Emerald

It's very specific. You pick up on this particular guy's energy and vibe and gestures and flaws. And that all adds up to more than the sum of his parts. I remember in the 7th grade, I had a huge crush on this kid Billy. And he had a really wide squarish head. Something that would definitely be regarded generally as unattractive. My friend Joe used to call him fat head. But every time I'd see him from the back, I'd notice that particularity about him and just feel all kinds of fireworks. And it was little things like that were attractive because they were part of him, but were not attractive in general. And this has always been the case for me. It's always the feelings that his unique idiosyncrasies (physical traits, gestures, patterns of speech, vocal tone, flaws) create a vibe and that vibe itself is enticing. Now, as far as polarity goes, I am a woman who is mostly feminine with some masculine... maybe a 75%/25% split. And I'm rarely attracted to hyper masculine guys beyond simply recognition that "Okay, I see this person is objectively attractive." I usually get the Cupid's Arrow for men who are mostly masculine with some feminine... again probably 75/25. And it's nearly always been that split for me. These are the men that I'm most polarized to because my feminine side is attracted to their masculine side and my masculine side is attracted to their feminine side. That's how polarity works. You attune to your own energetic signature and you find someone with the mirror opposite. But some common things with all attractions are these ecstatic feelings in the center of the chest and base of the spine... and a general warmth and relaxation upon thinking of the guy. But I've never felt the same way about someone twice. Each attraction I've had deals directly with the unique energy of the person.

No. That's not what I'm saying. Noticing a dog whistle means picking up on the underlying implication of something that's said/written, even if that which is being said/written is meant to to cloak the deeper sentiment. A dog whistle is that which is at a pitch that only dogs can hear. So, whenever someone is expressing some kind of racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise unpopular point of view, but wants to have plausible deniability, they will express things in the form of a dog whistle. That way, they can say, "What!? That's not what I meant! You're reading too much into it and straw manning!" So, the dog whistle is "Shouldn't there be regulations in the dating market if there are regulations in the financial market?" which seems (to the uninitiated) like something to simply ponder into. Just some food for thought to mull over intellectually. But those who actually hear the dog whistle (like yourself), pick up on the subtext that women are being framed as a commodity/resource. And that the OP sees women in this light and is perhaps (on some level) comfortable with women's sexual choices being controlled by something other than herself as she is object to him, not subject. Basically, it betrays that he sees female sexual sovereignty and bodily autonomy as a problem in need of solving. Now, do I think the dog whistle is conscious? Probably not. The OP probably doesn't realize that he views women as objects. He also probably thinks (as of now) that he supports women's right to sexual sovereignty. But that's only because it would be an unpopular opinion to express and doesn't want to recognize that opinion that he holds. But, if the social and political tides start to turn again toward a more patriarchal slant, those with his paradigm will be the first to pop out of the woodwork to support the reneging of those rights.

Feminine attraction has to do with feelings. Feelings compel a woman to want to pair bond with a specific guy. And any random guy simply isn’t going to push the buttons and create the feelings that compel a woman to pair bond. It’s only that one guy that can do it. And it’s not even that that guy is objectively the best in any category. He may be objectively average or below average across the board. But female attraction is non-objective and very specific. Women generally don’t have strong sexual or romantic cravings towards men in general. It’s always that one particular guy. When a woman falls for a man, it is super special to her. She craves him and his humanity in particular. So, the way you’re biased is because you’re looking at female sexuality through the lens of male sexuality. Men crave women in general. A man wants sex in general. And it is high reward and a challenge to get. Women don’t crave men in general. Women don’t crave sex in general. It’s always specific. So, women’s access to sex/men in general (which men see as enviable) is a currency that doesn’t confer value to us. It’s low reward for us. It doesn’t have any pleasure or libidinal charge to it. But the feelings about that one guy are just overwhelmingly intoxicating to the point of obsession... rending your garments level of spicy hot desire. And every other guy feels meh. Seriously, if “feminine desire” were a drug it would be everyone’s favorite. It feels so good to gush over just that one guy. And again, it isn’t because he’s got some laundry list of qualities. It’s not rational. It just hits like a Cupid’s arrow where thinking about that particular guy or being around that particular guy pushes the ecstasy button. So much dopamine, endorphins, serotonin, and oxytocin all in response only to ‘Johnny’

That’s about 30% of sexual inactivity for men within the past year, with a comparison between stats from the year 2000 and the year 2018. I chalk this up to everything being very online now. But for women the stats are 19% sexual inactivity within the past year, which is a disparity but not a super extreme one. But clearly it isn’t a “men can’t get any sex because they’re undesirable incels” problem. The majority of these sexually inactive men in the study have had sex before. Otherwise, men and women’s average virginity loss age wouldn’t be the exact same. And there would be significant disparities in numbers of male vs female virgins when there simply isn’t.

The numbers aren’t correct. Here’s what they really are according to the CDC. @Harlen Kelly

It could be but isn’t always. Sometimes you are just genuinely appalled by something without having that trait in your Shadow. Though it’s always wise to examine triggers like that. You can learn more about yourself that way. Not as to say it would necessarily turn out that he is a secret objectifier. But it can turn up many realizations.

Oh! That makes sense.

I’m not glad because it hurt him. ? I’m glad and envious that a man sees the objectification of women and is shocked and appalled. Partly, it makes me feel seen. Partly, it makes me jealous that he has not witnessed much of this type of thing.

Well, I get why Wavesintheocean reacted that way and part of me is glad for the shock reaction. And part of me is envious. Women have dealt with this objectification so much that we are able to handle it a bit better thought it’s still triggers many wounds, collective and individual. But it’s a bit like drinking vodka. If you only take one shot every once and a while it stings a lot and staggers you. But if you’re drinking vodka every day, you can look like you’re drinking water because you’ve acclimated to it. And women unfortunately learn that the only way to cope and have empowerment in the face of dehumanization is to appear as rational and cool headed as possible. Otherwise no one listens and no one will take you seriously. You have to come across as a stronger and more respectable man than the man you’re debating. So, being male, Wavesintheocean is shocked because he does experience or witness this treatment often. And he hasn’t had to learn that expressing shock and disdain will be used against him. This is how I envy him. But I’m glad for his shock.

It is a generalization as some women may genuinely skew more masculine in their attraction dynamic as a part of their personality. But this is the feminine/Yin attraction dynamic generally.

Oops! Yeah, that’s what I meant

No. I’m just picking up on the underlying implications of the post. Also, you’re not understanding how female sexuality works. It isn’t just a pickier form of male sexuality. It’s quite different. Women in their feminine intuition are drawn to men as particular human beings. And we get a Cupid’s Arrow for one of them... usually one that matches us in attractiveness. So, women generally go for their match. Tens will go for tens and feel ecstatic about it. Twos will go for twos and feel ecstatic about it. Men, on the other hand, are all attracted sexually to 10s. And without emotional development and feminine integration, he won’t see the value in a woman of equal dating marketplace value. He will always go for the ideal woman, even if she’s out of reach. So, men with a disintegrated feminine side, project their objectifying “aiming for 10s” tendency onto women when this is not how our sexuality works. And because women are more selective, they get the distorted notion that all women only really care about guys who are tens and will weed out all the 9s and below to be in the “harem” of a guy who’s a 10. And that only 10% of men get affection. And all of this distortion and anxiety because you don’t know how women work. Women like specific men... often for his flaws. We are attracted to men’s humanity. But because men without an integrated feminine side are not attracted to women’s humanity, they project the same objectifying and cold hearted tendencies onto women. And then the insecurity rules them.

Obviously not a good thing. But look around and you’ll see that this dynamic is less common. Men are mostly seen as subjects where women are often viewed as objects. Hence the underlying assumption of this post of ‘woman as resource’.

First off, I do not “reward” anyone with my love. I just do what feels good to me and follow my intuition and instincts. There is no concept of reward... just magnetism and feeling and love. That “reward” idea is a male projection onto women’s sexuality. Female sexuality has nothing to do with the reward/punishment dichotomy because female sexual attraction is non-objective. Also, I personally am not interested in men who are out of touch with their emotions. A man who is callous, who sees me as an object is simply incapable of going into the depths with me. And men who can’t dive deep and meet me in my depths are boring to me from both a sexual standpoint and relationship standpoint. Not enough juice to keep the mind stimulated and the blood flowing. But you’d also be wise to recognize that you are projecting the tendency to objectify women onto these conquesting men... which do exist. But you seem to fail to see your own objectifying tendencies. You did after all refer to women as a resource. So a man who gets laid who objectifies women and a man who does get laid who objectifies women are cut from the same cloth in my eyes. Equally lukewarm and not energetically magnetic.

Yeah, the framing of women as a ‘resource’ is certainly disturbing... but also unfortunately very common. I get the response as it’s how I (and other women) feel about these kinds of posts. But unfortunately they’re just going to turn it back on you for picking up on the ‘woman as commodity’ implication and say that you’re straw manning and misreading. But really you’re just noticing the underlying meaning of the post... and responding to the dog whistle.

Well, nothing really auto-corrects itself. People have to make these moves for this to happen. I don't anticipate this will be mainstream for at least a few more generations. So, in the meantime, we have to adopt more patterns that match with Stage Green. And a big part of that is community creation with like-minded people, which can be done right now. A man who is currently isolated and looking for a partner would find a far more fulfilling set-up by building his own friend group/network and dating within that network than going out and doing cold approach with random strangers or meeting women on a dating app. Not saying he should avoid that because it isn't really and either/or, but it's just that these will be sub-optimal solutions to his isolation problem compared to the community building solution. It will also fulfill more of his social needs and take away that sense of not belonging, and it will confer more power/status to him as social relationship (mostly platonic) is how influence is derived.

One thing that I've noticed, yet never articulated before... A lot of guys who try to polarize themselves into a more masculine way of being, end up with the energy/vibe of Invader Zim somehow. I always end up unconsciously picturing that I'm conversing with Invader Zim every time I'm in a discussion with these masculinity-obsessed guys. Whereas, an actually masculine man tends to have a lot of gentle, warm, and feminine undertones to his energy which makes him better at socializing and attunement/awareness. I'm just mentioning this in relation to the comment you made about the energy of these guys. It's like in trying to polarize themselves so far into the masculine, there is a loss of the grounded personal sovereignty that can only come from a deep connection to the emotions and intuition... which are an aspect of the feminine.

The biggest problem right now at the societal level that contributes to this is that we live in a very atomized and isolated Stage Orange society, where most people live in their own bubble. And social media has made this a more comfortable bubble to live in. And porn certainly makes this comfort zone more comfortable for men to stay in as well. And because relationship to community is the healthy organic way to meet partners, young men who live in such an atomized way may simply miss the opportunity to socialize with friends and potential partners. A young man may have to go out of his way to socialize in ways that his father didn't have to go out of his way for. So, the best solution to this issue on the individual level for the man (as @Etherial Cat said) is to integrate the feminine more which entails being more emotionally aware, more in touch with his instincts/body, and more social which will counter-intuitively make a man more relatable and more attractive to women, as intimacy is only possible with an integrated man. So, the integration of the Anima is key to healthy and attractive masculinity and it also cuts down the anxiety because the man is not grappling with and projecting his feminine side. But collectively the best thing we can do is to connect with the feminine more which will lead us more into Stage Green which is community focused and will act as an antidote to all the isolation that comes from the hyper-masculinity and individualism of the Stage Orange paradigm. Stage Blue was also community focused and the good part about it was the community and the connection. The bad part about it was the control and inability to be authentic and the need to fit a very certain mold. But Stage Green community is more expansive and very inclusive while still having that tight-knit connection factor. I think a big part of this shift to Green will be a move away from single family homes and atomized communities into more centrally planned communities like communes. I think you'll also see the rise of more polyamorous relationships as this shift happens.

100%

When there is talk about “regulating the sexual market place” that means that a regulatory body of sorts (like the government) would be taking away women’s role as selector and the freedom to choose the sexual/romantic partner that they want. And that isn’t a straw man. That’s just literally what “regulating the sexual marketplace” means. And even in your post you acknowledge that you see women’s sexual freedom and ability to choose who they want to sleep with as a “problem” in need of solution. Also, your idea that some men just can’t get laid is not true. Just go out and talk to women and you will eventually find a woman to sleep with or have a relationship with. And that’s true no matter who the guy is. Trust me, I’ve known tons many unattractive or nerdy guys who get laid and have had relationships. The last guy friend of mine from my hometown to lose his virginity (at age 19) was a very overweight, awkward guy, with no sense of style, who was really into Anime. And he was a late bloomer. The big difference is that these nerd guys were willing to socialize with nerd girls and did so often. They actually cultivated friendships with girls of like mind, tastes, and level of attractiveness. And so they got laid and got girlfriends all in their teen years. That’s how most men are. They socialize enough to have these intimate experiences with the opposite sex. So, these incel guys will have to learn to socialize and adapt as no one is entitled to anyone’s affections. And I say all that without saying that it’s not difficult to get past these mental blocks and self esteem issues or that no empathy should be given. Low self esteem is hard to deal with. But it’s unwise to expect the world to change to accommodate a person’s emotional issue. That’s especially true when that emotional issue is surmountable.

I definitely know that some would make that argument.

Because regulating the dating market would mean regulating the dating/sexual choices of women without their consent. Women in this scenario become the commodity that some regulating body (like the government) distribute to men. And men then become a class that are entitled to women as a commodity. This is why you can't have a regulated dating market.

Here is something to be mindful of that I’ve mentioned to you before. The biggest issue I see with this forum as an environment (in relation to your role in it specifically), is the short punchy way that you share things. It gives a harsh vibe of absolute certainty, and then others (usually young impressionable men) who look up to you as a leader immediately and uncritically absorb what you say without really thinking. Every time that you make a claim with this air of certainty, I can go right down on the thread and find multiple guys parroting what you say... simply because of the way you say it. And this turns the forum into an echo chamber. And I see sometimes that you expect for people to understand when you’re being funny or satirical or simply playing devil’s advocate or taking a spiritual truth to its most extreme ends. But many (if not most) do not understand. Basically, you would be wise to understand the position of power you’re in relative to your viewership. And with the understanding of that power, being able/willing to pick and choose carefully what you decide to share and what you choose not to. Every Hierophant is wise to consider what is unintended for the uninitiated and those not predisposed to the work.

Now, getting off to Facebook friends is something that will genuinely be concerning to most women. That includes women who are poly, because it’s a bit boundary breaching because the other person probably doesn’t know you’re using the images of them that way. Watching porn, on the other hand, is something that some women are okay with and that some women aren’t okay with. So, she may genuinely see that as cheating. But many women would not. My advice is to decide whether or not you’re comfortable with sacrificing your porn habits to stay in the relationship. But an even deeper topic (even if you are willing to sacrifice porn for the relationship) is to suss out sexual compatibility and compatibility in general. You’ll probably want to have a partner who matches your sensibilities about sex and shares your views/values relative to things like porn.