Emerald

I've just thought up a good analogy that may clear this issues up for people. Let's say that, in this analogy, being authentic and conscious means being up on a horse... squarely in the saddle. Then, on the right side of the horse you have aggressiveness, harshness, and being an asshole. Then, on the left side of the horse, you have passivity, weakness, and being a doormat. Now, people who are up on the horse will be attracted to other people who are up on the horse, as these are people who are whole unto themselves and are anchored in their healthy personal sovereignty. But a high percentage of people (perhaps the majority) are unconscious and dealing with traumas, and don't sit up on the horse. They've fallen over on either side. Most women end up falling on the left side of the horse and becoming a doormat, often due to being indoctrinated that way. So, if an unconscious man wants to attract a woman, the most effective thing he can do is compensate for that is by falling over on the right side of the horse as this will seem to complete what's missing in the woman who has fallen over on the left side. If a woman is missing her ability to be assertive, she will be attracted to and attract men (and other people) into her life that are aggressive to compensate. This creates a co-dependent relationship dynamic. So, if you wonder why "Assholes" are more attractive to more women than "Doormats" (falsely called Nice Guys), then this is why. Unconscious and fragmented people try to find their missing fragments in other people. But if you want to be attractive to someone who's up on the horse, then you have to be up on the horse yourself. That means you have to get in touch with your natural personal sovereignty as opposed to aspiring towards being an asshole. Assholes may get more women than average... but not because that's inherently more attractive to women. It's inherently more attractive to women who have been traumatized a particular way... which is a LOT of women.

Yes, there is Yin/Yang polarity. Complementary polarity creates attraction in a relationship while similarity creates bonding. And part of this is rooted in the biology... though there are other perspectives on polarity as well. The distinction here is that a man who represses his feminine side doesn't become more masculine... and a woman who represses her masculine side doesn't become more feminine. So, those that are on either side of the horse are not any more or less masculine (or feminine) than they already were. They are just repressing parts of themselves. Understand that when I say this, that being on either side of the horse doesn't have anything to do with polarity... it just has to do with a person's psychological state. And a person who is skewed to one side will be attractive to people who are skewed to the other side. But this doesn't have to do with natural polarity... it's a trauma attraction.

Very much so. People will always attract and be attracted to what is repressed in themselves.

You're not enlightened nor do I imagine that you've had any glimpses of that perspective. But if you did have a glimpse at some point, you haven't integrated it well enough. I understand that you're trying to argue because you want to be right, and you react like you seem to think I'm over here just like "Haha! You're wrong" and getting into random keyboard wars with you. You're trying to compete with me for some reason. But I want you to understand that what you're saying is misinformation... and dangerous misinformation at that. If a person (including you) ignores their psychology because you've convinced them that their psychology is an illusion that will go away when they're enlightened, that person may start repressing their psychological awareness. And that person would be in for some really hard times and a constriction (not an expansion) of conscious awareness. So, stop speaking from a space of ignorance as though you're an expert, because there are very real consequences for getting people to believe what you're saying. Your perspective isn't integrative enough yet. Explore deeper and get more firsthand experience.

Claiming that there's no such thing as human psychology on the relative level by looking for them on the absolute level and invalidating the materialist perspective is spiritual bypassing. This will lead you and others into some pretty gnarly psychological issues because you will have invalidated the relative truth of human psychology. Imagine that someone were making this same argument about the existence of germs. And saying, "You're not experiencing these germs directly. Germs are made up by a bunch of unenlightened materialists." And then, you refuse to wash your hands to prove how enlightened you are and how good you are at seeing through the illusions of Maya. And then you catch a disease and die. That's what you will do if you ignore the reality that human psychology is a part of this relative existence.

On the absolute level there are no needs... not even to live. But in the relative human perspective, all your needs are there just the same. Like I said, don't speculate on it. Get some experience and you'll see the distinction between the absolute and the relative and how the relative still runs by the same rules.

Again, the instincts are not the ego, nor is the individual bias. The ego is just the mind’s story of who you are versus who you are not. The instincts are self-interested because that is just a feature of how the body/mind mechanism works. Neither the physiology nor the biology changes with enlightenment. Your heart still pumps blood, your bladder still holds urine, and your psychology still predisposes you with needs for bonding. Your mind/body machine still has the same instincts and needs (both psychological and physical), even if you do see through the illusion that the mind-story called “ego” is real and is you. But the basis of a conscious relationship is not satisfying “Emerald”. The basis of a conscious relationship is satisfying Self. It is seeing the other person as part of Self and holding their best interests with your own. But as far as needing an intimate relationship... most people benefit from having one. But you can also meet your relationship needs through close friendship and family. Ideally, you want a really strong support system that can hold space for you. But men enjoying women’s looks isn’t an outgrowth of ego... nor is women’s desire to be held/contained by a man. These are just a function of the mind/body machine that we are. We can turn these things into part of our ego story... but the instincts are just woven into how the human machine works. If people realised this, then they would not seek love in a relationship as much as they recognise people care about themselves primarily. How is there an escape from that? There isn't (Well enlightenment but you don't quite agree so let's drop that.) Enlightenment isn’t about transcending your humanity. We still have the same human needs for survival and human-to-human love that we did before enlightenment. Enlightenment isn’t meant for spiritually bypassing the human reality. But again, best not for you to speculate about the realities of what it’s like from the enlightened perspective without first having direct experience of what the ego actually is.

Get some experience beyond the ego and get back to me. Too many people here speculating about what enlightenment is without ever having even a glimpse of it. Enlightenment doesn’t dispossess you of your basic human needs... neither physical nor psychological. It doesn’t even necessarily help you clear your psychological baggage... though it can help you do that because when you have transcended the ego perspective and/or dissolved the ego you don’t have to avoid your Shadows to preserve your ego.

I read this as someone who confessed their feelings in the middle of the night when their inhibitions were low. And then texted at noon the next day something to undo the confession for fear of being rejected or too vulnerable. I didn’t read it as fickleness. I read it as a confession and then regretting having confessed.

Seeing someone (or something) as an extension of Self doesn't have to do with dating and relationships. There is unconditional love to be had for all things that are Self. But there is no such thing as unconditional relationship. Relationships require attraction and compatibility. And while that doesn't preclude the homeless or mentally ill from having relationships, it doesn't mean that you have to have relationship to everyone. And yes, a healthy relationship means that both partners are benefiting and enjoying the partnership. If you begin self-sacrificing what you need/want in a relationship for the other person or the other person starts doing that for you, then it is not Self Loving. But the ego is just the self-concept... nothing more. And you can transcend the ego and see through the illusion of self, but relationships will still function conditionally because that is the nature of relationships... egoic or not. It's important not to mince paradigms. There are the more spiritual paradigms of all being one and unconditional love. And then there are the more relative paradigms where there is separation.. and we have to be able to navigate that separation, even if we are in the state of ego transcendence and recognize the 'oneness' of things. So, relationship is not inherently egoic. But it does require you to not bypass the truths of the relative paradigm. Basically, don't invalidate relative truths by writing over them with absolute truths. You must hold space for both perspectives to really orient to life in a wise way. The need for social interaction is a fact of our biology. And to deny the realities of body/mind and to make a distinction and to say that it is invalid is to have a dualistic way of thinking that raises the spiritual perspective over the relative perspective. So, to truly be in a space of non-dual awareness, you must hold space for both the truths of the absolute and the truths of the body/mind reality. Parsing these things out and invalidating relative truths as lesser than the absolute is to create a false dichotomy. Mother Theresa was just as human as anyone else. And she did go through a lot of trauma early in life with losing her mother and had a huge faith crisis in her later years. She was very much human... just as enlightened people are very much human. So, enlightenment isn't about bypassing our human needs. There is a saying, "Before enlightenment, chop wood carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood carry water." This means that practical work must still me done even after waking up to the truth of enlightenment. The same is true for meeting our human physical and emotional needs in the relative perspective. In the same way that enlightenment doesn't allow you to forego your physical need for food and water, it also doesn't allow you to forego your emotional needs for connection and community. Enlightenment doesn't exist for you to be able to bypass your humanity. It exists so that you can be fully human and to realize your divine nature. And this may seem strange to you, but your humanity is not lesser than your divinity in existential validity. It is all an expression of the same thing... which is Self. But relationships are for meeting your individual human needs. So, it does have to do with our relative nature that is couched in Maya. But so are our needs for food and water. These needs are unwise to view as something egoic... because they are not stemming from the ego. They stem from the way that our biology and psychological system work. So, whether you are in an egoic perspective or have transcended your ego, you will still need food, water, connection, and relationship. And if you don't get those things, there will be negative physical or psychological consequences. Enlightenment doesn't save you from the psychological consequences of unmet needs. But you shouldn't worry about the ego anyway. If you haven't awoken to the reality of the Self, it will not give you anything to suppress the drives that you assume wouldn't be there if you had. Listen to your emotions and your instincts and don't spiritually bypass them under the understanding that they're "egoic". Egoic won't mean anything helpful to you until you really experience a taste of what it is to transcend or dissolve it. A lot of people repress things because they assume they're egoic, and they end up facing with unnecessary suffering as a result.

Yeah, there is a ton of spiritual bypassing. I think it's mostly because people have a lot of insecurities around sexuality and relationships. It becomes a more comfortable narrative if we can somehow minimize or feel in control of our instincts in this way.

Yes, that's what I experienced in my Ayahuasca journey last year. The masculine way out of alignment from its center, and it was all the way across the room avoiding me. This wasn't a visual experience. I just knew it was happening that this dynamic was being played out across the entire species.

All motivation stems from self-focus. This is true. Human beings only have two types of motivation. One is to go towards what we think will make us feel good. The other is to go away from what makes us feel bad. Both are self-focused. There is no way to get away from self-focus. BUT we can expand our experience of what "self" is. When we recognize that all is Self, then we can truly care about "others" as an extension of our Self. But on the more instinctual level, all people need relationships to thrive. Not necessarily romantic relationships, but relationships nonetheless. We are a social species. And even though now we have the infrastructure in society built up to where we can isolate ourselves from others, we still reap the psychological and emotional consequences of not meeting those social needs... even if we've grown acclimatized to it and become numb to it. So, even if we perceive ourselves to be fulfilled in isolation, if we're not meeting our needs we won't truly be fulfilled because we are living out of alignment with our nature. But you're incorrect in thinking that self-focus makes something shallow. Because all is self, honoring self-focus is the most loving thing you can do. But that is true if, and only if, you recognize the truth that all is self. And in a relationship this comes through as recognizing your partner as 'self' and looking out for their best interest in same way that you would look after your own best interests. But self-focus isn't just an ego thing. The ego is just what limits our self-focus down to our narrow idea of the self. We have to expand our sense of self and allow ourselves to be maximally self-focused and maximally self-loving. This is the root of a conscious relationship, and there is nothing shallow about it. So, that's the issue with the way you and Leo seem to be thinking about "selfish" drives. You consider them shallow... but that adds a lot of ideas onto them that simply aren't there. There is not escaping self-focus. There is no such thing as a self-less act. But luckily, all is self.

Instincts are neither conscious nor deep. They simply are what they are. So, while no one's instincts are any more or less conscious than the instincts of another person... there are certain instincts that come with a lot more potential negative consequences than other instincts. In this case, this leaves men in a position where they are responsible for channeling those pluralistic and aesthetically focused instincts into pro-social behavior, where women's instincts naturally tend to fall more naturally into alignment with pro-social behavior. So, it isn't so much that men and women's instincts are more/less conscious than one another's. It's just that different instincts link in to different consequences, and if a man expresses those instincts in an unconscious way, the negative effects will be felt a lot more intensely.

It is really difficult to find a man who connects with Divine Masculine. He's usually on one side of the horse or the other. And given that this forum is mostly a lot of recovering nice guys, many of them will want to throw out the baby with the bathwater in fear that it will make them less desirable. But in reality, being kind, warmhearted, generous, gentle, good humored, and laid back are VERY attractive qualities in a man. But they're only attractive qualities if he's also in touch with his personal sovereignty and his instincts... the things that most people associate with masculinity. I like to think about an attractive man as being like a fierce lion with an expert lion tamer. If a man's lion is caged and has been beaten into submission, it's not attractive as his lion tamer is a shitty lion tamer. If a man's lion runs amok ripping throats out willy nilly, it's not attractive as his lion tamer is a shitty lion tamer. A man must be like an expert lion-tamer to his lion (his instincts for survival, sex, and violence) by honoring the nature of the lion and appreciating it without caging or suppressing it. But he must also learn to channel the lion's energy into pro-social behavior as opposed to harmful behavior. And that's why a really attractive man is like a combination of kindness but with capacity for ruthlessness. But most men fall on one side or the other because of insecurities and fears around their masculity... one side being the nice guy, the other side being the brutalizing man. And both are denigrated expressions of what is exalted when there is integration between the two poles of masculine expression.

That's not what I'm saying. Men are attracted to deeper things as well. If that weren't the case, society would have fallen apart long ago. And of course, no one can have a relationships based on attraction alone. This was more of an echo of what Leo was talking about in relation to male/female biases toward attraction and relationship respectively, and how he said that men preferring big tits is equivalent to women preferring masculine containment... which as I said before, is a false equivalency. But yes, men need relationship and intimacy too. We're a social species. So, a man who only seeks physical attraction will live a pretty lonely life where his social needs aren't met. But yes, women value male physical attractiveness too. I tend to become attracted to men who are a relative match to me, looks-wise. And we're ultimately making the same point... relationships aren't a battle of the sexes where men and women's needs can't be met at the same time. The needs are complementary and go together. But the way that many men on this thread are putting it is that so their biases towards wanting an attractive partner will be served but not the part of themselves that actually wants/need intimacy... and that certainly won't be satisfying from the woman's perspective. There's just a lot of not wanting to see this because ignoring the feminine perspective makes some men feel more comfortable and less vulnerable.

That really is what it boils down to. But these are important conversations to have. Otherwise having a relationship that feels good is not possible. You have to clear out the gunk first. But of course, the goal is to feel good.

One way is based in representation. This is the one that stands out the most. Male characters in media being both over-represented and better represented as 3-dimensional people. Contrast that with most female characters being underwritten and not seeming like real people... usually written by male writers. Also, there was a trope of the tomboy, depicted as an attractive woman who had all the feminine charms... but deeply masculine sensibilities. These were the best and most sympathetically written female characters at the time, while other female characters were usually written as bitchy and mean or simply too perfect to relate to. And so, because of a lack of real feminine representation, the characters I identified most with and aspired to be like were male. And then, until I hit my teen years, most texts would just use “he” as the general pronoun. So, I just got so used to identifying with “he”. And then girlhood/womanhood was always depicted so ideally and 2 dimensionally that I could never identify with it. And so, even though these are fictitious representations, it has lined me up to have a habit of defaulting to seeing things from men’s POV because I’ve been indoctrinated to identify with it.

Again, I have no issues with men being attracted to big tits. I’m just saying that this isn’t equivalent to women being geared towards intimacy. What’s triggering is being solely appreciated for having big tits... especially because women age. So, if a man is only interested in women for having nice tits... that lines women up to be on some pump and dump assembly line of male conquests. This is especially triggering because we’re so oriented towards intimacy which can’t be had in that scenario where men are solely orienting to their biases. This is why women who have a decent self-esteem will filter out men who are overtly focused towards liking big tits and other physical attributes. Such a man is detrimental to our emotional and mental wellbeing. So, I’m not saying men’s biases are not valid. Nor am I saying that they should be Ignored. I’m just saying that if women solely pursued their biases and disregarded men’s biases (which they typically don’t as women typically like to make themselves attractive), then there wouldn’t be any disastrous consequences. It may not be as much fun for men. But that’s about it. But if men solely pursue their biases and disregard women’s biases towards intimacy and connection (which happens A LOT of the time) then that incurs a high cost to women in particular but also to the health and wellbeing of society at large. The realm of dating/relationships/sexuality is under the blanket of the feminine principle for this reason as the feminine principle is geared towards species-preservation where the masculine principle is geared towards self-preservation. And as such, women’s biases are more in alignment with species-preservation and human survival and wellbeing as that perspective inherently yields more pro-social outcomes. That doesn’t make men’s instincts less conscious in some way. But the sole pursuit of those instincts is unconscious and can lead individually to lack of fulfillment for both partners... but it can also lead to social decline if all men decided to only pursue their physical attractions without regard to anything else. So, while men and women both have their biases, the outcomes of these biases are very different. Also women tend to be very attuned to men’s biases, while men tend to just be attuned to their own without a deeper awareness of what the female bias is.

Yeah, lots of resistance. But also, it’s important to understand that women have lived in societies that are masculine oriented and thus need to be fluent in male perspective to get by. There were multiple times as a child/teenager where I would become wrapped up in thought and find myself thinking, “maybe I would understand this better if I were a girl.” Then suddenly realizing, “Duh... I am a girl.” Contrast this with men who have specifically been discouraged from seeing things from the female perspective because society punishes men for deviating from masculine culture norms. So women are typically going to understand men a lot better than men are able to understand women. On top of that, there’s a lot of misrepresentation of the female perspective and also tons of resistance that men feel in relation to the feminine because of their indoctrination.

Yeah, too much weight in a reductionistic perspective on human survival and relationship as opposed to a holistic perspective on relationships that integrates the spiritual, mundane, and intellectual perspectives as well. He already has the foregone conclusion that relationship equals survival and nothing more, and he’s really attached to that. It makes him see relationships as some zero-sum battle of the sexes where nothing of a higher consciousness is possible. I understand why though. Men have an advantage from the survival perspective, and it feels more comfortable to their ego as it helps them feel more in control and able to serve their biases better to block out any other perspective on relationships. Men usually stay jammed in this perspective because of insecurities that they feel about their own worthiness, so they like to frame the situation in a way that gives women a false sense of scarcity. But with Leo and others who are theoretically interested in a more conscious orientation to the world, it is frustrating to see them staying only with their biased perspectives that are relatively true and comfortable to them and not the holistically true perspectives that will pop them out of their comfort zones. He even lumps a lot of things in with the survival perspective that aren’t a feature of that paradigm. It’s like whatever serves his preferences, he frames as survival... which is great for him being able to rationalize away his delivery and immature orientation to relationships. What I see is that most of the women here are perfectly okay with men being more geared towards attraction but that men are really not okay with women being geared towards relationship. And that they feel it’s some battle between what will take precedence, as opposed to understanding that these things go together as two sides to one coin. Meanwhile, most women are usually pretty good at pleasing me through making themselves attractive... but most men are struggling in the department of being a mature lover.

Men are certainly biased towards attraction, and women are certainly biased towards relationship as you can see on this forum. But the reason why I am harping on relationship is because attraction by itself is not substantial enough to meet our deeper social and relationship needs. And that's true for both men and women. For most people, a life of mutual masturbation will eventually turn stale and lose its charm. And it will likely give way to deep loneliness. Also, a man can't really satisfy a woman without deep levels intimacy. This is also impossible without the woman sensing that she is special to him and not just interchangeable with other women. And for a man only geared towards attraction, women are 100% fungible. And that's just not gratifying or stable feeling to be with such a man... especially if you're looking for a father for your children. This is something that men would be wise to know about the female bias, as deep connection with a man who only orients towards attraction is just not possible. And it's a big red flag that a great many women will filter men out for. So, for a man to purely stay within his biases around attraction basically guarantees that he will never really satisfy a woman.

And likewise, no woman wants to be contained by a man she doesn't find attractive either. Attraction is all part of it. But once the attraction occurs, the deeper relationship isn't any more served by adding big tits to the equation... as attractive as that may be. But masculine containment and feminine surrender are vital ingredients of the deeper relationship.

Yeah, it's really common

But you're failing to recognize who the selectors are... Women tend to be monogamously oriented and don't typically want to share a man with another woman. So if I, as a monogamously oriented woman, was given the choice between investing energy in a man who desires a monogamous relationship and investing energy in a man who desires a polygenist relationship, it becomes quite clear who the more compatible and higher quality partner is. Also, most women who are oriented towards polyamory are a bit allergic to polygeny. So, it may be a little difficult to find such a unicorn even amongst polyamorous women, though I'm sure they exist.