Emerald

I value a LTR and a family... in fact, I have them. And I've only ever found that my kids (9 and 6) are very interested and inspired by what I do. And it sends a good message to my daughter especially that the sky is the limit in terms of what's possible for her.

That's exactly my point. What I've found is that attracting a compatible partner who's worth the effort is all about individuation and growing one's self. If women followed your dating/relationship advice around not focusing on career success, they'd end up with a low quality and incompatible partner and stifled individuation. But if women follow my advice and developed themselves fully, they'd be more apt to find a high quality partner who supports their individuation. There's no need to cater to men who aren't compatible.

It depends on the woman as to who is compatible. Women tend to look for their match. There's a sense of feeling like you've found your soul's twin. But what I know from my perspective is that, if a man is bothered by my skills or success, then that man is not for me. That's my entire point. There's no benefit to considering the proclivities of a man that I wouldn't be interested in to begin with. So, beyond the theoretical "men are like this, women are like that" perspective, I can tell you that success and focusing on my individuation and career path have never been anything but a wonderful tool for attracting compatible partners who care about me in a multi-faceted way and weeding out partners that are not compatible. What must be understood is that success from a woman's perspective doesn't have much to do with abundance of options. That's a male perspective thing. Success for a woman comes from the ability to find a partner who is compatible and capable of deep relationship. And if you've developed no particularity/individuality and don't have your own thing, this leaves you in a space of being interchangeable with other women and attracting men who see women as interchangeable.... and thus unable and unwilling to truly penetrate you. But this thread is a perfect example of how men generally tend to give terrible dating advice to women. They tend to advise women about what they think will attract and keep a man as opposed to what really attracts and keeps a man. Most men would guess it's something like maxing out on physical attractiveness or being feminine. These things are great in the attraction phase. But only developing these things make you totally fungible. If you want to really attract and keep a man, you have to individuate yourself and find a man who is equally individuated. And education and life-purpose and personal development is all part of attracting (and becoming attracted to) the right kind of guy. In order to attract "the one", you have to be "the one". (Mind you, I don't believe in the one in any absolute sense). And the individuation path (which includes career) is the way you become the one.

I've never had a friends with benefits situation. I don't know if I'd be capable of having a sustained sexual friendship with someone without either falling in love with them or just not being that interested in them anymore and losing the motivation to have sex. Most of my sexual motivation comes from a desire for intimacy. So, I'm only speaking from the standpoint of having a deeper relationship to a romantic partner.

I was just talking about the laundry-list problem above. Lots of women tend to get into a more intellectual way of orienting to relationship as opposed to a more organic heart-centered orientation to relationship. So, they start looking for men who objectively fit certain criteria. But that's not where the magic is that bonds two people together. And it isn't the way female attraction naturally works. Female attraction is incredibly intuitive and particular... not objective, rational, and general. So, it's not really the career thing that holds women back from relationship. It's more about that non-emotional orientation to relationship prospects. But that's a Stage Orange issue... and women in careers emerges in Stage Orange. So, I could see how these things are conflated. But the real issue is picking with the mind based on a laundry list of qualities, instead of with the heart.

The issue you're speaking of doesn't really have to do with the career. It has to do with a certain orientation to dating and relationships. Women who are out of touch with their feminine side and have lost sight of their intuition will not be able to let organic attraction happen. And so, many women end up in a space of trying to make dating and relationship decisions with their minds instead of with their hearts. This is a big problem in the current era. So, the career isn't the thing that gets in the way. It's having a laundry-list approach to relationships that's disconnected from the emotions. As I've said, I've always been a career-oriented woman and I've never had an issue finding a man who I love that loves me back just as I am. And all the men I've ever been with (even back to my first serious relationship at 16) have found my art and insight skills impressive and have been very interested in the career aspect of my life. But also, keep in mind, in relation to the "women desiring a men of higher socio-economic value"... I've never looked specifically for men who out-earn me. I don't really care as long as a man is contributing in equal measure in terms of effort. Also, men are not really scarce or picky. So, there's really no need to sacrifice your goals so that you can find one. The best way to find a compatible partner is to show your peacock feathers in terms of looks, personality traits, lifestyle, and skills. And you become a beacon for like-minded men and incompatible men alike.

You could certainly find a partner that resonates with that. Most people aren't really jazzed up about working to begin with. Very few people work because they want to work. So, there are plenty of women who would want to be stay at home mothers. But then you really have to be able to support a family with a single income. That's the main thing. All I'm saying is that, when men are threatened by successful women that it's an indicator that the man is not going to be a high quality partner. Preferring that dynamic doesn't necessarily mean you're threatened by it. It's a valid preference. That said, as a mother who very much enjoys pursuing my life purpose and creative/intellectual pursuits, I wouldn't be compatible with a man who has that preference. So, I would never feel inclined to sacrifice my personal goals for a relationship to a man with those preferences. Nor would any woman who wants to pursue her own life-purpose/career. So, if Arc's point was to discourage his step-sister's career goals because it would get in the way of her ability to find a partner, then he'd be incorrect. She'd just be appealing to a different type of man... and many men in that category aren't just preferring that traditional dynamic. Many of them are threatened by female agency and power. Now, in terms of power imbalances and the concentration of power in one direction in a relationship, that's a sign that things have gotten out of whack. The archetype of the lovers implies complementary opposites and balance. There is a symmetry to the lovers. So, if there is a power imbalance in a relationship, then that's a sign that the relationship is dysfunctional. So, even in cases where the woman stays home and the man works, there should be a concerted effort to remedy the imbalance in power.

Yeah, it definitely does set the stage for things like this to happen. It's not good advice all around. It's advice for women that caters only to men... and specifically men who are threatened by women who don't diminish themselves. And men who fall into that category are very low-quality partners who feel so insecure in themselves that they feel weak if their woman is strong. So, if you want a strong relationship... your best bet is to work on yourself and grow yourself as an individual. When you do this, you'll attract a higher quality partner. And that higher quality partner will be a wonderful addition to an already fulfilling life.

This is bad advice... even based on your own premise around marriage and family. Setting aside the fact that, if she followed your advice, she would potentially be stopping herself from individuating. If I put all the concerns for her personal development off the table, it's really not a good strategy to find a congruent and committed partner. Most successful men who are looking for a healthy relationship will be looking for an equally educated partner who shares their values. And if he's not looking for a healthy relationship with his intellectual equal, then he's not good husband material. Meaning, he will likely be immature, flaky, non-committal, having a tendency to cheat, etc. Also many people meet their significant other in college. Lots of people even joke that many women go to college to get their "MRS" degree. And that's because this is a super common dynamic where you meet a like-minded person, perhaps even studying the same subject as you, and the relationship develops into a marriage. Most college educated men will get married to college educated women. It's relatively uncommon to have it otherwise. Also as a bit of personal experience, my level of education and success have never stood in the way of my capacity to attract a partner who is very committed to me.

Strong work ethic and ambition are attractive for two reasons. Number one, they are virtues and I admire people who possess virtues. Number two, work ethic and ambition are a masculine quality (regardless of whether a man or woman is possessing this quality), so a man who lacks these things is just not so attractive to me. It puts me off if it isn't there. Also, I don't see success as a proxy for intelligence, ambition, and work ethic. There are plenty of successful people who are none of those things. I've always been intelligent, ambitious, and had high work ethic but chose to work as a teacher until I went down the entrepreneurial path I'm on now. And teachers aren't very successful financially. You can find plenty of people in fairly low-paying, non-glamorous jobs that embody really positive qualities. Often times, success and high income can come as a result of being born into a family with lots of money and connections. Whereas, you might have a very intelligent, ambitious, and hard-working person who was born into a lower station in life and chose an important but low-paying career. For example, I admire a lot of people who work blue-collar jobs. My father is a mechanic and was always very hard-working. And so, I wouldn't have any issue with being with a guy in one of those professions as long as he shared my values and interests. And what I meant by "being on the same wavelength" relative to work, means that he does his very best at what he does. He doesn't cut corners. And that it's important to him to feel a sense of contribution.

I can only speak to my own experiences. But I don't really care about finding a guy who out-earns me or has a higher status. As long as he's on the same wavelength in terms of having big goals and a strong work ethic. I make a little under 6 figures a year now, so if a guy was making a $10k to $30k less than me per year, it wouldn't be a big deal. The only dealbreaker is if he's not on the same wavelength with regard to work. But as long as we're doing well financially and he's contributing in equal measure effort-wise, there's no issue there. I tend to think that women who would suss out a guy for this reason and make it a dealbreaker is because she's probably deeply entrenched in materialism and status-seeking. So, in Spiral Dynamics terms, basically deeply entrenched in Stage Orange. But I've also found that many men are attracted to me specifically because of the personality traits that I possess in relation to what I do for a living and many men admire me for my capacity to make things happen for myself. So, I've not really run into this issue, nor is it a concern of mine should I ever find myself single again.

I wouldn't call the man submissive persay... more reserved. I'm definitely not very dominant with this. It's a more subtle dynamic, usually couched within a developing friendship. Not very dominant or submissive at that point. What I'm actually attracted to is the sense of a man being reserved and mysterious and wanting to bring out what is otherwise hidden. And what's also attractive to me is that a man might be concerned with my feelings about his approach, showing a kind of responsibility and restraint... a strength of character. I've had a tendency to be attracted to older men since I was 20. And there was always an understanding that any older man who actively approaches a much younger woman might not have consideration for her feelings or boundaries. And he might have a tendency towards immaturity and seeing her as a wish-fulfillment fantasy. And this just wouldn't be attractive to me, because in my attractions toward older men I was attracted towards maturity and supportiveness and desiring a deeper dynamic. And so, in a circumstance where I'm attracted to a man who's older than me, I would tend to only be attracted if he shows that he's concerned for my perspective and takes into account how his actions might emotionally impact me. And this means showing constraint with his sexuality. So, this means that I would need to indicate to him clearly that I'm interested. If it's too easy for him to cross that threshold, it's a bit of red flag. But this has also carried through with attractions to men my age too.

The way it typically goes is that I'm already spending a lot of time with him. And I can tell that he's interested in me but concerned for going over boundaries. And then I'll either tell him how I feel about him or start being more affectionate with him so that he knows that I'm interested. So, I have typically been the initiator because I tend to be attracted to men who don't wear their sexuality on their sleeves. And I'm usually the one to escalate things further.

I tend to think women don't pursue men more often because a lot of women are out of touch with their emotions and instincts. When I develop a true attraction to a man, it's deep, intense, and pre-occupying. It's anything but lukewarm. And the only thing I can think of is being close to him sexually and otherwise. Anything short of that feeling is just not that magnetic. Now, I know that I (and most women) are more selective than most men about what is sex-worthy. Men are said to have a higher sex drive because they want sex more often. But I would actually argue that frequency of desiring sex only tells part of the story. I think men want sex more frequently but that women want sex more intensely when they do want it. So, I don't see women as having a lower sex drive than men. I personally am very libidinally oriented. That said, it's not so easy to push those buttons, so I'm more selective with the expression. But when those feelings arise, it's such an intense instinctual pull towards the person I desire. It begets a deep and electric-feeling longing. By itself, the idea of a relationship is not attractive to me. But that feeling is the most intoxicating feeling. So, if the feeling is intense enough to make me forget how unattractive the idea of relationship is to me, I know it's a real attraction. Otherwise, it's not anything worth giving attention to. So, I would tend to think that when women are in touch with their emotions that they will pursue men more. Whereas a woman who has a more vague relationship to her feelings, won't feel much of a natural magnetism toward anyone. It will be more of an intellectual endeavor of wanting a guy who meets a laundry list of qualities and having an idealized vision of relationship that stands in as a symbol for completion. And that's when the blah feeling exists around sex. But I don't agree with the abortion thing. I think most women who choose to get abortions do so because they don't feel able to raise a child at a particular time. Also, if men are just horny dogs it's actually not good for survival because stable fathers that can devote their time to parenting their children are a strong indicator of how well a child will thrive. So, men going around and impregnating a bunch of women will just lead to lots of children without a father figure in their lives. Also, in nomadic times, that would have meant death to the child and mother alike. So, I would argue that you get much stronger families and societies when the woman chooses her partner based on her emotions and instincts as opposed to settling for whoever happens to approach.

I totally agree with this. I've almost always been the one that's made the first move. Yet again, personality-wise David Schmachtenberger is like the type of guy that I'm usually interested in because he seems fairly reserved and very introspective. So, perhaps it's more of a "this type of man does this to attract this type of woman." But from my perspective, men who are pursuing me and wearing their interest and sexuality on their sleeves right away and I automatically register as "There's no emotion there. He's doing this with everyone." and I subconsciously auto-filter him as a serious relationship prospect. I just don't resonate with that type of man. It feels boring because attention from men like this feels like getting junk mail that's dressed up to look like real mail. Just not a lot of emotional resonance and intrigue as it's very common. Basically, it feels very blah. And it only makes sense for women to pursue because women's sexuality is very pointed towards a particular guy usually. So, it makes sense that she'd be the one pursuing him as opposed to a man pursuing a bunch of women. Like peacocks and peahens, the male fans the feathers and the female approaches. Also, the way I get attractions is gradually over time, and I need a long platonic period (usually 2 or 3 months) to tell whether or no an attraction will arise. But once it does, there is a strong desire to pursue. And the emotional resonance is through the roof. At that point, it feels like the best drug ever.

In a conscious society, no it doesn't. In our society, in some contexts it does have its place. But most first world nations honestly don't need it. But part of the expansion in consciousness also entails unlocking new inventions and innovations. So, even though society will probably never go completely Vegan, there will likely be lab grown meat in the near future. So, we can truly let it go.

Nope. This is totally characteristic of me. I miss a lot of obvious things when I'm not tuning myself into them. I have tons of "derp" moments all the time to where I'm kind of known for them in day to day life. It's kind of like, someone who works as a mathematician who often forgets to put two and two together unless they're in work-mode.

@Etherial Cat I just now realized this... which is totally off topic. Your icon is now an actual etherial cat. I didn't even make the connection.

When people skew too far into self-preservation drives over species-preservation drives, we end up with fractured, atomized communities and a lack of investment in others. Isolation is one of the biggest issues that we face as a populace as we are naturally a social species but we are functioning as though we're not. And a symptom of that is men who are disconnected from the instincts around community building... which is more than just fatherhood. It's not really about pro-creation and making lots of people. It's about being involved in a community. And fatherhood as a quality isn't exclusive to men who have children. Just like you could describe a woman as motherly even if she has no children. Basically, we're in a society that's very disconnected. And this exacerbates all of our other issues... and causes many of them. So, it's not a man-only issue. But the avoidance that many men tend towards tends to feed into this dynamic quite a bit as well as being a symptom of it.

Why are you assuming that she doesn't eat healthy food or that she doesn't have a gym membership because she decided to spend a relatively small amount of money on fake eyelashes? That's a weird assumption. Also, why are you the police of what she should or shouldn't spend her money on? Is there anything that bad about buying false eyelashes? If so, let me know, because I have a pair. If I don't get rid of them soon, I guess the rules are that I'll have to throw out all my food and cancel my gym membership.

Yeah, I would agree with that, both in and outside the realm of dating. There's a lot of potential being left off the table and there is a failure to see the value in it. It's like a person who has a bunch of gold but doesn't know its worth. And it's making society worse. But there is a collective issue with men and avoidance... particularly avoidance of the feminine. It's a fear of penetration on any level but the physical. And since these masculine drives require connection to the feminine side to integrate them, many men have these potentials left off the table by default. So, all the focus is put towards the self-preservation drives in men as opposed to the species-preservation drive in men. There was an insight I had a year ago at a medicine work ceremony that the masculine is out of its natural alignment and that this, on an energetic level, is why it's somewhat uncommon to find a man with a fully integrated and healthy masculine side. This was part of the avoidance. It's either a lack of integration/rejection of the masculine side or an overextension into a very limited array of masculine traits that are learned from the outside.