern day both parties have to protect themselves from over stimulating these instincts in un healthy ways sabotaging the relationship and having boundaries to protect their relationship and commitment with each other. If they aren't open to that, it shows either lack of understanding (which you can explain to them) or that they wish to keep their options open if they don't see you as their best option in which case its better to move on. Modern day relationships are a lot of work to maintain and more awareness of our own nature and the modern environment is needed to navigate it. Understanding men/women's nature isn't so we can be bitter or angry towards them, but so we can accept each other for what we are and love each other despite it, by having empathy.

Insecurity will sabotage the relationship if you lose the frame that your the leader and one who is looked upon for strength. Financial strength isn't all men offer but physical emotional mental. A lot of women who are with men for solely financial strength end up leaving if thats all the man is offering, and once they themselves don't need to rely on that man for that side of life. https://www.google.com/search?q=promotion+divorce&oq=promotion+divorce&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l2j0i390l4.5277j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Good points, also if children are being told in school now that if they feel more feminine they can become female or visa versa that is only fragmenting them even further. This must be the excesses of stage green (inclusiveness) ? Once problems start to crop up maybe society will then change their approach and come to a healthy green paradigm.. In the past we were told to disown/repress the opposite sex's traits within us (men cant be anything like women or women anything like men) but now we are disowning our own biological sex. The point is both are wrong for they disown the sex we are born into, or traits we have within ourself. Im guessing the way forward is integration.

I think there has to be a distinction between gender and sex. Sex is the physical form of which their are two, gender is the characteristics/traits predominant to each of those sexes. You can be male and have some female traits, and be male and have some female traits. In fact it rounds you off as a person as its integrative. The fact that a person has to change their sex because society makes them feel they can due to them having the opposite sex's traits is actually opposite of inclusive. You can be a man and include female traits and visa versa.

https://illimitablemen.com/2015/08/26/promiscuity-civilization/ @PepperBlossoms Thanks for your insight. Something to ponder over for sure.

These aren't my words but from another source. I found this piece very interesting and would like to share on this section which pertains to the bigger picture being society and civilisation / where we are possibly headed / how this possibly ties into spiral dynamics. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROMISCUITY & CIVILIZATION Contents: 1.) Introduction 2.) Individuals, Families & Civilization 3.) Freedom & Human Instinct 4.) Promiscuity Threatens Civilization 5.) Religion Subjugates Promiscuity 6.) In Closing 1.) Introduction: As is typical, I was browsing the forum when a gentleman’s question caught my eye:Monogamy isn’t the norm in the animal kingdom, by far. So why do we so hungrily desire this form of relationship? The questioner is, as is quite common, falling victim to the appeal to nature fallacy. The fallacy is the assumption that because something is natural, it is optimum. In this case: “promiscuity comes naturally to humans, therefore, promiscuity is a good thing.” Of course, such thinking is not only fallacious but solipsistic. It appears a given that the average mind conflates naturality to be synonymous with “good.” Such thinking is used to great effect in marketing to give the word “natural” a positive connotation. Objectively the word is neither negative nor positive, merely neutral. Therefore the ubiquity of the assumption that “natural” can be equated with “good” is nothing more than a culturally programmed memetic infused into the collective consciousness. We typically associate the word “nature” and its derivative forms with health, enchanting trees and lush green lawns. But such an association is an inaccurate synonymity for “good,” as cancer, manure and vomit are as equally natural – if not quite so appealing. To briefly demonstrate the irrationality of such an idea, consider you use a computerised device to read this. Computers are incredibly useful, but they are anything but natural. So why do we use computers if they’re unnatural creations that aren’t the norm in the animal kingdom? Well of course because computers, like all technology, confer benefits upon human lifestyle we would not otherwise reap. The unnaturalness of computers is considered, on the whole, to be a net positive, not negative. As such, computers have become a bedrock of civilization. They do not need to be natural to enhance our quality of life. They merely need be the most efficient in performing the duties assigned to them. In this regard, monogamy and computers have a lot in common. 2.) Individuals, Families & Civilization: The institution of family does for social dynamics what computers do for electronics. Both inventions revolutionise and dominate their respective spheres. Property rights, law, marriage – all these things were invented to stabilise civilization by exerting environmental pressure on human instincts. Without such things, we revert to a base tribalism: violence and petty territorial barbarianism. Although one may not see it, for an idea, social grouping or principle is less tangible than a computer, the family unit is a prerequisite for the functioning of more complex social order. One cannot have committees, courts, institutions, panels, religions or even nations without first establishing family. As the individual bonds with the family, the family bonds with the civilization it inhabits. But individuals deprived the bonds of family by outcome of immutable social factors are often at odds with civilization. Such individuals give up on community, opting for a more parasitic survival strategy. They are the shameless narcissists, the angry barbarians and each and every shade of dysfunction there between. Scarcely do such people care for civilization. And how can we expect them to care for something as grand and abstract as civilization when such individuals were never fully subject to the bonds of family? How does one come to love something as grand as nation when they had not even the love of kin? Far from statesmen interested in the public good, vagabonds and the estranged are typically apathetic to the plight of civilization. Make no mistake in thinking it is only the estranged who behave in such a manner, indeed, entire families have pillaged civilizations in pursuit of internal interests. However, I think this more an affectation of excessive power rather than a quirk of family. As such, this contention is a generalisation rather than an absolutism. Familial estrangement manufactures apathy. This is how promiscuity and divorce undermine social progress, and in turn, civilizational progress. The effects of such action cause pain, which in turn, promotes excessive individualism and a disdain for collectivism. And so the cosmic recurrence that is a need for balance is tipped too far in one direction. That is, an obsession with the self (individualism, narcissism) and a disregard for the whole (collectivism, abstraction.) Naturally, this is bad for family. And what is bad for family is in turn bad for civilization. Each family represents a building block in the construction of civilization. Families (in the traditional sense of the word) contribute more value to society than lone individuals. Generally speaking, they have better mental health, a higher sense of civic duty, are more productive, and pay more taxes than broken homes or one person households. And this seems only rational. Family is bound by blood, civilization forms around the desires and needs of such bonds. People work harder and produce more when they care for and are cared for by others. Familial social pressure urges individuals to excel, to make the family proud, not to disappoint. Of course, there are always exceptions. There are highly motivated self starters devoid of family married to nothing but narcissism and money, but such individuals are the exception rather than the rule. In general, the prevailing notion is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, that families achieve more as units than they would if their members were autonomously estranged. This doesn’t mean that family life is suited to all; it simply “is.” 3.) Freedom & Human Instinct: Rebels have always been attractive, as truth be told it is the not-so-secret desire of human nature to defy social order and do whatever, whenever. To have one’s cake, and eat it – to relish in the destructive aspects of human instinct without suffering consequentially at the hands of civilization. Civilization does not punish the individual out of sadism, but rather, it punishes destructive behaviour because that behaviour threatens the social order necessary to sustain civilization. Now of course, I realise in my statement of this that we endure a contemporary exception to this maxim. That is, the normalisation of adultery via the feminist spearheaded collapse of the traditional family, but I digress. It is human nature to be infatuated with freedom in spite of considerations pertaining to the stability of such. And so, the minority who manage to stylishly defy society and get away with it are near universally idolised by the masses who are less free. Rock stars, rappers and social butterflies looking to make a name for themselves all encapsulate such attitudes. In truth, if all enjoyed the near absolute freedom of the few, social order would break down. Civilization would be but a shadow of its former self. And then those left would quickly call for order and more conservative social mores. Indeed, boom and bust, rise and decline, the attitudes and social mores of a civilization’s people appears quite cyclical. It appears that with prosperity, comes the rise of the feminine. Like children with access to the cookie jar, this leads to excessive freedom, which in turn leads to destruction and general apathy. Then when collapse comes, the masculine takes over – leading to order, conservatism, creation and empathy. Civilization is a process of domestication, without it, we are more beastlike than man. For humans evolved far longer in a pre-civilizational state than in a civilizational one. One need only look at cases of feral children to see how without civil domestication a human becomes a beast. Your ability to indulge your curiosity and intellect to exponential heights, to grow, to expand your mind and to travel vast distances – these things are possible only by the discoveries and sustenance of civilization. As such, to enjoy the furnishings of higher civilization, we are required to, for better or worse, forgo some of our more primitive aspects. Unfettered hedonism is just one of these aspects, although it is popular to think this is a piece of the proverbial cake that can be eaten and enjoyed without consequence. 4.) Promiscuity Threatens Civilization: I would hazard a guess in asserting that promiscuity costs our civilization dearly. Indeed, in the pursuit of orgasmic pleasure, we have a higher national debt (welfare,) a burgeoning divorce industry, lost boys and girls growing up fatherless, increased mental illness, higher rates of crime etc. I could go on, but I think the point has been sufficiently made. This is more a statement of reality than it is a judgement on the behaviour of those who contribute to the decline. It is what it is and so what will be, will be. And even in spite of moral considerations, it is most apparent that promiscuity diminishes the quality of a civilization by merit of its societal consequences. Should promiscuity not undermine family it would be all well and good. And so it appears that families cannot insulate themselves with an open-door sexual policy, just as nations cannot insulate themselves with an open-door immigration policy. Civilizations that do no protect their culture lose their culture. In truth, a family is a micro-civilization. It has its own rules, customs, politics and opinions distinct from the larger culture. A strong family, much like a strong nation, is therefore selective rather than liberal in who it allows into its domain. And this is the incredible thing about the social engineers who compose much the intelligentsia of western civilization. They ignore the history of human social development in favour of pursuing ever-evolving obscurities dreamt up in the solitary detachedness of the ivory tower. A man’s innate power is in his bodily strength and logic, a woman’s, in her bodily beauty and cunning. The social engineers ignore such immutable human intricacies in their egalitarian idealism. The social contract is the set of social rules that makes civilization possible, social engineers create and perpetuate ideologies which alter the terms of said contract, damaging civilization by swapping what works with what is desired to work. Swapping what is functional if imperfect, with what is dysfunctional and even less perfect. Then, quite satirically, it labels this regression progress. 5.) Religion Subjugates Promiscuity: Almost every religious institution to ever dominate the hearts and minds of a society has preached quite mightily the importance of monogamy. Religion as untrue as it appears, is therefore not only a pre-science way of explaining reality, but likewise a civilizational mechanism for social order. It is the imposition of order on creatures capable of order, but lacking the self-discipline to exercise such order without theological arguments permeating the hive mind. Human instinct is not without fault, and thus by merit of its destructive aspects will undo civilization if left unchecked. Religion inherently acknowledges the flawed nature of the human character and so brainwashes humanity in an effort to reconcile human flaw with human ingenuity. Civilization is a construction that balances on the fragile precipice between human instinct and human imagination. Civilizational progress is therefore contingent on the balance of conflict between our instinct to seek what we momentarily desire, and the loftier pursuits of what our minds envisage. The trade-off’s one must make in the pursuit of either is a warring battlefield, one that permeates the root and core of all that we do. Civilization demands imagination, whilst instinct, the mediocrity of self-gratification. Without the subjugation and noblest oppression of the prior, the freedom-seeking of the latter has a propensity to win. And with that victory, civilization falls. 6.) In Closing: From time to time I like to diverge from the chatter of Machiavellianism and evolutionary psychological explanations of female behaviour to explore the grander picture. Indeed, the state of civilization aka “the decline” is of great interest to me. These pieces tend not to be popular because they imply judgement, self-sacrifice and collectivism. Excessive selfishness and apathy is the spirit of the time. And yet in spite of that, I think such pieces necessary for stimulating a more nuanced worldview. As such, I hope the article compelled you to think, which for better or worse, is characteristically the intent of this blog. In addition, I kindly ask the reader to note their opinion in the enclosed poll. Criticism is as ever, welcomed in the comments.

I was friends with a girl, which turned into dating each other over 2 months although we both knew we were looking for different things (her commitment, me something more casual). I had told her from the beginning and was honest, however we still had chemistry and attraction and ended up being physical. Every time we met it was physical although I was hesitant about sex due to knowing she wants something serious, she complied with just keeping it casual not saying anything which made me think its fine and so we ended up sleeping together once. Didn't push to sleep together again and then she was being cold at which point she wasn't comfortable keeping things casual and wants something more serious. The situation was causing her a lot of anxiety as she didn't know where we stand and wanted something more from me that I'm unable to offer. I only found out later after we talked and decided to be friends that she's been on some medication for depression/anxiety that was mostly caused by the stress of the situation. I said I can keep my physical impulse aside and be there as a friend for emotional support etc. She's agreed but a bit hesitantly saying she can't be friends with someone she liked a lot. In this situation, would you think its right for me to stay friends or would that just remind her of me again and again only keeping her more depressed or should I cut contact cold turkey, or slowly over time and let her handle her emotions? I'm not sure how she became so emotionally attached after only sleeping together once. Was it maybe the stress of what the friend group think or may judge her for sleeping without getting a relationship out of it?