Emerald

There is that too. There's a lot of shame projected upon women's bodies and their sexuality. But even beyond the shame, there's simply a collective ignorance that's born out of a lack of genuine curiosity about the female experience and devaluation of the subjective state of being a woman. And in the blanks of the mystery created by that lack of curiosity... there's a lot of "filling in the blanks" by projecting the collectively charted territory of the male experience of sex and sexuality... onto a woman's experience of sex and sexuality. And this tends to lead to women coming to understand their sexuality in a way that would be pleasurable and fulfilling for them, if they were male. But because they're not male, they aren't fulfilled by operating that way. For example, for a man to make sex orgasm-focused, visually focused, and physicality-focused... this leads to sexual satisfaction. But for a woman to make sex orgasm-focused, visually focused, and physicality-focused to the exclusion of more emotional experiences... sex is a bit boring and 2-dimensional. And it just starts feeling like a chore and kind of draining. And it can lead women and society at large to come to the false conclusion that sex is enjoyable and meaningful for men... but not for women. And a lot of people don't even believe that women actually enjoy sex. I remember that, when I was a teenager, my stepmom would occasionally say things like, "Sex is for men." or even implying that sex is like a chore that women do for the sake of men and not something that's for women. And that's not a rare sentiment. I once had a partner who thought that way too... and I hated our intimate life because he and I both just saw sex as a chore that I'd subject myself to for his sake. This is even true... despite my sexuality always having been important to me and something frequently on my mind. But my experience has been that, if I feel deeply connected to and attuned with my partner... and my partner is someone who has shown me that he can be trusted and his presence feels good to me... and he's not seeing sex as a chore I do for him... and the oxytocin is flowing... then I can enter a deeply relaxed feeling state that is much more satisfying and eros-driven to me than the intensity and tension of a climax. Of course, the climax is nice too. But if the focus is linear and hyper-focused towards climax... I won't be able to enter that feeling state.

How do you mean? I'm a bit confused by this reaction. "Busted" is what you say when you catch someone trying to get away with something... or trying to hide something. And I've always been pretty transparent that that's my perspective on the matter. I'm not trying to hide my feelings and preferences with regard to topics that pertain to women's sexuality.

That's always been how I've felt about it. Orgasms are enjoyable. And I do want to have them occasionally... both inside and outside the context of sex with a partner. But I don't seek them much if I'm on my own because the feeling of orgasm is nowhere near as enticing as the heart-opening feelings during sex that can't even be simulated alone... nor with a partner that I don't have very strong feelings for and a deep connection with. And any very technically-focused experience of sex just brings me out of emotions-mode and into try-hard mode. Plus, sex that's too focused on orgasm makes me feel like the guy is performing (and I can sense his attention narrowing and feeling the pressure to perform for me) rather than just enjoying himself and existing in the moment, which is where the real connection and intimacy happens. It took me a long time to understand this about my own sexuality though. And until I was in my mid-20s or so, I would wonder why sex would feel so dull and boring and tepid even though I had a very strong driver towards it. And I realized that I had been taught about my sexuality through a male-focused lens, where sex is about physicality and getting to the destination of orgasm. And I was treating m female body like a male body, and wondering why there was something unsatisfying and "meh" about it... even if I did have an orgasm. And if I was really into that "get from a to b" orgasm approach, I would find masturbation a lot more interesting... especially since it's a 5x easier to have one alone. It's just not that compelling. But sex as an interactive experience and means of expression and emotional dance, is very interesting to me. So, the most enjoyable experiences are with a man who I love who loves me, is emotionally present with me, and is just operating in a very natural and instinctual way without thinking about performing. And this circumstance arises ideally after something that produces a lot of Oxytocin and relaxing calm feelings... like cuddling or waking up together. So, if the OP @Inliytened1 is looking for what's addictive to a woman... the answer is anything that produces Oxytocin and feelings of a calm nervous system. And emotion-focused sex is part of what produces those feelings.

I don't think that's true. Personally, if I had the chance to do it... I wouldn't because I'm already spoken for. And I value my relationship. But otherwise, if I think of someone like Brad Pitt in his heyday (or any model-esque Hollywood man who looks similar to him), he's too pretty for me to feel turned on by the thought of a sexual scenario with him. That said, I think Brad Pitt's like 60 now and gotten a bit more average-guy looking, so age may have changed this dynamic a bit... as he doesn't look as pretty anymore. For me, part of the polarity during sex is that I get to feel pretty in contrast to the man that I'm with. Like, I have to feel like the peacock of the relationship to really feel the charge. And I can feel that dynamic a lot more easily with a guy who's a 6 than I can with a guy who's a 10, because I'm not myself a model-esque woman. And a model-esque woman is a LOT prettier than a model-esque man. So, the polarity works there. So, to give an analogy... if the guy is the pretty one, imagine it's a bit like if a woman has a great body... but she's a lot taller and a lot stronger than you. Even if she's attractive, it's may not be a turn-on if you tend to get turned on by feeling taller and stronger than your female partner. That said, I'm sure many women would be interested in Hollywood hot guys, like Brad Pitt. But I think there's some psychology where they feel pretty by being chosen by a pretty person. I know that exists too. And maybe they are more fame driven in their attractions. But if I try to imagine having sex with a Brad Pitt type, I just can't feel anything about it.

One thing I would mention is that the thing that draws a woman to a man (and to sex more generally) isn't really about the physical sensations during sex or about his penis. As a side note and caveat... Of course, orgasms are enjoyable for women. And women will want to have them during sexual encounters. And if there's a huge orgasm gap between her and her male partner, she will likely feel the unfairness of this disparity and what it means about the guy's values. But the thing that actually makes a woman think about a man doesn't have very much to do with orgasms or the techniques he does with his penis. What actually draws a woman to a man (and to sex more generally) is the shared intimacy and the emotional experience of sex. So, if you have "Man #1" who is a master at sexual techniques and giving women orgasms... And you have "Man #2" who is just okay at sex from a technical standpoint, but he's someone that the woman wants to be close to and who is able to connect to her emotionally during sex and hits the right emotional buttons... Most women will choose "Man #2" every time. So, it's important to recognize that women generally aren't drawn to the same things as a man is during sex. Men and very visual and very orgasm-focused. And it's very much about the physical body of a woman in terms of what turns him on... and very much about the physical body (ejaculation) in terms of what makes it satisfying. And a man won't feel satisfied with the sex without these components. But being too orgasm-focused or physicality-focused actually makes sex less interesting for a woman because it's too point a to point b and too material in its focus. It can feel a little "lather, rinse, repeat" to a woman, if the deeper emotional layer isn't activated. Of course, orgasms are good and important. But they shouldn't be the primary North Star of sex, if you want it to be enjoyable for the woman. Consider this... most men feel the drive towards orgasm daily or every other day. And men masturbate frequently when they are by themselves. And women tend to masturbate a lot less than that. I looked up the statistics, and it estimated about once per week. But even that seems a bit high to me. So, there's just a lesser drive towards the physical sensations themselves for women. Instead, think of the woman like an emotional instrument... like a harp. But each string on the harp is a different feeling state. And during sex, what makes it interesting is when a guy is able to be very present and is able to operate in a way that plucks the strings skillfully. And this doesn't have much to do with sex techniques. It's really just about him being who he is in his highest integrity form. On a physical level... there's basically only 3 ways to have sex. And on a physical level, the path to orgasm is just about sensation in the right places at the right rhythm. And women aren't as motivated to sex when sex is only that. But on an emotional level, there are many facets to the sexual experience. And that's what women are usually looking for... and what makes her want to get closer to a man.

To understand women, the first and most important thing to do is to understand how humans work... and to then recognize the humanity of a woman. I'd say, men and women are 80% similar based on the core humanity. And it's something that's gotten even clearer to me working as a coach over the past 7 years. We're all going through the same core human patterns. And one major blindspot that I notice that a sizable percentage of men have is that they can tend to see women as fundamentally alien to themselves... like a totally different species. And this tends to create a lot more tension and friction to developing positive friendships and romantic relationships with women for the men who see women as alien. And it creates this worship/hate dynamic, where men with this paradigm will see woman as both above and below them... like angels and demons, instead of actual people. And the same can't be said the other way around. Most women don't see men as alien to themselves. And this tends to create an imbalance between the sexes level of understanding of one another where women understand more about men than men understand about women simply by recognizing that men are as human as they are and are going through all the regular human things. But in the 20% of qualities that are genuinely different between men and women, I would sum up the main difference that I notice like this... Think about movies where people are skillfully sneaking into a maximum security place to retrieve something. And the person is about to walk into an open room with the thing they're trying to retrieve on a table in the middle of the room. But then, someone notices that there are a bunch of faint red laser lines all over the room. And if anyone walks across one of those laser lines, then the cops will be informed and will come immediately. And then, the person retrieving the item has to duck and weave through all the red laser lines. In this metaphor, the red laser lines represent raw emotional information and vibes. And generally, women can see the red lines more easily and can see the implications of what happens relationally if those lines are crossed... for better and for worse. This creates more social awareness and a deeper connection to feeling in general... but also difficulties doing what needs doing if it means crossing a social line. And grudges can be held more easily because there's a deeper connection to the underlying lattice-work of 'laser lines world'. Red laser-lines world doesn't go away... it's very loud. Also, red-laser lines world is complex... and it takes a lot of skill to learn to read it. And if you don't learn how to read it, it will bury you in TONS of un-processable information. And generally, for Masculine men (but not usually Feminine men) they can't see the red laser lines quite as easily and have less connection to what happens if those laser lines are crossed... for better and for worse. On one hand, decisions can be made more quickly and unnecessary boundaries can be discarded more easily. And red-laser lines world in HD is A LOT of information to constantly process... so, it's easier to emotionally regulate when the laser lines are a bit fainter, as there isn't so much information that it's overpowering. But it can be easier to disassociate from red-laser lines world altogether, since the lines are a fainter and easier to ignore. And when that happens there can be a "bull in a china shop" dynamic with those red laser lines... and real social consequences can happen but not be felt. This is especially true for men who see red laser lines world as unimportant or lame.

What I think (apropos of the debates) is that there are a lot of guys on the forum who were taught (by grifters) "Don't listen to women on these matters. Don't ask a fish to catch it." Instead buy my very expensive program. And that's a comforting sentiment for men who have historically struggled with dating and socializing, as it can give the sense "All I need to do is understand and practice this finite logical list of basic principles and I will understand women better than they understand themselves, and understand the universal formula for evoking attraction in a woman." So, when women (especially very introspective women like the ones on this forum) fact-check that and says, "Actually, those things are only partially true." or "Those things only work with women who have attachment issues." or "That is outright false."... it shakes the certainty of a very comforting paradigm and the illusion of control and certainty over a historically confusing, difficult, or sometimes shame-inducing part of life. And this causes a kind of backlash and an un-teachability, where there is an immunity to wisdom beyond what they already believe they know. It's kind of like how you can't pour liquid into a cup that's already full. So, it becomes impossible or nearly impossible for me and the other female members on the forum to communicate real lived-in truths about women's actual experiences of attraction towards men without a significant amount of emotionally charged blow-back. And the conversation gets to be a one-sided because the actual female perspective doesn't really have space here to exist. This is largely why this space repels women and becomes a 98% male space. And the issue with these gaming paradigms is that women are picking up on so many teeny tiny signals about a man that come through in his words, actions, gestures, facial expressions, fashion choices, scent, and overall energy. And only like 20% of those signals can be actively changed and improved by the man in a more objective sense. That's what game and increasing attractiveness level is all about... fiddling with the 20%. The other 80% is just who the man fundamentally is as a person. And whether or not attraction happens is very particular and subjective and very specific human-centered. But women (and men) are also attracted to people who embody patterns from childhood. For example, a woman who grew up around parents that committed infidelity is more likely to be attracted to a partner who will cheat. While a women who didn't grow up around that pattern will tend to be repelled by the vibes of a cheater. For the former woman, cheater-vibes will evoke attraction. For the latter woman, cheater-vibes will evoke a passive sense of disgust that prevents attraction. I actually had quite an interesting experience of realizing this. Before I was 14 years old, I wasn't very knowledgeable yet about what I wanted in a partner. And I had just started dating a year before that. And I was just happy that I had guys who were attracted to me. Then, as I gained a bit more experience and dated guys with certain weaknesses of character (like guys who were prone to cheating and other problem behaviors), my taste started to become more discerning. And by the time I was 15 years old, I could read immediately when a guy had those specific weaknesses. And attraction just wouldn't arise. And I'd feel a passive form of disgust. But I still had issues because I have one parent who tends to get angry a lot and yell a lot. And I found myself very attracted to guys who have a tendency to yell and get angry frequently. And that pattern continued into my early 30s, when I finally resolved the underlying root of that pattern in an Ayahuasca journey. And now, having a temper has had the attractiveness neutralized from it as the pattern that created that attraction was resolved. So attraction is governed by objective qualities, subjective qualities, and familial patterns (positive and negative). And my experience has been that the vibes of someone who tries all these tactics and strategies has an unattractive vibe to me because it feels a bit immature and gives very automated mechanistic vibes. And on vibes alone, I could probably sense in 5 minutes if a guy has the pick-up mentality or not. And he doesn't even need to do anything that pertains to it. And what tends to attract me are guys with a very unique personality who have more mature vibes. And that taste has developed a lot over the years as I've gained more experience, developed better self-esteem, raised my standards, and developed a more sensitive spidey sense about who people are as a person and how well they gel with me. That said, if a man wants to attract an immature woman, the best way to do so is to be an immature man... but to be immature in a social and game-playing direction. And this is where these strategies will work the best... especially if that woman has anxious attachment. But a relationship like that will cap the man's potential and will create a hellish dynamic that doesn't really work... as it's two immature people trying to have an adult relationship. And about your point... the good new is... it's totally normal for a heterosexual man to be attracted to boobs. There's nothing dysfunctional about that. And that won't change no matter how much you mature. But similar to what you said, as maturity develops in men and more discernment develops (and he loses the sense of scarcity), the boobs don't become the determining factor of whether or not to get involved with a woman. And if the boobs are attached to a crazy or immature woman, he's not going to be very interested... and he will probably develop the ick, regardless of how the woman looks. I know plenty of very mature men that this describes. So, both mature men and mature women with relatively high self-esteem will tend to be un-interested in potential partners that are operating in immature ways. And more mature women who aren't caught up in some negative familial pattern will catch the whiff of games and gimmicks from a mile away. As a woman, I know that I can meet someone and know their deal in about 5 minutes because I'm picking on so much information about who that person is just in the tone of his voice or tiny micro-expressions on his face. And I can feel if he's a good fit or isn't. And I can feel how secure or insecure he is.

It was moreso when he first started the forum. It was a very different online culture.

Keep in mind that I'm talking about people who I know personally. Some of these guys were even my friends, despite their problematic behaviors. Most of these guys weren't sociopaths at all. Most of them really were just too lazy to operate from a code of ethics... and didn't really care about integrity. (and there are environmental reasons for the laziness and lack of ethics, which I'll get to in a minute) The vast majority of them were just low integrity guys with weaker ethical boundaries and less discernment about what kinds of behaviors they're willing to do and what kinds of behaviors that they're willing to accept in those they socialize with. To give an analogy, it's like the difference between a person who has higher standards for the cleanliness and tidiness of their house compared to other people who have lower standards for cleanliness and tidiness. So, one person might have low standards for tidiness and end up with garbage all through their house because they don't have the sensitivity or standards to even notice the garbage enough or see it as a big enough issue to deal with. And perhaps they stay in the status quo and follow the path of least resistance, so they end up too lazy to actively fix the problem. They don't have the activation energy to fix it because "Eh. It's whatever." This is what happens with people who have weak ethical boundaries too. They just are not sensitive enough and they don't have high enough standards to live in alignment with a code of ethics. And unless they have a "come to Jesus moment", they just follow the path of least resistance... which is what I mean by ethical laziness. It's doing things that make them less trustworthy... be being apathetic and not seeing it as a big enough problem to warrant the effort to change or fix it. But I recognize that there's a huge environmental factor to it... but not necessarily that they were the target of violence per se. Only some of them were in violent environments, but all of them were raised in low-standard environments with the philosophy of "things just are the way they are". But not every guy who was raised in those types of environments became like that, to be clear. In my hometown, one of the worst things about the area that I lived is that people had very low standards in general... relative to ethics, hygiene, the state of their house, who they're willing to accept as a romantic partner, etc. And that pattern of low standards is quite contagious to be around... especially if you've lived your entire life in it. So, I've known a lot of people who have been living their entire lives in a context that normalizes degenerative behaviors to where none of it feels like a very big deal. But it's a lot of people robotically or semi-robotically doing things that compromise their integrity, healthy, and overall quality of life. And a guy who has this level of apathy and "Whatever fuck it." mentality probably isn't going to do the work necessary to stick to a code of ethics... a may have a tendency to be less pressed about crossing others' boundaries... sexually and otherwise.

By that definition, every single man that's not sleeping with every single woman in existence is sexually frustrated. And there is no man on the planet that's sleeping with all 4 billion women. 1. Are you saying that every single man is sexually frustrated? 2. Are you saying that every single instance of sexual harassment comes from sexual frustration?

Thank you! I find that it really is the necessary vehicle to communicate about these kinds of topics.

@Shakazulu Thank you for sharing your story. And I hope that you mend quickly. And there's a lot of wisdom in the realizations you're speaking of. There is a line in the Bible that says something like, "Those who exalt themselves will be humbled." And I have found that, whenever I conceptualize of myself in an idealized way or try to build an idealized narrative around myself as "the special one" or "the chosen one", eventually that bubble gets burst... and then humbling happens. And there is great benefit to being humbled even though it's incredibly painful. It's like a disillusionment, grief, and embarrassment. But it's healthier, and it's more helpful for recognizing our place within humanity. If we exalt ourselves, we see ourselves as above other humans and it disconnects us from our place within humanity... and we experience a sense of exile, shame, and intense pressure that we often are unconscious to. But the humbling painfully reminds us that we are human and flawed.... and that we are not that different from any other person. We are ordinary people and we operate like ordinary people do. And knowing this in an embodied way helps us feel deeply intertwined and interconnected with humanity, nature, and existence at large.

A guy committing sexual harassment against a woman doesn't necessarily mean that he's doing so because he's sexually frustrated. In my teen years, I had been on the receiving end of sexual harassment many times from many different male peers and occasionally adult men. I was really unprotected from it because of the social situations that I was in. And it wasn't that all (or even most) of these guys had no sexual outlet. Every male peer that I'm talking about had girls in their social circle (because I was in their social circle and many other girls were too). So, the vast majority of them had girlfriends at one point or another. (Remember, this was the early 2000s and young men socialized back then.) In my experience of being the receiving end of sexual harassment... they most commonly were just morally weak guys who lacked ethical boundaries in many facets of life and sexual harassment was just one of those ethical lapses that are common with this type of person. They would also cheat on girlfriends, steal from people and stores, lie without care, and do generally untrustworthy things. It like, 'How a man does one thing is how he does everything." And it was usually that these guys were too lazy to maintain a code of ethics. Several of them were also bitter misogynists who had contempt for women/girls and wanted to degrade a young woman as an expression of sexual aggression towards women, and used sexual harassment as a way to do that. Or sometimes the guys just didn't view girls as whole people outside of being vessels for their own pleasure. They just weren't conscious that they were actually going over a person's boundaries because they weren't aware enough to see women as people. This one was usually just a result of a lack of reflection and lower critical thinking skills. Some of them were also guys who were incredibly socially inept and would transgress sexual boundaries into the realm of sexual harassment because they just didn't get it. Like, I remember in my freshman year of high school one unattractive guy with poor hygiene that was very socially uncalibrated would say, "Where's my hug at?" whenever he'd see me. And for context, I was in a very huggy alt-kid group where everyone hugged one another all the time. So, it would have been a clear act of social rejection to refuse someone a hug in this context... which wasn't something I felt comfortable doing at the time. But when he'd come to the group specifically to ask me "Where's my hug at?", I'd reluctantly give him a hug to be nice. And I'd try to give him a quick 2-second hug, but he'd physically hold me there for 10-15 seconds and caress my sides and back up and down while I was trying to squirm away. And he was socially clueless that he didn't really belong in the group, as he just wasn't on the same wavelength. And he was also socially clueless that the long romantic sensual hugs were unwanted despite me trying to squirm away. But the majority of these guys didn't sexually harass because they lacked outlets for sex... or couldn't get a girlfriend. There was even one guy on my bus who I never crossed paths with personally. But he was like a stereotypical rapey classically handsome jock guy from a movie. And he'd be saying very disgusting sexually degrading misogynistic things very loudly on the bus. I honestly would not be shocked at all if I found out that he got convicted of sex crimes. And I just thought he was a vile person. And he was certainly not lacking outlets to girlfriends or sex. He was frequently talking about his sexual escapades on the bus. And he was saying all sorts of disparaging sexual things to and about other young women. It was like a daily occurrence on the bus, him saying really disturbing sadistic things. So, that guy is a perfect example of how sexual harrassment doesn't come from sexual frustration.

You may not recognize it, but I am doing you a great kindness right now in challenging your ideas. But you must understand that you're not asking me for empathy. You're asking me to coddle you and to tell you comforting lies, so that you don't have to take personal responsibility for your own dating problems or take responsibility for solving them. And I am giving you VERY specific actionable advice... get acquainted with women, make friends with women, and interact with women. It doesn't get more concrete than that. And it's quite simple to understand that that's what you must do, even if there are challenges to doing so. And let's be real, it isn't that women don't like you. You haven't even interacted with women enough to know whether or not a specific woman likes you or not. And women are not a monolith or a hivemind. Some women will like you. Some women will dislike you. That's how it goes with people from any group. So, it's not that women (as a hivemind in your imagination) don't like you... it's that you don't like women as a collective group, which is why you refuse to interact with them or make acquaintances with them. Take responsibility for your own feelings of dislike towards women instead of projecting your own dislike towards women as a group onto female strangers and believing that they collectively and monolithically dislike you. I think the reason why you don't find our exchanges "productive" (aka comforting) is because I'm telling you to take personal responsibility for your own issue that blocks you from doing the legwork to become acquainted with women... which is the only way of finding a partner and getting your desired outcomes with women. It's more comfortable to see this problem as a problem women must solve for you... and that women are to blame for. You just don't want to take personal responsibility. You'd rather just finger-wag random women you aren't acquainted with for not fulfilling your fantasy of spontaneously given charitable romantic love. If 100% of women are strangers to you, you simply cannot rationally expect that women that you don't know are going to come breaking down your door to give you romantic love and kindness. That is the fantasy that I'm trying to break you of. And that is why I am sharp and not soft. It would be incredibly mean of me to re-inforce your victim's mentality rationalizations and coddle you and be like, "Don't worry sweetie baby honey pumpkin. None of this is your responsibility. It's not your problem to solve. It's those mean women who are at fault that are responsible for the problem, and so they are the only ones who have the power and responsibility to fix it. You are powerless in this situation, so you obviously can't fix the problem. So, you have no responsibility at all in the matter. Just wait for a selfless stranger woman to come and save you purely out of the goodness of her own heart." And it would be incredibly unkind to validate this idea because it would allow you to languish in victim's mentality and powerlessness where you never solve your own problem.