zazen

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?

Women respond to strength, whatever form that may be in. Unfortunately the negative form of strength (ie narcissists, arrogance etc) is more prevalent than in its positive form (confident yet caring). The same strength that excites women and gets them wet, also scares them if that strength is not entrusted to be in their interest. There are many caring guys but they lack the strength of being centred, grounded and confident to express their strength. Women seek to secure strength (in men), men seek to express their strength (to women and the world). In the absence of strong men, women will seek to secure strength themselves, or through larger government as they don't have strong men to be taken care of, of course this reliance on men also lead to men taking advantage of their position in the past. The player types show strength (although more in its negative form) but they lack giving women the security of being there over long term, and the ideal for women is to secure that strength over the long term. Today, financial/physical security isn't needed by men as society has developed (women being financially independent, government support, safer cities etc). Although, women still seek strength viscerally and emotionally, socially as we'r tribal and hardwired for social connection, that was our security over thousands of years. Gentle-men is the what men are striving for. The nice guy is gentle but not in touch with his masculinity, the jerk is a man but not gentle. The sophisticated savage, the human-being. Be human (which is our animal nature) but be in touch with the BEing (loving caring spirit) that animates us also, and that sets us apart from the other species. This is why women love stories like beauty and the beast (taming and securing the strength of the beast), or vampires etc its the strength that they seek to secure using their femininity. The play of masculine/feminine is for the feminine to round out the masculine, as water shapes rock over time. When such strength is secured and tamed, it validates the feminine essence and there is harmony of the two.

Yeah everyone has phases, the fun phase in youth say 18-23 , 23-27/28 is still fun but tones down as they are working now and more independent/finding themselves in the world. 27/28 when 30 is on the horizon and start to really consider settling down / having babies as signs of aging start showing and peer pressure around them doing the same. Isn't the college hookup culture / fun phase damaging though? Girls don't know any better and coming into this open liberal culture which promotes it as the thing to do only to damage them emotionally and make their future long term relationships suffer. What made the culture promiscuous and open like this. It can't be just feminism, that had its place but not entirely. I guess its a combination of things including technological advancements, social media, clicks/online attention driven by primal instincts such as sex, fear and base desires, urbanisation/bigger cities allowing anonymity and more opportunities to meet people. The world is progressing physically (safety wise/crime) socially in some ways (more green, inclusive etc) technologically a lot, but not sure if its offering us emotional progress in our social lives. We'r more damaged, isolated than before. Inclusivity is good, but it has its limited in that some actions can cause damage. I guess the right attitude would be to let everyone know, these actions will not be judged by society any longer like before (be inclusive of all and not to disown the shadow or any aspects of ourselves), but to also include that here are also the consequences of those actions, and then leave people with their liberal freedom and agency to act accordingly. It's not like we can go back to the old days with a restrictive society, so that seems like the balance. The problem is cause and affect, action and consequence isn't shown as easily as its politically incorrect or hurts peoples sensibilities.

What caused this? In the past people were too rigid, but now too much freedom, or freedom not being used wisely / responsibly is causing its own issues. People starting relationships young, and getting embittered towards the opposite sex after a few failed attempts/relations. How can one healthily bond to the opposite sex that caused them these past traumas and if they do bond it is traumatic bonding or brings its own issues both parties have to deal with. I guess the free love, liberation of the 60/70's was a needed shift from the past and marked the turning of the tide, but now society needs to come to some sort of balance as its clearly not working. Marriage has to become viable and not such a bad deal for men. Most men are at heart family men and have the instinct to provide and protect their woman and children. We have to also be able to speak openly about the consequences of casual sex without being labelled far right, prude, judgemental misogynists. " 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? 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. 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 promiscuity. In safe societies the feminine is able to flourish. But people become 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, and ordered individuals in turn lead to a ordered, creative society once again "

So much clarity. Tough decision it is. Iv found that even just interacting with the opposite sex can be enjoyable if done consciously, enjoy the other aspects of women not just their body, but their mind, perspective, femininity. We don't have to try sleep with every one we interact with which can cause a lot of hurt, but can still enjoy them for more than just their body and feel revitalised by it. This is obviously not what most people are able to do, but more of us on this forum probably can.

Thanks for the feedback Leo and everyone! In hindsight it was wrong, the sex just happened in the heat of the moment. Its for this reason I personally haven't been dating the past year or so as Im busy focusing on my own development, work a job and building a business on the side etc and you can't get into a relationship when limited for time. At the same time learning about society and dating. I'm trying to figure what the right thing to do is, and that my individual actions don't contribute to a traumatic society in the long run. Guys are also being hurt by women as Leo points out. From the culture casual sex is pushed through media, empowerment etc and this is whats confusing/contradictory. Just one example: Demi Lovato who has all 117million followers (size of a country) of young impressionable girls from her Disney days following her, posted to sleep around be a slut etc. If anyone speaks against such things their deemed far right, judgemental, a prude or a Jordan Peterson puppet. As Leo said, decent girls want relationships. People would fight that and say, so what your saying is girls who sleep around aren't decent? Stop being so judgmental. Women now are sleeping with more men, then men are with women, minus the subset of the more attractive guys. The past extreme was complete rigidity of sex to one partner, the other is of extreme freedom to do what you want, but it has consequences. I started a thread of consequences of a unregulated dating market and its consequences which had a lot of interesting back and forth on it. Another thread was started by a woman on how to have sex without getting attached as a women, in another a woman was being told to give sex freely and not to be stingy about it, then another thread on this forum about having a negative bias towards men. Mixed signals are being sent but whats the middle way then. From the female perspective and now days especially what is pushed is follow your emotions, but this leads to bad emotions also. We have to love ourselves now,but also our future self by doing the right actions in this moment, and that takes consciousness and not giving in to certain emotions. Just yesterday a thread on war between men and women started as well. What caused this? In the past people were too rigid, but now too much freedom, or freedom not being used wisely / responsibly is causing its own issues. People starting relationships young, and getting embittered towards the opposite sex after a few failed attempts/relations. How can one healthily bond to the opposite sex that caused them these past traumas and if they do bond it is traumatic bonding or brings its own issues both parties have to deal with. I guess the free love, liberation of the 60/70's was a needed shift from the past and marked the turning of the tide, but now society needs to come to some sort of balance as its clearly not working. " 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 promiscuity. In safe societies the feminine is able to flourish. But people become 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, and ordered individuals in turn lead to a ordered, creative society once again "

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.