Emerald

Says the man who spends a significant portion of his time on his forum... socializing. But it was really easy back then because I lived in direct proximity to them. It wasn't really overwhelming. They were just woven into my daily lifestyle because of school and having a very social boyfriend at the time, who I lived with for my last two years of high school. So, we'd hang out with a few friends several times a week together. But once I went to college, my focus got pretty singular with regard to working and growing myself. And I also started having some avoidant tendencies. And so, I'd ONLY have a romantic partner and that's it. And then I became a mom, and so I was pretty shut in at the point. But all throughout, I always enjoyed my solitude... even at my most social. But now that I have really experienced being cut off from a wider social circle (and not just my fun little hermity ways), I recognize how much I truly enjoy social interaction and need it to thrive. Also, I think it's really important right now to move from the atomization that Stage Orange causes to move towards the community focus of Stage Green. When we perceive ourselves as separate from others (and from the planet) we tend to behave in cancerous ways. So, regrowing a social circle and becoming more community-focused is what's wise right now.

I'm probably not the best example, because I have has some issues with avoiding friendship in the past 10 years or so. I've been very much a hermit because part of me fears loss of friendship enough, that romantic relationship has been mostly what I've been focused on. And I've been so focused on parenting my children. So, it's a current goal of mine to regrow a healthy social circle. Now, I have probably several hundred more distant friendships that I could draw from to develop deeper connections. And I have even more acquaintances that I know on top of these distant friendships. But I only have a couple of friends that I talk to regularly (at least once per week), both of them are male. One is a guy I used to be in a relationship with who I talk to a few times a week. The other is a guy friend of mine who I talk to once a week. Then I have a couple guy friends that I chat with every other month or so. So, I am seriously in need of closer female friendship. When I had a healthier social circle over half of my close friends were female. I had about 10 close friendships with people I'd regularly interact with. And then, I probably had about 50 or so people in my outer circle who were more casual friends that I would see here and there. But right now, I feel very cut off for the most part. I talk over Skype/Zoom with my friends that I mentioned above. We just chat because I live far away from each of them. Two live in the UK. One lives in California. And the other lives in Pennsylvannia. I live in Florida. I've met most of my friends (distant and close) that I have now through my YouTube channel. It connects me with a lot of likeminded people.

Like I said, I understand why it exists. I get it. I really do. Just from the female perspective, the thing in itself or the way that the guys on here are orienting to it, is very dry and boring. But I think it's good to learn how to escalate these things. Just don't intellectualize the things you learn from pick up. You actually have to embody them and try them out. Just knowing things will lead to more intellectualization and will be even drier to most women.

But being coy IS part of flirting. That's what Leo meant in his post. It's not a coldness or not answering texts or any of that stuff. It's like playing innocent for the sake of flirting. And it should be very obvious. It comes naturally. Like an example of it would be if a guy says something a little edgy/risky, the woman would open her mouth with shock and give him a light smack on his arm and say, "Oh my god! You're so bad!" But she'd be saying it in while smiling and laughing. She's be saying things that technically are discouraging of the guys behavior... but her body language and facial expression will be indicating that she liked it very much. Or if things are a bit racier and she's already decided that she wants to have sex with the guy and she's in his house/apartment. And the guy does or says something to inch things closer to sex, she might respond with playful shock and say, "What kind of girl do you take me for?" while sitting on his bed and giving him bedroom eyes that indicate for him to keep advancing. So, the coyness IS the flirting. It comes naturally when the feelings are there. And it's very playful and adds to the sexual tension.

Yeah.... the pick-up stuff on here honestly sucks all the joy out of what I consider to be one of the best parts of life. It turns an art into a cold science. Very efficient... but very boring. But yes... having fun and connecting with the other person is so good for creating a loving connection. This is how my relationships have typically begun. Just lots of flirting and having a great time together.

If I just met a guy and I was feeling some interest in him, and he said he was in an open relationship, I would immediately lose interest as well. I don't want to be with someone who's already in a relationship with someone else. So, I would move on to find another man who was in a spot more compatible to my interests.

Okay, sorry about that.

I definitely second Leo's advice on being flirty. Being flirty isn't the same things as being in your masculine or being forward. Being flirty means that you're peacocking and showing your feminine energy. That means to let yourself be silly an out of your head. And responding to him warmly and playfully. Basically, it means giving him the greenlight that says "I'm interested in you" without directly saying "I'm interested in you."

Ugh... that makes it so boring. It takes all the tension and fun out of it. I understand that you haven't had a lot of experience with women. And for that reason, you personally might want things to be spelled out for you exactly. But honestly, flirting is sooo much fun. And when you communicate your interest again and again in subtle flirty coy ways where there's still an element of plausible deniability, it makes for the best experience when it finally culminates into sex once you're alone. But honestly, if a woman is coy in the way that Leo is describing, you will be able to pick up immediately that she's interested because of all her flirtatious body language. The movement of her eyes, the laughter, the playing with her hair, initiating "innocent" physical contact... like her smacking the guy playfully on the shoulder when he says something a little risky that she really likes but pretends to be offended by. It honestly just comes so naturally. And when a woman plays coy, it should be super obvious that she's enjoying herself. It's not like she's cold. If that's the case, she's not interested.

It feels like your post is an advertisement for the book. It has a hook and a call to action. It also gives desired results. Perhaps I'm totally off here... but it has all the fixings of an advertisement.

Pretty sure this is spam @aurum @Nahm

I mentioned earlier on in the thread that the man in the video is an example of what I see as attractive masculinity. He seems like someone who is in touch with his virility but also has the insight and self-discipline to approach dating and sexuality in a mature and integrated way. I could see him being a very good lover.

I rather enjoy taking on the receptive role in a relationship. I love being able to soften and let go. And it makes me feel good when a man takes the lead sometimes. But I also have a strong masculine side, which also feels good to me where I like to have my own autonomy and goals and desires separate from my relationship. So submitting my will to a man in a relationship is the opposite of enjoyable (except sometimes in kinkier sexual scenarios). There’s honestly a chasm of difference between submission and surrender. If you were a woman you’d know the difference. But honestly, how could you possibly know that relationships were better in the past? They honestly sound horrible. My view is that healthy relationship is something that the human beings are evolving into understanding and embodying. It’s almost certainly not going to be found in the past… only in the future.

I don't get a vibe that he's being dishonest or predatory. There's always some chance of that, but he doesn't throw up that red flag for me. He seems to be sharing his perspective quite thoroughly from his experiences. Also, the things he's saying are just true and observable.

You really don't understand what attractive masculinity is... but the sad part is that you think you do.

I know that you're just responding to what the other guy was saying.

He's making a correlation between a woman giving up her sovereignty and her ability to keep the relationship together. And it's true, if you have a relationship where one person gives away all their power and boundaries and never complains and just goes along with whatever the other person wants, you can have a very long relationship... because it isn't really a relationship. If the understanding is that one partner sets the tone and the other partner obeys the tone, you can keep things together in a very shallow way because it guarantees no conflict as long as the woman can continue to submit. But it's not a real relationship because it isn't really about intimacy. It's a social contract... a very solid social contract especially if the society is very punitive towards the partner that's expected to submit.

Because women and men are given the choice to divorce without extremely negative social consequences. Longevity of marriage doesn't say anything about the quality. When two people feel forced to stay together, you can have an exceptionally long (and exceptionally draining) marriage. If those same two people are raised in a society where they don't have to submit to strict rules around marriage being a forever-union, most people will grow apart and eventually divorce... though some will stay together. My view is that a high divorce rate is actually a good indicator of how developed a society is. If a society has an extremely low divorce rate, the society is probably very Stage Blue and authoritarian in its control over the details of people's everyday lives. But if a society has a divorce rate of 50% or more, it's an indicator of how free the society is.

That man is very attractive and is a shining example of what connection to Divine Masculine looks like. I can tell by the thoughtful heart-centered way he speaks and the softness in his eyes. Masculinity is very subtle in its unpretended forms. And it's rare to find men who have tapped into it. But you can spot it from a mile away. I can see why women were magnetized to him. An attractive man is like a very fierce lion that has been tamed by a very skilled lion tamer. And he's got the combination down.

Submission is more of a Shadow Feminine trait than a Divine Feminine trait. Surrender and receptivity are the Divine Feminine qualities. Submission is a denigrated version of these two qualities, which has to do more with self-nullification and learned helplessness. It is a giving up of the feminine power. But the feminine power is much more akin to receiving and surrendering.

You break down your resistances to realizing the masculine and feminine energy that exists within your human intonation. It's the same way how a mystical experiences can break down your repressions so that more of your human self shows through. So, you ask what is the equivalent of saying, "How can a mystical experience help you let go of your psychological repressions when the experience transcends the notion of being human?" Psychological wholeness is a human thing. But there's definitely a correlation between the grounded human wholeness and integration of all your aspects and the ability to experience a perspective that transcends all the details of your humanity. So, the masculine and the feminine can be repressed. And experiencing transcendence of the human perspective can break down our walls that repress these naturally occurring energies.

I didn't consciously know about that cultural association at the time. And I was very very against gender roles and anything that put anyone into a box. I would not have been receptive to labeling Earthly things as feminine, even if I had been aware of that association. But what it really is is Yin energy... which the closest word I could associate it with is femininity. And this is because women tend to have more of that subtle energy than men do... though everyone has both. So, the label of feminine/masculine is not objective. Yin and Yang supersede but inform human gender and ideas about gender. So Yin and Yang is objective because you can observe it with enough sensitivity... though it is subtle. And the reason we label Yin as feminine and Yang as masculine is because we can notice these energies play out in people. And we will notice generally more Yin energy in women as a whole group and more Yang energy in men as a whole group, though there are a sizable minority of exceptions. This is why it's easy to make a symbolic approximation to discuss what is otherwise very subtle to observe and very difficult to communicate without the use of archetypal and anthropic symbolism.

Interesting article about the societal changes that have given way to the incel phenomenon… https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/11/the-new-superfluous-men/?fbclid=IwAR3L50jNw8okIZ5g_H-QtIkNnQJgwKfbSllbQ2-b1ohxNlDEiwJREPyh7g4

That's really awesome. It's very important to integrate the feminine side. Society has historically undervalued it. And the result is that many women (and men) end up repressing the feminine in themselves. And it creates so many problems for the individual and society alike. It may seem to be a radical statement, but most of the dysfunctions that exist in this world (from gender inequality to wealth inequality to climate change) take their roots in disconnection with the feminine.

It was so interesting because it wasn't anything traditionally associated with feminine gender norms. But it was just an overwhelmingly feminine feeling. And "social construct" was my FAVORITE phrase at the time. I always felt like everything, especially stuff related to gender was super made up and not based in anything. But that was only partially true. There is definitely an objectivity to masculine and feminine energy that can be sensed. And gender norms are really just constructs that are sometimes derived from those energies and sometimes not derived from those energies. For example, the color pink has nothing to do with feminine energy. It's purely socially constructed. But there are many forms that are mostly informed by feminine energy. For example, the energy of plants and greenery are very feminine. That was what I was sensing. I was outside and night and it felt feminine. And I knew no better word to describe it. And later, I found that both plants and the nighttime are associated with the feminine across many different cultures. So, I highly encourage you to think about masculinity and femininity not just as social constructs.... but to parse the distinction between what is social construct and what is objective about them. I was inadvertently repressing a lot of the feminine in myself because I was defining everything masculine as neutral/good and everything feminine as undesirable/lesser. And I had no idea that I was repressing and undervaluing so much of the feminine in myself, in the world, and in others because I couldn't see how those things were connected together and how it related to my feminine side and the feminine side of the world.