Emerald

I don’t think it’s easier to be a man. I definitely think it would be more challenging in this context as I would be the one that approaches. But I do think it would be a bit easier for me to get dates on a dating app than a man would for several reasons. 1. I would have no fear of rejection because I would be pretending to be someone else. 2. I have been approached by many men in my lifetime and I know exactly what doesn’t work. So, I’m less likely to accidentally communicate turn-offs and red flags.

What I’m telling you about women isn’t just me. It’s universally attractive because it’s good for the survival of woman, children, and tribe. And even women who go for a ruthless man tend to do so under the misconception that she can tame him with her love. And that’s because women who are attracted to the dualistic ferocious beast and beast tamer qualities I describe. And because there are so few of these men who embody both of these qualities, women will get into a relationship with a man in hopes of “fixing” him. But that’s the form that they’re trying to “fix him” into.

Men who have integration in themselves are much more universally attractive than men who are dysfunctional with their masculinity. And every woman recognizes a gem when she sees one. It’s just that women with certain types of unresolved trauma will attract and be attracted to men who aren’t integrated in themselves... which may manifest as unfettered aggression and temper tantrums. But despite being an attraction point for problematic men, that doesn’t mean she won’t recognize a catch when she sees one. So, if given the choice between integrated masculinity and disintegrated masculinity, choose integrated. Also, this is a personal development forum. Don’t die on the hill of aspiring to underdeveloped intonations of masculinity. Your personal development with regard to masculinity can’t happen when it exists only in relation to the lowest common denominator of a subset of society... in this case, women. Tailoring your masculine development to the average woman’s dysfunctions is like setting a cap for yourself based on how others will react. Too caught up in the opinions/reactions of others to own your personal sovereignty.

He does disagree. Go back in the conversation and look.

You’re not understanding what I’m saying. Women are attracted to the capacity for violence at the level of pure raw sexuality. But if a woman is only orienting to her dating prospects through the loins and not the heart, then it’s because of layers of dysfunction in herself. This dual orientation that healthy intuitive women have is why the most attractive men have the capacity for aggression and violence but the discipline, character, and principles to tame it and channel it into pro-social means. A untamed man who is purely aggressive is not attractive to such a woman. He lacks in the department of other masculine strengths. He is weak in character... which is an equally dangerous form of weakness to the inability to protect from a female survival standpoint. But take a man with lots of character and virtue... but with all that raw instinct underneath. Then that’s a very sexy man. And when you see a man who’s cultivated that masculine grace, it really stands out because it’s very rare. And I know this because that’s what my body responds to. These types of men really stand out. But I’m in no denial about being attracted to aggression in a man. I like to take a very submissive role in sex. But men who are purely aggressive with no virtues tempering their aggression are repulsive. An attractive man is like a very ferocious lion with an expertly skilled lion tamer. And most men nowadays are either only lion or only tamer... which are both unattractive without the other. So, when a man embodies both in an integrated way, he really shines. But it’s a very rare quality. And the reason why it’s rare is because men have so many misconceptions about female sexuality and polarize themselves too far in one direction or the other. That’s why I’m adamant about this. You guys are leaving lots of potential off the table and glorifying a denigrated form of masculinity.

Because it’s a misrepresentation. I dislike it when men believe in misconceptions about what naturally attracts women. Men who have a healthy relationship to their masculinity and capacity for violence are in scarce supply. And these misconceptions motivate men to have an unhealthy relationship to their masculinity and capacity for violence. And this makes it harder for women to find satisfaction in relationships, as it makes men less attractive and more dangerous. If women were under the misconception that poor hygiene made them more attractive to men, you’d probably want to correct their misconception too.

I genuinely do think I would do well, as I’d have no ego in it. And I have a lot of control over my words if it’s in written format. I’m bisexual, so I do appreciate the difficulty of attracting a woman. I’ve never been particularly good at it because of fear of the woman not being attracted to women. I just don’t want to creep women out. But if I were play-acting as a man, it would take the pressure off. I’m wishing now that I could try it. But I really don’t feel comfortable lying.

I'm not going to do this because the cancelling the date/lying thing would bother me. But I think I'd have good success... especially because there would be a degree of removal. There would be no fear of rejection because she'd be rejecting Jim Bob... not Emerald. So, this would give some liberty to take risks.

You missed the context. Look back in the discussion.

It’s okay. I thought I was responding to the person who made that claim.

I asked you to provide me the source for where women are being advised to act as bitchily as possible to attract a man... because that’s what YOU said you’d seen. I haven’t seen any such forums full of women trying the “be a bitch to get a man” method, as you claimed is common. Where are the links Peter? Just admit you were bullshitting and that women aren’t doing an equivalent thing to what men are doing en masse.

This is a pick up forum for men, not women as you claimed. Where are the forums where women get together and plan the “get men by being bitchy” method? You got nothin’

Yeah, I totally agree. It’s likely an avoidance mechanism. These interactions remind me of my Aya experience again, where the masculine was out of alignment and across the room from me. And I (within the experience as the divine feminine embodied and a universe unto myself) was trying to get it to come to me and connect. But it was off to the side. And there was nothing I could do. And I was so angry. It wouldn’t connect. Many men fear what it means to penetrate a woman... in all ways but physical.

Prove your claim. I want links. This is a misunderstanding of female sexuality. Healthy women aren’t attracted to ruthless men... just men who have the capacity to defend them if the situation calls for it. As you heal from traumas as a woman, your preferences change and you start attracting/being attracted to healthier partners.

Everything in life is based on self-interest. It cannot be otherwise. This is why, to truly be loving, one must see through the illusions of self and other. When you realize that all is self, you will behave in the best interests of the greater good. But this is neither here nor there in relation to the topic at hand.

Do you know how many women die at the hands of an abusive partner? Ruthless men are NOT good for female survival. Period. That’s why women without self-esteem issues don’t find them attractive. But my point in making this post is to show the men on this post what they look like from the woman’s view. Imagine the majority of women get together on forums theorizing about how to be more bitchy and unpleasant to attract more men. And there were women who were selling coaching and courses and seminars to teach women the “How to be a shitty partner to keep a man” method. Then, when you go “Hey. That’s not really true... just for some men.” They all respond, “Never listen to a man about what he’s attracted to. He doesn’t know himself. All men respond to the ‘Be a big bitch method.’ It’s good for survival because it’s a sign of being a protective mother.” That’s what women are dealing with.

Therein lies the reason I made this post. I’m holding up a mirror to you guys. Now, I’m not going to call a woman who gets with a ruthless man a loser. But women who are attracted to that kind of guy who is bad for their survival are usually dealing with traumas and low self esteem... just like the “losers” you mention. So, it’s frustrating when men base their ideology of dating around the behaviors of a certain subset of women who tend to have boundary issues anyway. That’s why these women respond to cold approach and stuff that many other women wouldn’t respond to at all. What’s happening here is the equivalent of me making the claim that all men are attracted to bitchy women... just because I’ve had success with the subset of men that fall into this “loser” category by being bitchy.

And that’s why you’ll never understand.

No, it’s masculine nature. Never listen to a man about what attracts them. They’ll say, “I don’t like bitchy women. I want a nice submissive woman.” And then, lo and behold... who do they pick? I mean, look around and see how many men are with bitchy women... the majority probably. (This is what so many men on here sound like. Cherry picking instances where a girl has picked an asshole and then being like, “Female sexuality solved! They just like assholes. So, I need to be one!”)

What you know is what works for your purposes. And I’m not saying don’t use those techniques. There are plenty of women who will respond to them. But what you do not know is what is true, and you’re not even curious. Consider why these beliefs about female sexuality are so important for you to hold onto to the point where you refuse to see any other perspective. My assumption is that you have created a tough armor with these beliefs where you can say, “Got female sexuality figured out. All done with that”. And that way, you can feel more in control and thus avoid being hurt. And you’ve experienced enough evidence for you to justify closing the book on the whole matter. Keep in mind, I’m not telling you that what you perceive is not there. I’m telling you your view is incomplete. And you refuse to get a more holistic perspective. Edit: “I think Leo is afraid of feminine love. ??‍♀️“ @Etherial Cat I just saw this. That’s what I’m referring to in this post.

I do know very well what I’m attracted to. I’ve contemplated on that probably more than anything else I ever have. And I also can generally tell you about why people get attracted to who they get attracted to. I keep telling you what I’ve learned, but you never listen. It doesn’t matter to you how much of my own Shadow I’ve crawled through to get these insights and how many rabbit holes I’ve been down. If you only knew how many disturbing truths about myself that I’ve faced with, you’d know I was being honest. It’s a shame that you can’t pour wisdom into a cup already filled to the brim with cherished misconceptions. You’re not in the least bit open-minded about this matter. You prefer comforting and useful non-truth to truth that feels irrelevant to your agenda. But I’ll continue to call you out on your misconceptions. I always thought that, if I were a man, I’d probably get stuck in a comfort zone a few layers down into my exploration of human sexuality where it touches what I call “the tepid place”. For women, this “place” in the psycho-sexual realm is a mixed bag of intense pleasure and intense discomfort. But for men, the discomfort of that place is more subtle and the pleasure is seductive. So, though (due to the discomfort) fewer women are likely to get to that place and face with their more animalistic desires, women who do venture there are more likely to move deeper as there is no comfort zone for in human sexuality for women... except at the very top and the very bottom. And I don’t get the sense that you’ve ever ventured past the tepid place. Your perspective betrays a lack of depth with regard to this matter.

That’s incorrect. There are plenty of men that you can look at their resting demeanor and see that he has the capacity for violence and aggression. But you can also see that a significant number of them are very emotionally intelligent with tons of self-control, and hearts of gold. They’re a mixed bag of Mufasas and Scars. And you can also see men who lack the capacity for violence and aggression in a significant way who are total narcissistic assholes. The capacity for violence and aggression (just like most masculine traits) is very subtle. It’s not something a man needs to display... in fact, that’s a red flag if he does. It’s more of a subtle quality that glimmers through his entire personality when a man has developed grace. So, you don’t really know what it’s like to appreciate this quality. It’s much more of a background element of his energy than anything to do with his overt behavior. I’ll say again what I’ve said many times... men have no idea what makes them attractive.

Haha! I guess I let the cat out of the bag. Every woman is all about Genghis Kahn. ? But it’s usually based around something contextual for me if it’s a more heart-centered fantasy. Like, I have a crush on a guy. And then I imagine some scenario where things start off platonic and then there’s a sexual shift, where the context flips in a moment. These fantasies are all about the guy and the exchange of passionate feelings through the medium of sex. But the there are more loins-centered fantasies that are like the categories on a porn site. It’s not personal... just about the sexual urge. This one’s a bit more draining... like having a male orgasm is said to be.

The ‘racism-capacity for racism’ and ‘barbarism-capacity for barbarism’ parallel doesn’t track. That’s a false equivalency. The reason why is because the ‘capacity for barbarism’ is an expression of masculinity in both its healthy and unhealthy forms. And it is very useful in its healthy expression. And racism (along with having no pro-social use in modern society) is just an expression of Shadow Masculinity. There’s no Divine Masculine racism. The unhealthy masculine is the untamed barbarism and the lack of self-control and narcissism that comes with it. It’s indiscriminate barbarism. Where a man in his healthy masculine will have a lot of discipline and will be in control of his capacity for barbarism... and will use that capacity for the greater good. But don’t take my use of the word barbarism as referring directly to Barbarians. Protecting your family at all costs is important if you have attackers from the outside. That’s Divine Masculine... which necessitates the capacity for barbarism. This is why that capacity is so attractive. But a man who is indiscriminately barbaric is a liability. And it’s the exact opposite of an aphrodisiac. It lacks the Divine Masculine capacities of responsibility, strength of character, strong will, discipline, stability, etc. There’s a lot more to being an attractive man than being a ravenous beast. The beast without the tamer is gross at best and genuinely dangerous at worst.

If you want to take the Vegan logic and ideology to its extremes, sure. That’s what PETA does. They run animal shelters and kill like 80% of the animals. And there are quotes that suggest the founder is against pet ownership... and thus believes it’s more ethical to euthanize than rehome. Luckily, my reason for Veganism has nothing to do with logic at all. I have no investment in following the Vegan ideology to its extremes. I just listen to what feels viscerally wrong to me... and then I don’t do those things that evoke that reaction. Have you watched Earthlings yet like I recommended?