Emerald

This sounds a bit like De Clerambault's syndrome. If you don't know her, then you don't actually love her even if the emotions are very intense. You're infatuated with her. If she doesn't reply to your messages, then she's probably just not interested. She probably looks at you because she knows that you're obsessed with her. I've had De Clerambault's Syndrome before too at two points in my life, once at age 12 and once at age 20. And there was always deep psychological turmoil underneath it all because of various situations that were happening in my life at those times. My life was falling apart completely and I had no control of it. The infatuation provided me my only outlets to feel good, like an instant drug. But in order to really feel good, I had to make up in my mind that the object of my obsession secretly loved me back. I recommend this video that I made about obsession as someone who has experienced obsession before.

If that's what you need to do at this point, then that's okay. It totally get it. If I could ignore it, I would be tempted to as well as it's a really convoluted topic that's difficult to wrap the mind around. It's just too painful for me to ignore. So, diving into this topic feels like a relief compared to ignoring it. For you, it seems, ignoring it feels better now than facing it. So, go with that until it becomes unbearable. It's uncomfortable stuff to examine, and it'll definitely rustle your jimmies, stir up your demons, and challenge your current worldview. So, you have to be ready for it. But if you're really serious about personal development, you'll have to look into this topic eventually. You can't grow with chains on.

I don't believe that most women work that way. I'm sure that there is a sizable minority of women who are like this. But most women I've talked to are really interested in the guy as a partner if they like him. But something that would be a good idea to address is that you're seeing sex (and friendship) as a exchangeable currency, and not as an experience and an expression between two (or dare-I-say more ) people. A woman wanting ONLY friendship with a man is not equivalent to a man wanting ONLY sex from a woman. Using sex as currency is unhealthy to begin with. But friendship definitely isn't a commodity or service that someone provides to someone, that they should expect sex (or anything else) in return to make it worth their time. People are friends because they genuinely care about one another. It actually makes me really sad for you that you can't experience genuine feelings of friendship toward a woman to the degree that you see friendship as merely transactional. So, if you're really into developing yourself as a person and becoming more highly conscious (which I assume you are because you're on this forum) then you have to understand that this is "Orange" level thinking regarding the topic of sex. To quote Leo... "It's chimp stuff."

If you type in "definition friend zone" in Google, this the the definition that comes up. friend zone noun informal noun: friend zone; plural noun: friend zones a situation in which a friendship exists between two people, one of whom has an unreciprocated romantic or sexual interest in the other. "I always wind up in the friend zone, watching them pursue other guys" So, you did actually use the term wrong according to the dictionary definition. And you are instead using the term "friend zone" to describe gold digging, manipulation, and energetic vampirism. But I'm not saying that "friend zone" isn't real. I'm saying that it's simply the default mode for women and doesn't work the way people think it does. And because of this misconception, it makes things more difficult for men who are trying to meet women as it plays too well into narratives that already cause low self-esteem in men. So, I figured that more clarity could alleviate some of this problem for men on the forum, as I know that approaching women is not easy. Take it from me, I'm a bi-sexual woman and I've never had the gumption to approach a woman because of fear of rejection or seeming creepy. So, I've never had a girlfriend or been with a woman... but I tried in my head many times. I'm also not saying that women can't be abusive. Gold digging, manipulation, and energetic vampirism IS abuse. It should never happen. And people are so utterly convinced of women's weakness and inferiority and men's strength and superiority that abuses from women to men get interpreted as harmless or are completely overlooked. You can find videos of women in public berating their male partners and people will just walk by and laugh at the guy. Then, the same scenario gets reversed and everyone sweeps in to save the damsel in distress and shame the man. It's an incredibly harmful and ubiquitous mindset that some Feminists have called the "predator/prey mindset," whereby men are always seen as predators and women are always seen as prey. And this plays constantly and unconsciously across the stage of the collective consciousness. It's one of the most pernicious and unconscious mindsets that plagues us as a human species and limits our potential for peace and expansion. It's harmful to men because their feelings get overlooked and shat upon all the time. And people always tell them, "Suck it up! Be a man!" And if you can't "suck it up" then you're a (insert inferior/feminine insult here). Men are also seen by the public as inherently aggressive and are often stereotyped as creepy or bad by default. On the other hand, it's harmful to women in the sense that people are conditioned to see them as weak and ineffective. So, you'll find a lot of self esteem issues in women relative to self-trust and self-efficacy. There's always a feeling like people won't take you seriously, and it's hard to get people to listen to you. You'll also find a prone-ness to victim's mentality in women who are not aware that this rhetoric is working on them. That's why there's a lot a reactionary "Yass! Queen!" kind of talk to compensate for the damage done by the "prey" narrative. But if you look close enough, you'll see that the mindsets for this reaction are built from that narrative as well. And even though the "red-pill" community seems like a solution to this issue because you get to vent about it with other men dealing with the situation that society sets up. It's not a real solution at all. It's just the male version of the "Yass! Queen!" talk. This is because it's still built on the very same foundation and assumptions from which men seek to liberate themselves. It just teaches a man different ways to think about the shitty mindsets that society holds about men, women, and power in a way that makes them feel empowered and vindicated. It's not different than what most mainstream Feminists are doing when they engage in man-shaming or try to fit the victim narrative. The rhetoric is also designed to make you feel like "the good guy" of the situation, to cope with always being stereotyped as the aggressor. But a word of warning... If you live by the sword, you'll also die by the sword. And you can't fight fire with fire. And mainstream Feminists can't "crush" patriarchy because the idea of "crushing the patriarchy" is also a patriarchal thing. It's all a big Catch 22 without the ability to dive into what's uncomfortable and explore the roots of this issue, and to become aware of the real demons that actually plague us. So, a man can never truly liberate himself in this way because he believes that his chains are the thing that gives him freedom. So a man in "red-pill" just agitates himself over and over to be able to project his frustrations with the social structure onto something. But it doesn't address them in any kind of productive way. It's just a coping mechanism. Coping mechanisms are fine for a time, but they don't heal you. But I wasn't doubting that the scenario that you mentioned doesn't happen to some men. I just said that I can't relate to it personally. And the rhetorical nature and bitterness of your post sounded like you were just kind of regurgitating some "red-pill" speech instead of sharing your own experiences. That's why I asked you to clarify if it has been your first-hand experience or if it's just you buying into an idea and then getting pissed off at that idea.

It's not the term itself that's the issue. It's more the interpretation of the term that the term itself lends to. This is because it gives a sense that it's an allotted place that a man is moved to when he doesn't meet this or that standard of attraction. So, the zone part is misleading, because "zone" means "a special delineated place that has a boundary." So, it subtly suggests that someone can be placed there as a secondary action instead of that place being primary. So, it would be more accurate to say "She wasn't attracted to me." or "She has platonic feelings for me." as this is the actual reality of the "friend-zone" situation. It demystifies the scenario surrounding the idea of the friend-zone because that's just what the friend zone is. That is, unless the situation started out romantic and became platonic. Then it could be said, "She put me back in the friend zone." and this would give an accurate explanation of what went on.

Since the initial scenario is a romantic scenario, I would say that there was an intent to see if he would spark that attraction. So, he was not exaclty in default mode but more of a "maybe" mode. But then, the attraction didn't happen. So, he remained in the default zone, but she maybe wanted to like him still. But she didn't and didn't communicate that to him clearly because she continued to let him take her out on dates and things. Or maybe she's immature and just wanted attention or to take advantage of him. I don't know how to put it in four words though. I would suppose that I could consider this scenario friend-zoning because she was first considering him and then decided not to, as the situation started romantically. But this isn't the type of scenario that I was referring to in my post earlier. Edit: But my issue is not to say "there is no friend zone." It's simply that the friend zone idea gives a false idea of the psychology and reality behind the phenomenon. I think it's more helpful to think of it as default mode because this is the way it is from the female perspective. The idea of the friend zone just creates a lot of misconceptions that cause more strain than necessary on men who are trying to meet women.

Thank you for sharing this. I'm impressed at your insights relative to this issue. It takes a lot of emotional discomfort and perseverance to try to untangle the masculine/feminine related shadows. I'm still slowly chipping away at mine. They're just so personal and they do feel like threats to survival simply because they do cross over the biological impetus to reproduce as well as the self-image. Your mindset here makes a lot of sense, and gives me a much more solid perspective on the potential emotional motivations for men who seek out 'manosphere' culture and why it's such a large number of men that are drawn to it. And I think your perceptions are spot on. If only there were a way to provide healing and insight to the masses relative to this issue, so they didn't have to get caught up in tribalistic ideologies to cope with these feelings. Because so many men and women are struggling with authenticity and self-love and are really feeling put-out. They can't see that everyone's struggling with different facets of the exact same issue.

But you see, my post isn't just about semantics. There is a definite difference in psychology than is otherwise conveyed in the term "friend-zone." Sure, a man might fail his own goal. But he has lost anything. He just hasn't gained anything.

This was always my interpretation of the phenomena too. Though it's difficult for me because I have a lot of wounds relative to being a woman and my own self-loathing, and it salts those wounds to see men thinking in this way about women. I already feel that I am at a disadvantage in many facets of life that extend beyond sexuality simply for being a woman and the experiences that I've had relative to my gender. And on the surface it just looks like guys trying to tip the power scales even more in their favor. But my goal is always ideally to understand and not to judge... though I fail sometimes. So, when I look at it, I can recognize that men simply feel like women are in more of a position of power... mostly because of the extreme emphasis that they put on sexuality and the power that they feel women have over their lives and self-worth. And there's an attempt to bring women down a few notches through these ideologies because there is a perception of women having too much power. So, there's a lot of bitterness in a number of men who get into the "red-pill" thing. I get why it's attractive. But if you feel the energy about it, it's really stifling and unpleasant... and that's not just because I'm a woman that I feel that way. It's just that you can feel the frustration, rage, cynicism, and bitterness of many of the men who become involved in those ideologies. There's a stiffness there and a self-hatred. And it's like it allows them to scratch an itch... but it never really allows them true healing unless they can overcome the ideology and face what actually motivates them toward it in the first place. It's very much an energetic holding place down in anger and resentment that's really just a protective cover for powerlessness and low self-esteem. It allows them to stoke the flames of anger and channel it toward "manosphere-oriented" forms of personal development to try to fill the voids of self-love. But it just walls them off further from the real issues of powerlessness and low self-esteem. So, the whole thing relates back to the Yin/Yang imbalance that I was talking about in one of our messages.

Whoa! That's an intense interpretation of the friend-zone. From my understanding of the friend-zone and every interpretation that I've ever heard, this isn't it. This is called being a manipulative gold-digger and an energy vampire. The friend-zone is simply when a woman you're interested in, sees you as just a friend. So, I'd be careful not to mix definitions too much, otherwise you can get the idea that the world is a very bleak place rife with women always trying to suck you dry. Because the friend-zone is an inevitable situation that every single man will experience at some point in time... probably more often than he experiences the "romance-zone". But being manipulated by a vampire woman is not. I have to ask. Have you ever experienced any of this firsthand? I ask you this because I'm not a woman who does this type of thing... nor am I a wealthy man with tons of women trying to leach off of me. To me, it's completely disconnected from my reality because I don't even have any friends who would do this type of thing... at least seemingly not. If you have experienced this, then I recommend staying away from energy vampires. If you haven't, then I would be careful not to fall prey to unconsciously making up issues that aren't really there for you just because it gives you an outlet to vent your bitterness/anger/cynicism/etc. With all the propaganda floating around the echo chambers of the internet, it's easy to cling to an ideology and worldview that allows you to express your rage toward it. It's really just a coping mechanism to attempt to scratch deep emotional itches. It's the same thing that the Feminazi-types are doing. But with regard to the sizable amount of romantic prospects women have, there are definitely pluses and minuses to it. The thing to understand about this is that women tend to be very pointed in their attractions. So, there is no guarantee that "that one guy" will be interested in a relationship. So, there is a 'platonic-zone' for women. Or what's worse is being really attracted to a guy and getting romantic with him, only to find out that he's not interested in you as more that a sexual partner. So, even if women have more quantity to pick from. If quantity isn't what's valued, then there is not as extreme an advantage there. So, don't feel like you're in a position of extreme disadvantage. You are not. There is no reason to get jaded. We all have our advantages and disadvantages in the field of dating. The media tends to always show men as the underdog in the situation because we like that narrative. But trust me, it isn't so even if people pretend it to be so. Women have their own issues and insecurities relative to the dating game.

You're welcome!

I feel like the friend-zone idea was thought of by men in order to try to understand and cope with rejection from a woman that they really like. And the idea got popular and gained traction from there. It's kind of like the flip-side of tv trope of the unattractive woman saying, "But I have a great personality..." to cope with rejection and to reframe the issue as "If I found a great guy... he wouldn't be interested in looks..." But this is not how attraction works. It's just trying to find soothing or actionable answers and mindsets to cope with rejection from an object of attraction. So, I feel like friend-zone is an idea that exists to be able to say, "If only I did 'x, y, z', then I wouldn't have been put in the friend-zone." So, that there is an illusion of a fail-safe way to avoid rejection in the future. And it works to a degree but doesn't really get the psychology of the woman correct.

I suppose that's true from one perspective. For me, my attractions have always come about like food-poisoning. I meet a guy and talk to him for a while and nothing. Then, a few days later, I realize that I'm thinking about him a lot and that it feels good to think about him. Then, I realize that I've been infected. And it comes out of nowhere for no rhyme or reason, and it's the best feeling ever to where I want to talk people's ears off about it. That's why women are always talking to one another about their crushes in a giddy way to one another.

The woman's motivation would be to make a human connection with a friend or acquaintance. Generally speaking, women who have male friends are just wanting friends. There's no motivation to seek a relationship. Now, a dysfunctional person might enjoy getting attention to fill some voids. But generally, the friend-zone is just the default mode for all people... including the vast majority of men.

You're welcome!

I can relate. I always found the friend-zone idea very inaccurate and frustrating for that reason because it really gets the psychology about it wrong. There tend to be decent bits of advice on how to "avoid the friend-zone" that will work in a pinch in a percentage of cases. But it really gets the motivations and psychology all wrong. It's very "cart before the horse."

I'm not saying that guy puts himself in his own friend-zone or that he's worried about girls that he's not interested putting him in the friend-zone. I'm just saying that women don't think of the friend-zone at all. There's no zone there. It's just default. So, most guys never get bumped up to the "romance-zone." It's not that he's put in the friend-zone. He just never made it out of the friend-zone... or what I call default mode. It really is a totally different perspective to think from. Everyone starts in the friend-zone. Very few guys make it out. But men don't talk about the friend-zone and putting women there because they understand that they just aren't interested in some women and that they never will be attracted to those women. So, these women are in the 'platonic-zone'. The reason why I am not calling it the friend-zone in this case is because men tend not to approach women in hopes of friendship from the get-go. Women usually start out with an intention for friendship in most situations because that's part of default-mode. So, the romance is never a factor to start with. It only comes in the form of a Cupid's Arrow or in the form of more shallow physical-based attractions to how a man looks. But men who make this mistake when fathoming of the friend-zone, just don't tend to recognize that women just aren't romantically interested in most men and never will be and that this is default. So, they friend-zone (platonic-zone) women, but it happens unceremoniously because they are sober enough to see that they just aren't attracted to that person. That's what happens when a guy is in the friend-zone. The woman just isn't attracted. She didn't sort the man here. He just never sparked those feelings in her. Most men won't.

Well, I have tons of guys that I get really excited to talk to that I have no romantic interest in. So, it's not that I see them as invisible. I'm married now, anyway. But this is true, even if I weren't. I really enjoy my male friends. So this doesn't mean that they aren't fascinating people that I admire very much. It's just that, if the chemistry isn't there, then it just isn't. But the lack or romantic interest doesn't mean that I think less of them or that they're not cool guys. But the "3" comment, was just tongue in cheek to illustrate a point about the nature of reproduction from the male standpoint. Even if most guys have standards... they're not really necessary for the biological impetus to pass on one's genes. You could pass on your own genes with a "10" a "5" or a "3". So, from the reptilian brain's perspective, all sex is a win. So, I'm not saying that men don't have standards. I'm just saying that biology doesn't require it, if we reduce it down to pure reproductive success. Which I also said is not something that I agree with. Human beings are more complex than their baser drives.

I think about the pre-conditioned personality as having a mix of both masculine and feminine elements in varying degrees. So, imagine that there are a million different inherent traits that a person can have, and each of these traits will be either masculine or feminine. So, after all of those traits are accounted for, it will determine whether a person is inherently feminine or masculine or somewhere in the middle. And this ratio is very unique to the person. So, someone could be masculine in most ways but still orient in a feminine way relative to other aspects of themselves. Then, those aspects will be shaped in this or that way according to culture and social learning. So, this is how I see your tendency toward a more feminine presentation of attraction. This is just part of your unique masculine/feminine signature. So, you'll find women who are very interested in being with lots of different men, and you'll find men who are very particularized with their attractions to women. So, above was just a generalization to convey the point. Now, even if a person orients in a feminine way or masculine way relative to a particular aspect of themselves, it's still a good idea to be in touch with the other side of themselves as this is a big factor of personal development that is often avoided or over-looked. So, someone who naturally orients in a masculine way relative to attraction would be wise to try to become attuned to the feminine part of that drive in themselves, so that they can experience the intuitive and deep nature of a feminine oriented attraction. The more mature a man gets, the more this tendency will brandish itself in small glimmers through his otherwise masculine oriented attraction preferences. This will enable him to be able to fall in love with a particular person and to understand her feelings much better. The same is true for women who orient in a masculine way with regard to this personality trait. Likewise, if someone orients in a very feminine way (male or female), then they would also be wise to get more in touch with the more primal aspects of their drive for pair bonding. So, a woman who orients in a feminine way relative to this trait, would mostly have the particularized attractions that are intuitive and deep. But she would also have developed a relationship to a spark of primal sex drive. She will have a much stronger sex drive and will have more self-knowledge and understanding of her partner's perspective too. And the same is true of a man that orients in a feminine way relative to this trait. Carl Jung talked about this relative to the Anima and Animus. He said something about the Yin Yang symbol that rings true to me. A person who has developed themselves at a deep level will have a Yin/Yang symbol with large dots. But a person who is immature will have dots that are just pin-pricks. So, it's very important to determine which traits are authentic to you as an individual, then get in touch with the inner opposite and develop those too. The inner opposite of each trait should act like the salt and seasoning to the main dish.

Is that what you're afraid of? Do you think you'll become homeless?

My recommendation is simply to kick yourself out of the nest. The reason why you doubt yourself is because you've never had the chance to prove to yourself that you can be independent. You're not going to die. Maybe you'll struggle, but you'll be alive. You'll be a lot more alive than you've ever been. Nothing will be lost except some temporary cold comfort.

The snake is the archetypal image of the feminine and relates to the material world. This is because the snake is the animal that is closest to the ground. So, it represents worldly things and mother Earth. It's also why Christianity and other masculine 'Father-God' religions has labeled the snake as a bad and corrupting influence because those religions see the material world as inherently negative and sinful. As a result, the feminine is also repressed and seen as negative and sinful. These two attitudes relate. Anything that's anti-matter is also anti-feminine. However, if you look to other cultures that are poly-theistic, the snake has a similar meaning but a completely different connotation. For example, in Hinduism the snake still represents the feminine and the material world. But these are not viewed as negative things as they are recognized as being "one" with the masculine principle and the void and spiritual world. Much like Eve comes from Adam's rib, the material world is an outgrowth and expression of the spiritual world. So, the snake is seen as the waiting potential of the material world that can then rise up to be one with the masculine as portrayed in images of Shakti and Shiva in sexual embrace. The material is the feminine that is always pregnant with the essence of the masculine and spiritual. They are one thing. So, when the Kundalini serpent rises to the crown chakra, this is enlightenment. There are also depictions of the snake in ancient Egyptian culture, where images of powerful figures wearing golden headpieces that depict a risen serpent also denote enlightenment and the connection of the material world to the spiritual world. So, archetypally, this is what the snake represents. So, a snake on the ground is all about the material world, which relates back to finances and survival, sexuality and the sense of individual self-ness. A snake moving in a vertical direction represents a connection to the spiritual world and a merging of the feminine material and the masculine spiritual to create the divine child that results from enlightenment.

That was similar to what I experienced on Ayahuasca. My intuition was super tuned in to other's experiences. And I would get insights in a really visceral way just by looking at people and things... or actions that people were taking. For example, I was 20 and at a house party, the second time that I took Ayahuasca. And the guys that I was hanging out with had this cute little pugle (mix between a pug and beagle). And they loved that little dog so much. And they had been pretending to talk to the pugle like many people do with their pets. And they would make up the voice for her and make up her responses to what they would say. And I had been watching them do this for months, and it seemed very normal. Like I said, lots of people do this with their animals. I have done it many times before too. But when I took the Ayahuasca, I saw that the personality that they had constructed for the pugle was completely different than her actual personality. So, when they were talking to her, they were never really talking to her. They were just talking to themselves. It was all a projection to which she was the projection screen. They didn't know the dog at all, and they couldn't love her even if they wanted to. They might as well have never even met her. And I wasn't sad for the dog, persay. The dog had no issue. I was sad for them. They didn't realize that they were doing that. At many levels, they didn't anyway. And this made me feel sad for them because they were isolated from reality and cut off from their ability to love another person. They were crazy, and they didn't know it. But it also made me feel sad for most human beings, because this is why we have such an issue connecting with one another. We see only what we project. We never see what's actually there. So, we've forgotten how to love. And all this wisdom, hit me all at once in the form of an emotion that carried this insight with it. And it made me feel like I wanted to hold these grown men like little babies because they felt so precious to me and so innocent. A bit strange to say now. But I really felt that way. I get that way from time to time when I think of how people are so innocent for all their lives. We never lose that innocence because we never know anything.

I see what you're saying. But even if you can perceive that there is no other, it still doesn't mean that this is actually the case. This is because there is still a blind-spot where we can't determine whether our perceptions are accurate or real in any way. So, we may be able to experience and perceive that there is no other, but it doesn't mean that our experiences are accurate or real in any way. Do you see what I mean? All we can know is what is being experienced in the present moment beyond labels and interpretations. All else is just the fodder of thoughts. And saying "there is no others" is in itself an interpretation of the raw material of perception. So, it can't be known as knowing itself is limited. We can experience and be but we can never know.

I'm still not 100% sure what you mean. Do you mean that a person can experience other people's perspectives directly through Samadhi or something like that?