Emerald

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.

There is quite a big difference between wanting big tits on a woman and a woman wanting masculine containment. The reason why men are attracted to tits in the first place is because they feed the babies that the man will make with her. And a woman with small tits can breastfeed a child just as well as a woman with large tits (I know because I've spent 5 years of my life breastfeeding and a good chunk of that time learning about it. Women with more volume to their breasts don't typically produce more milk than women with less volume so it doesn't really confer an advantage toward survival.) So, big tits is more of a preference thing based in what's fashionable in the day... similar to how men were more attracted to chubbier women in certain eras but men are on average more attracted to thin women today. Contrarily with masculine containment, it strikes deeper to the root of our instincts for both feeling protected on the more survival level. If a woman feels protected and held, she can open up. And it's also necessary for women to actually be in her feminine with you, which is something that has an effect on all facets of the self. To play out the dance of the masculine and feminine, masculine containment has to be there. So, the examples you gave are actual false equivalencies as well, because big tits are not a requirement for a deep and gratifying relationship while masculine containment is. But yes, sometimes women do get triggered by what men want sexually. But I honestly don't usually have much of an emotional response to that in and of itself. Keep in mind, I'm also attracted to women in both the subjectifying and objectifying sense, and I don't find men's sexual interests particularly gross nor inherently demeaning. And I also really enjoy it when a man orients to me that way. As long as I'm not totally boiled down to being solely an object of male pleasure, I tend to like it. But women can misrepresent themselves on accident if they are triggered or genuinely inexperienced... and there certainly are tons of wounds. Women and men are frequently orienting to one another in very immature ways because they haven't done the requisite inner work, as I'm sure you can see. So, there are a great many women who may try to mislead you. But that isn't what I'm doing. I'm taking what I've observed about my own sexuality and telling you what's there. I want men to be able to satisfy their partners because they tend to care a lot about that. I want women to be able to get what they really want for men because they tend to care a lot about that. So, I have no personal skin in the game to misrepresent myself and my desires. I'm not trying to trick anyone because that would be really stupid as there's enough misrepresentation flying around already. So, I want you to understand when I say that I am actually seeing this subject more completely than you are, and so are a few others on this thread. You may not recognize this, but I do understand what men need and want very well... perhaps better than most men do as most would be unwilling to admit to the vulnerabilities that they have. Men tend to hide the very parts in themselves behind the thickest walls of armor they want touched the very most. This is what I can feel about men who armor themselves. But bottom line is that your relationships will suffer if you fail to integrate the feminine perspective. So, you can either stay stuck in your preferred paradigm that keeps you safe and in control or you can actually become more open-minded about the topic and explore into what's truly interesting about and integral to the relationship to the feminine.

Men do have more biological impetus to seek indiscriminate sex. But this doesn't mean that it's good for survival. If that drive goes untempered by the human drive for connection and pair bonding/community building, this impulse can create a lot of survival issues for our species. Sure, it modern day we have condoms and other forms of contraceptive. But we are wired for nomadic times. And in that situation if men sought indiscriminate sex outside of his small hunter/gatherer group, he's leaving the woman and his children very susceptible to death. So, it isn't good for procreation and the survival of the species... nor is it great for the chances of him passing on healthy offspring. So, it isn't good for survival when the drive is used out of tandem with other pro-social drives including the drive towards fatherhood, even though it is something that would be enjoyed by many men. Now, it is quite natural for men to be sexually attracted to many women, if that's what you mean. Generally, men do have a polyamorous sex drive, in greater degree to which women have a polyamorous sex drive. But men also have a strong drive for connection, community creation, fatherhood, and pair bonding. These are also male instincts. So, if a man never wants to have deeper relationships that go beyond base-line sexual attraction, there are strong chances that he is having issues with avoidance and/or issues with setting boundaries and that this is an indication that he's suppressing some of his instincts. Though, of course, there are many people who simply don't resonate with the whole pair bond and have children thing. And that's fine. But often a lack of interest in deeper relationships can denote fears of intimacy.

Sometimes it is necessary to be really straight with someone to get through to them. Other times not so much. I'm usually in two minds about things. On one hand, I can get a more transcendent perspective and have all the patience and understanding in the world once I can see the situation as an impersonal chain of cause and effect. On the other hand, I'm human and have deep wounds relative to this dynamic just as everyone else does. And the wound of the feminine is about being suppressed and ignored. So, on one hand, I can stay in the transcendent perspective where I can see people's embattlements. But on the other hand, these conversations are like lemon juice in wounds. And even though I've acclimatized to the lemon juice by exploring these wounds in myself a lot and I've also healed certain wounds, there are still concentrations of the "lemon juice" that can make me feel really frustrated especially when it comes to insisting something is untrue that I know to be true and vice versa. It's like trying to tell people the sky is blue and they try to tell me it's red. And I say, "Yes, sometimes it's red. But only in certain situations. But most of the time it's blue." And then a bunch of sunset enthusiasts reply, "Nah! It's red. All the books I've read have told me the sky is red. And I experienced that the sky was red a bunch of times." And I go, "I get it that you like it when the sky is red, you're a sunset enthusiast. But generally speaking, the sky is blue." And they go, "What do you know about the sky, you're just a sky enthusiast. We're sunset enthusiasts, so we know better. We've experienced the sky being red many times." And I go

<3

A lot of men are afraid of intimacy. So casual/short interactions based mostly in mutual masturbation will feel like the safest way for a man to meet his needs if he's dealing with avoidant patterns. Not as to say that most men wouldn't enjoy casual sex. The enjoyment is certainly there to be had. But often, when it comes to avoidance of deeper relationships, it doesn't come from a genuine lack of desire to have them. It usually comes from fears of vulnerability or fears of losing themselves in a relationship. But this tendency actually runs counter to human survival. Human beings are meant to pair bond (or in earlier societies) settle down with a small group of male and female sexual partners so that all adults raise all the children. Men having indiscriminate sex with lots of female partners, even in nomadic times, leaves most of those children and the women in serious jeopardy. So, it isn't actually good for survival, as we are a social species with responsibilities for one another. Also, such a relationship will never really satisfy a woman unless she's GENUINELY looking for indiscriminate sex too. So, if you want a bunch of sex, you'll certainly be able to find women who (for one reason or another) are willing to sleep with you. But just don't fool yourself into thinking that you've given them something really satisfying.

I brought this up in my earlier post. It's a lot of insecurity and fears of worthlessness. And then wanting to construct an easy-to-understand narrative around women's sexuality to feel more secure and in control of women's feelings... which they see as the ultimate measuring stick of whether they're enough or not. And then, of course, men can feel even more in control if they can continue to believe that women don't really know what they want. And this is why I keep repeating myself. Men with this insecurity end up shooting themselves in the foot. They want so badly to be enough in women's eyes, that they construct a narrative in their mind where they can get some success with women and feel enough. But then, that narrative will only take them that far. And then once it gets past a certain point, they will only orient to their idea of a woman and not the woman herself... basically guaranteeing that he won't give the woman what she really wants, which is intimacy. So don't think that I don't feel this on so many men. It's very frustrating to try to get it across because, as a woman, I have a lot of personal experiences with being dismissed and ignored even in times where I've had the most accurate and sound perspective. So, there are definitely wounds there for me that this triggers. And I may get a little sharp if I'm ignored for a long time. But I do fundamentally see what underlies men's insecurities around intimacy with a woman. It's fear of being seen and judged as lesser. Edit: Here is my post from earlier... I'm reading through the comments since yesterday, and it's not looking good. Lots of guys on here with really apparent chips on their shoulders in relation to women. And lots of willful ignorance around the female perspective on sexuality and relationships. And a lot more of just doubting women's sincerity and/or ability to communicate what they want. So many of the guys on here have such a skewed view of female emotions and sexuality that they are basically lining themselves up to attract very harsh and insecure women to themselves that mirror their own insecurities. And it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy that will seem to confirm their suspicions over and over again, the more unconscious/traumatized women they attract... further entrenching them in the cycle of distortion and unconscious dating behavior. And then, the women who actually are relatively conscious, compassionate, and who have done a lot of work on themselves will automatically sort them out because their instincts will lead them to a man who matches them with regard to their mental/emotional state. And they won't even realize that they're being unconsciously filtered out as unhealthy men by healthy women. And much of this is based in fear of femininity and the fear of being deemed lesser, so there is a desire to construct a narrative where they feel more in control of how women feel. And this comes from their own low self-esteem and fear of their own feminine side, so they prefer to stay in a narrative that is deeply distorted but feels empowering to them where they can remain armored and in control as opposed to recognizing other perspectives and really allowing themselves to be fully human and have the intimacy that all people need. And it's especially a shame that Leo (as an influential person) has a lot of these same chips on his shoulder relative to emotions, intimacy, and femininity because he just green-lights all the unconsciousness relative to his understanding the female perspective and frames it as conscious and parades a distorted perspective as truth. And you can see all these guys feel emboldened in their distortions once he validates them. Ultimately guys, this is mostly your problem to sort out as you will be the ones reaping the consequences of this problem. And I can tell you all about the female perspective until I'm blue in the face. But understand, I'm not doing this for my own health. I'm mostly sharing this perspective to help the men on here understand so they can at least have some chance of experiencing a fulfilling relationship and satisfying their woman. It doesn't do any good to be so myopic towards your own survival agenda if you're looking for a real relationship. So, for those that are working on themselves, if you want a fulfilling relationship to a relatively conscious woman, then you're going to have to be conscious relative to how you approach relationships. And you'll need to be multi-perspectival in how you approach relationships without getting stuck in the reductive perspective of seeing man/woman relationships as purely a cruel survival game. And all this farcical alpha nonsense may get you laid here and there by women who line up with that... but it isn't going to cut it if you're looking to satisfy a woman and have a good relationship with her. Women who are relatively attuned to their intuition will recognize your willful ignorance and defensive behavior for what it is... weakness and fragility and fear of the feminine.