Emerald

Both Teal Swan and the woman in the video are correct. They're both giving accurate and thorough reflections of the subjective experience of being attracted to men as a woman. Men do possess that assertive masculine power like both Teal Swan and the woman in the video are talking about. Human beings also have a dual nature, so men who have integrated that assertive masculine power are more attractive than men who have not. BUT men who have learned to tame, channel, and focus that assertive masculine power into virtues and strengths are infinitely more attractive and "high quality" (though I hate referring to people like that) than men who just let their untamed masculine power run amok. That's what Teal Swan is talking about. @knakoo - The woman in the video is talking about the lion in the cage... the lion that is sitting there as waiting potential that's not being tamed and channeled, but is still there none-the-less that women can pick up on.

I explained this yesterday in a post, but I'll put it here. An optimally attractive man is like a very fierce lion with an expertly skilled lion tamer. If a man's lion is not fierce, he is not going to be very attractive. Likewise, if the man's lion tamer is unskilled and wants to avoid the lion... he may repress his lion and puts it in a cage. This leads him to deny his own sovereignty and raw animalistic desires, and this is not an attractive state for a man to be in. And often, when the cage of repression falters, they also set loose their untamed lion... one that's weak willed, morally bankrupt, dangerous, and creepy. The other side is if a man's lion tamer is not skilled, and he just lets his lion run amok and 'rip as many throats out' that he wants to. Thus, he is showing a weakness and instability in character. A man like this is weak willed, morally bankrupt, dangerous, and/or creepy and is not attractive. Now, women who are inexperienced but crave the lion might settle for this guy with an unskilled lion tamer who lets his lion run wild in false hope that they can tame his lion with their love. This is especially true if these women are experiencing a dearth of men who are willing to unleash, integrate, tame, and exalt their lion from a wild animal and up into a state of kinghood. And there is a scarcity of men who have integrated and tamed their inner lion. So, it is often that women have no frame of reference for what they're actually looking for because men who are integrated in this way are fairly rare. And they just see the lion and become attracted. But a truly attractive man is someone who has an expert lion tamer that gives him a high degree of character, virtue, self-control, social acuity, empathy, and discipline... while also having the capacity to unleash his lion and be dominant and violent if he needs to be. So without a lion, women won't be very attracted. With only a lion, you may attract women who crave the lion, but it will never give them what they're really looking for... which is to feel held and protected.

Yeah, the illusion becomes a lot easier to see through once we've been around the block and cleared out our own emotional stuff that lead to the bad relationships. Truly, a lot of what being a "bad boy" is based on is a compensation for traumas and emotional issues. So, bad boy behavior can be kind of like the Napoleon complex. They put on a tough front to hide their weaknesses and vulnerabilities from others... and from themselves. Like my ex-boyfriend was always putting on a tough front and acting like a bad ass. But then he'd have big emotional breakdowns about once a week and be threatening to commit suicide if I don't do this or because I did that. And not to shame anyone who gets into that position where they're having those big emotional breakdowns, but it's just really detrimental and soul sucking to be in a relationship to such a person. It doesn't give you what you're really looking for. A bad boy is not capable of truly holding a woman because he himself is not stable. But I do feel like that pop culture image of the bad boy is a bit of a female wish fulfillment fantasy. Like being able to have the bad boy and tame them. But it's much more empowering to be with a good boy and then seduce his fierce side up out of him... And the flavor of the goodness is much better. But the idea of a good boy is boring. But when he's really a good man, the reality is anything but boring. It reminds me a bit of this quote by Simone Weil...

Good "boys". No contest. Bad boys are really just scrubs. I've never met a bad boy who wasn't one. Bad boys are tiring and weigh your life down. And they don't make good fathers because their lives are usually falling apart from making terrible decisions... as they have weak moral fiber. I feel like someone who prefers bad boys has never actually had a relationship to one. My 4 year relationship to a bad boy (age 16-20) ended up with him breaking a beer bottle and holding it up to my neck and threatening to kill me. And he was always in and out of jail for stupid shit. And he was high all the time. He couldn't hold onto a job. But I was so attached to him and had weak boundaries, that it took me 4 years to realize how bad it all was. There is a romantic pop image of the bad boy. And the trope of the bad boy with a good heart. But the reality of being with a bad boy is that it's absolutely underwhelming and anxiety provoking. And it will absolutely suck your life down to the ground. It's exciting for like a month, and then it just drags you. By the way, here's a great song about leaving a relationship with a "bad boy". It reminds me a bit of when I was 20 when I finally had the clarity to leave...

You're forgetting that all of reality is basically sex... the intermingling between feminine and masculine forces. There's biology involved in human sexuality, sure. And to be out of touch with the body is to be out of touch with the reality of how the feminine and masculine interacts within an individual human being and in a sexual scenario. But you're not mentioning how many analogues of sexuality exist within in the reality of existence and the reality of being human. It isn't just a purely biological reality. it's that too. But it's a very multi-faceted gem. Don't get fixated upon one facet.

I think @Leo Gura may find empowerment in viewing human sexuality only/mostly through that survival lens. It's certainly the lens he focuses on the most. And what he says is somewhat true from that perspective. But the over-use of that lens is itself distortional and reductive. I was really obsessed with this lens too, back when I was 20. I had recognized a repression of my feminine sexual/animal core. And I became obsessed with sexuality from the paradigm. And it's very intoxicating in a way. Now, the animalistic perspective is a perspective where men have an inherent advantage over women. So, I can see why over-focusing on the animal nature can be comforting from the male perspective and a bit anxiety provoking form the female perspective. There was a lot of anxiety woven into my focus towards that perspective back then... but it was also worth it to dive so deep. It just felt like my sexuality was ouroboros eating his own tail. It seemed to self-cannibalize... and it was every bit erotic and frustrating. And it makes sense because to be female from the animal and spiritual perspective is to yield for life to be. It's a complete reversal of everything else that relates to survival and life. Female sexual arousal is like a planet in retrograde. Now much later, I developed that ability to have integration between the animalistic perspective and the higher consciousness perspective and saw how those things intermingle so intimately from the lowest most animalistic behaviors to the highest most exalted form where God makes love to reality. Now, it could be Leo's intention to get people in touch with their animal nature in order to have such a transformation. But I don't really think it comes through in a helpful way. There's a lot more to untangle once you find it. And I think there is a strong chance that I could have become attached to the pleasure and comfort of that perspective if I were a man. I think I would have dug a couple layers deep into human sexuality, found something empowering and exciting, and stayed there. I was always lamenting that that was not possible. I didn't have that chance to find something that was both empowering and exciting until digging layers and layers deep. But I can also recognize from my present state of mind, after having dug through this so much that the animalistic perspective alone will never be satisfying from the female perspective. You really need to integrate the animalistic perspective with the perspective of the heart to really make a woman feel satisfied... and ideally the heart coupled with spirituality.

Well said! The blacked out part is the part that I was taking exception to earlier. Being Shadow Masculine and having low empathy and low emotional intelligence honestly isn't attractive at all from the female perspective once you've gained some life experience and worked through some things. It's actually very repulsive. Now, lots of women might respond to that. But it isn't an indicator that these men are extra attractive. It's more of an indicator of codependent tendencies and weak boundaries in women and a lack of discernment relative to Shadow Masculinity and Positive Masculinity. I brought up the example of how successful Donald Trump has been with supermodels... but he's clearly not an attractive man. And I think the questions at the end are important. I think there's a strong tendency for Leo and others on the forum to boil human sexuality down to simply being a reflection of survival needs. And I understand that that's exciting to be in touch with. There's a real psycho-sexual button there. But it's overall a very reductive way to think about human sexuality which is far more complex. We're wild animals, yes. But we're also beings capable of higher consciousness. And if we base our sexual behaviors and choices on the nature of the beast alone, then there's a problem there.

That's not my thing at all. I don't think that of the people on this thread. That's a totally different issue. I just don't like it when female sexuality is misrepresented or ignored in favor of a useful distortion... especially when the men don't really realize that they're engaging with a useful distortion. They see the usefulness as an indicator of truth, when it is not. And it's most especially a personal pet peeve to have my voice written over as though I have nothing valuable or true to say about female sexuality when I've introspected upon that topic... probably (and I do guess this is accurate) more than anyone I've ever met. And then a bunch of pick up artists who lost their virginity at age 24 and got a little success with women decide that they're suddenly the experts of female sexuality. And I'm like "Oh hell to the no!"

I don't know how to respond to this because it feels unrelated to what I said.

The distinction here is that I'm not providing you with actionable distortions of the truth... I'm providing you with relatively un-actionable truths. If you want to get laid and do pick up, what I shared on here is of no use for that. It's true... but it has little utility if you just want to get laid. But if you value deep connection like women generally do, you must understand that women who are relatively introspective will be able to tell you far more accurate information about female sexuality compared to pick up artists. And if you want real intimacy with said woman, you would be wise to listen and believe them. It won't get you laid by a ton of women... but deep intimacy isn't possible without that. And if you carry the idea that men know better about women's sexuality than women do, you will write over your lady's sexuality with the things you only think you know... because they worked for your purposes. So, it's just that the truths that women will tell you are not actionable or orchestrable. They are not user friendly. When a woman is sharing their sexual leanings and insights with you, they just are what they are. Now, pick-up gives a lot of workable falsehoods. They will work for your purposes. They are useful... but they get female sexuality ALL distorted and wrong. Any woman will tell you that, and they're 100% correct when they do. But because the falsehoods work and the truth doesn't work for the purposes of pick up, men come to the conclusion that women are just out of touch with what they really want. And that's simply not true in my case or in the case of any woman who is relatively introspective. But what women really desire... and what some women will settle or fall for (often in false hope of changing the guy into what she really wants) are two totally different things.

I'm almost always attracted to quiet and reserved men. I seldom ever like brash or loud men. It usually puts me off. I'm much more likely to see a quiet guy, reading in the corner and get curious about him and what he's thinking about. I am a quiet and reflective person. So, in situations where I've scoped guys out in the past, there's always been this desire to find my match... someone who was relatively mysterious who could understand me and I could understand him back. That's seriously the story of 90% of how my attractions have begun going back to like middle school... a curiosity about what's going on in the mind of a more reserved guy. It's always been that way. I wouldn't likely match with a man that's very extraverted because I am not extraverted. I dated an extrovert once... and it didn't turn out well for compatibility. And I like ambiguity and a bit of resistance to work up against. If a guy is really wearing his sexuality and personality out on his sleeve, it robs the ambiguity and resistance and there is not ability to build up sexual tension. I like the sense that I'm getting an aspect of him that no one else sees. That's just what pushes my buttons.

If you're just looking to get laid, it will certainly work fine for you to ignore what I'm saying. Go ask a pick up artist for that. But if you should ever really want to understand a woman and have a deep connection with her, then you'd be wise to have a listen to my perspective... because I'm not just telling you useful lies that you can use to maximize your lay count... I'm telling you the truth of my experience of attraction as a woman that I've contemplated extensively upon. And if you don't value that, then that's fine. But I have to give you fair warning that this is the exact thing that leads me to auto-filter men out of my consideration when they don't even care about my subjective experience as a woman. It reflects a selfishness that is juvenile and unbecoming of a man. And I'm sure many women are the same. And you may be able to get away with doing that and still get laid or have a casual girlfriend. But please dispossess yourself of the illusion that you can ever truly satisfy a woman as a man without caring about her subjective experience of sex and relationships. No intimacy can be had when you ignore the female sexual experience. And a great many women will strike you from their lists without you even realizing it.

Trust me when I say I've been involved with more pick up than Leo ever has... from the receiving end. I could have a Phd in it.

I definitely second this. I have been attracted to assholes in the past and it lead to big problems. So, there is an awareness and an aversion now. It all comes with experience.

I'm sorry Leo, but you're just incorrect about the attraction factor around assholes. I've met plenty of very attractive masculine men who are kind and warm. In fact, most attractive masculine men with mass appeal that I've known have been very warm-hearted, but also very assertive and strong. And I've met many men who are arrogant assholes who, despite their masculinity (or even lack-there-of), are very unattractive. Arrogance is just an annoying and selfish quality where no true intimacy can exist and no true surrender can happen. So, of course, assholes are no prize to be won and there is even a repulsion factor to them because they often act like spoiled children. Now, I'm sure you'd be able to get a higher quantity of women if you were more of an asshole. But this asshole quality and subsequent ability to get laid by a bunch of women would not be a reflection of increased attractiveness... just a reflection of what will succeed in getting you laid by more women by ramming through certain women's weak boundaries and to disregard social graces. I think men are largely under the illusion that getting laid by many women is a true reflection of their masculinity and attractiveness. But from my perspective, I see this as being almost as silly as a woman thinking that the number of men who want to sleep with her is a measure of her attractiveness. So, I would encourage you to not take quantity of sexual success as an objective measure of your attractiveness. I know a ton of asshole redneck guys from my hometown who get laid all the time... but they're definitely not attractive. And I've known tons of asshole pick-up artist guys with a billion notches in their bedposts who are also definitely not attractive. And just think about how many super models that that 'studly stud' Donald Trump has had sex with. We all know he's a 'hottie'. Honestly, if you prefer to look through the survival lens relative to sexuality and human relationships, you can see why this quality is quite repulsive. Assholes are actually really bad for female survival. So it makes sense that there would be that repulsion factor. But perhaps, if you're just seeing your attractiveness as a means to and end... the end being sleeping with the highest quantity of women, then being an asshole will be a very effective strategy. But don't be under the illusion that the asshole quality is attractive or that there is an innate link between masculinity and assholery.

An optimally attractive man is like a very fierce lion with an expertly skilled lion tamer. If a man's lion is not fierce, he is not attractive. He is weak and submissive. If a man's lion tamer is not skilled and he lets his lion run amok, he is not attractive. He is dangerous and/or creepy. And both of these men are bad for female survival and are unattractive as a result. The only reason why assholes are successful is because they can hide that they're assholes before women can recognize how unskilled their lion tamer is. And it can be easy to be carried away into silly fantasy that an asshole will learn to tame his lion. A strong-willed man who has the capacity for violence but the self-control to wield it justly and responsibility, is very attractive. Everything else won't allow for true feminine surrender... because surrender requires safety and trust. And you can never be safe with a man who locks his lion in a cage... nor can you be safe with a man who has a shitty lion tamer.

Well, let's take this imaginary projection of the reward/punishment dichotomy into an analogy that reflects the magical thinking within Purple societies. Let's say that a particular Purple society collectively believes that there is a creature that comes and steals people's breaths while they sleep. And they make all kinds of accommodations as a society to catch this creature that steals people's breath and kills them. Little do they realize that it's actually the fact that they're sleeping too close to the fire. And that the fire is eating up their oxygen while they're sleeping... causing them to suffocate. So, when they try to catch the creature and fail, it is because they have a worldview that isn't rooted in the truth of how reality actually is. So, projecting the falsehood onto the situation is an ineffective mental tool for being able to sus out the truth of the situation, that would save lives in this case. Now, your idea is that projecting dominance hierarchies onto things is helpful. And perhaps, projecting this falsehood onto the reality could have some benefits in certain contexts. So, back to our analogy.. if we take our breath-stealing monster example, and it actually leads people to making the decision to sleep further away from the fire because the breath-stealing monster lives in the fire in the mythology. It could suffice as an effective tool, even if it isn't reflective of the truth. But, let's say that this projection onto reality of the breath stealing monster is too simple to account for the complexities of the problem. So, maybe the breath-stealing monster mythos can help you sleep away from the fire. But perhaps there are other elements to the truth of the situation that the breath-stealing monster projection doesn't account for. And so, the people make a ton of mistakes based upon their mythological understanding of the situation. But if they know that fire is sustained upon oxygen and that they need oxygen to breath, then understanding things in actuality is the best way to account for the dangers and to address the situation at its roots. So, there can be many issues that arise when people believe that their projection isn't just a tool for practical understanding but believe that it's an existential truth. And so far, what I've seen is that men projecting these ideas of winning/losing and punishment/reward over the top of female sexuality and other things, often just gives them a chip on their shoulder and a sharp blow to their self-esteem. And it keeps them away from creator thinking and in the perspective of competing to one-up other men on the imaginary hierarchy. So, this projection can and does seriously backfire on men, endowing them with incorrect and disempowering world-views around their own self-worth and their dating prospects. I would guess that a man who doesn't get hung up on dominance hierarchies and where he falls within them, will actually end up with more social status than if he didn't project reality onto these hierarchies. It's much more liberating and effective to see the truth underneath the projection. That way, you can play whatever game needs to be played for your own survival and enjoyment, without feeling like you're being punished or marked by some woman's feelings that exist completely independently of the hierarchy being projected upon it. So, it would be socially advantageous to understand that dominance hierarchies aren't inherently real and will change between social situations. And to use them as a tool if you want to... or don't. But there is a need to liberate one's self of the belief in the inherent reality of dominance hierarchies based upon male worth and seeing women as the sole arbiters of the judgment of that worth. Liberating one's self of the fairy tale will help you be more socially successful... including with women. And women will lose the projection of this monumental amount of power that this fairy tale gives us over men... which we don't actually possess or benefit from. Basically, it's better to see what's actually true than what is collectively projected. Because, even though collective projection of dominance hierarchies or the breath-stealing monster CAN be helpful. It is often a double edged sword.

I don't think it's a bad idea. I think I would probably have a cold approach/pick up phase if I were a man. I think that would be helpful... as long as I also developed the capacity for the slow organic process of bonding with a woman I want a deep relationship with. But I know that it's a "meh" kind of feeling with a guy who's trying to pick me up. I need time and ambiguity to develop potency of attraction. Or it's just luke-warm. It's the least potent form of the romance drug. Like if I'm going for a deep bond with a man, I need the heat and tension of the slow burn over time and the ambiguity around that to forge that bond. Like if you can imagine that I'm a piece of metal and I need time to heat up to the point where I can turn to liquid and meld with someone. And cold approach is well... too cold for that type of bonding. It just makes for a more lukewarm romance... which is kind of blah. But it's good as a starter and to get some experience as a man. I can see the efficacy of it because cold approach is actionable with a high degree of control. But what I appreciate is that which grows organically... so lower amounts of control on the part of the man but infinitely more juicy and intimate from the female perspective. So, my recommendation is to open yourself to both.

It's mostly that, for romantic prospects, it takes several months of platonic interaction for an attraction to arise for me. I don't really respond well with cold approach because attraction is a very slow burn for me. And there is no guarantee of that, even if I do spend a lot of time around a guy. So, even though I understand that this isn't very actionable from the male perspective, the element of organically growing warm bonds is very important to the attraction process. In order for an attraction to be potent enough to really want it, there has to be that build up and slow bonding process without expectation of romance. But generally, if a guy is into pick-up, it takes away what's interesting to me about the process. It's the idea that he has feelings for me in particular. So, if a guy is approaching me... it stands to reason he's doing that with any girl he finds relatively attractive. So, the specialness, ambiguity, and organic development of relationship is off the table if a guy approaches me. That's really the reason for the filtering. But beyond that, there's the perk of getting to know someone over time and seeing how they are when they're not trying to make a good impression upon you. So, I wouldn't give cold approachers my time in that way, when I can build up warm bonds with men who exist within my social circles and frequent stomping grounds.

Suit yourself. But you'd be wise to realize that you're projecting all kinds of falsehood onto female attraction and that your self-esteem and romantic prospects are suffering for it.

So could any other guy on the planet. But my point was that Ben Shapiro isn't masculine and he's an asshole in comparison to a Dwayne Johnson type who is masculine but seems very kind. My point was that masculinity and being an asshole aren't inherently linked.

I am being very realistic with you by helping you see underneath your projections. A woman being attracted to someone is not a reward. A woman being unattracted to someone is not a punishment. It just is what it is. Women don't even consciously control it. It just happens or it doesn't. Also, I didn't say much of anything about men at all in my last post. I was saying how you're projecting your feelings and worldview onto female attraction. I never said anything about men other than that neither men nor women are punishing people or rewarding people with their attractions. Attraction is just a phenomenon that either happens or doesn't. But honestly, most of what you posted makes no sense in response to what I wrote. It's almost as though you're responding to something else entirely. Yes... all people project meaning onto attraction. But not everyone projects the punishment and reward dichotomy onto attraction like you have. And even if someone does project punishment/reward onto attraction, it doesn't mean that projection is an accurate representation of reality as it is. You can project anything onto attraction dynamics... and it doesn't mean that it's true. And projecting the punishment/reward dichotomy leads to an incorrect, fatalistic, and ineffective worldview around attraction. And furthermore, it makes a person seem desperate and entitled because the idea becomes... if a man's been "good" enough then he should "deserve" sex. And if women don't give him what he's "earned" by being "good", then women are a bunch of selfish people for not bestowing him with his rightfully "earned" sex. And not only is this a selfish mindset, it's also very lacking in social awareness, needy, and unattractive. So, it would be in your best interest to dispossess yourself of that punishment/reward illusion that you're projecting onto attraction dynamics. That's what I'm trying to help you with.

I personally auto-filter guys who do cold approach. It tells me something about them and their priorities that don't jibe with my own. I wouldn't listen when these guys are trying to cajole you into cold approaching women. It is very annoying. If I were going about meeting women as a man, I would just develop some social influence and a wide social circle where I make a lot of organic social connections with many men and women. And then, I could warm approach from within that wider social circle.

Female attraction is just what is. It isn't a reward or a punishment because women don't choose who they are or aren't attracted to. It just happens, and often for no discernible reason or quality. It's the same way that male attraction isn't a reward or a punishment. It just happens. You don't consciously choose who you're attracted to. You're adding too much intention into the attraction process. You're projecting a meaning onto it that simply isn't there. Someone being attracted to you isn't a reward. Someone not being attracted to you isn't a punishment. It may feel that way to you. But it simply isn't the case. You're just projecting your feelings and value system onto the phenomenon of female attraction. From the female perspective, it's usually just "Oh wow! I have a big crush on John. I hope he likes me too." That's all there is... just a flood of endorphins and positive emotions in relation to a particular guy. It has nothing to do with anyone else or how they feel about her attraction to this particular John character. Everyone else is romantically neutral. But fear not, I'm sure you've been someone's John many times and you will be many more. But women tend not to be forthcoming with their attraction. When you like one guy in particular, it's extra hard to confess it because there is no one else like him. And if he rejects you and you have so much investment already, it's a much scarier situation than approaching someone you have no investment in. Also, there is not such thing as deserving and not deserving. This is another projection of your worldview onto reality.

First off, don't think about female attraction as a reward. It's just how she feels. There's no sense of rewarding someone with affection. It's either she is attracted or she isn't. But I think a lot of women would prefer a dominant guy who is an asshole over a submissive guy who is a nice guy. But that women would prefer the confluence of dominance and kindness. A lot of attraction is based on survival. And in nomadic times, if you were with a man who can't protect you and provide for you, then this leaves you and your children dead. So, the ability to be a strong protector/provider outweighs temperament in the attraction process. But the issue with violent ruthless men is that there is a point of diminishing returns. He who protects you and provides for you can also turn on you and beat you and murder you. So, that's when a kind temperament becomes important in the attraction process. So, the most attractive men possess both the capacity to be kind and gentle while also possessing the ability to be a strong protector/provider... which includes the capacity to become violent and ruthless. And then also the ability to consciously choose which mode he's going into. So, self-control is also very important in attraction. From the perspective of our wiring... if you have a man who's too submissive, it's a survival threat. If you have a man who's too dominant, it's a survival threat. Best to shop around for a guy in the Goldilocks zone.