Emerald

She wasn't giving advice or copying me or anything like that. She was just saying that my sharing my husband's experiences were helpful to her because she was noticing some of her own behaviors in what I shared.

I don't test my husband. It doesn't come naturally to me. When we first met, I was super weird and chaotic so I was very bold and honest about that. So, perhaps that was a test of sorts to see if he could handle me and my weirdness. But it was really only for the sake of fun. It just feels petty to me to expect a man to jump through hoops. Plus, it's not fun or rewarding... so I get nothing out of it. But I do remember back to when I was more neurotic and in my first relationship. I was 16 years old, and I was in a serious relationship that ended up lasting four years. And for about the first six months, I would unconsciously exaggerate being upset or hurt because I wanted him to apologize and dote on me. And I would even unconsciously set up situations where he would make mistakes toward me, so that I could then exaggerate being upset or hurt more. I never had anyone give me that kind of attention before, so I craved it. I had needs there that I wasn't aware of yet, so they had never been met before. But he was meeting them when he cared enough about my emotions to try to repair them with me. So, I was unconsciously using this manipulative behavior to get an emotional fix. But once I realized that I was being manipulative and why I was doing it, I stopped. I just asked him for attention directly after that point. So, I don't really think that testing men is part of the healthy feminine instinct, unless it's done at the onset of the relationship. I do think it becomes a feminine instinct when a woman is unconscious to her emotions though. It's what happens when you are unaware of your emotions and needs, as a woman or feminine man. The Shadow Feminine comes up and unconsciously uses manipulation to get its needs met and uses these tests. But it should not be celebrated as the natural way of women. It's the natural way of the Shadow Feminine. It's an unconscious behavior.

I find this all to rings true to me.

I was afraid of cockroaches as a child. Then, I lived with a severe German Cockroach infestation as a teenager for a couple years. We bombed the trailer many times, but they would just go up underneath the trailer and have a have a giant cockroach orgy. So, bombing just made the problem worse. So, it was not super uncommon to wake up with one crawling on you. If you picked up the cordless phone charger the wrong way twenty would come spilling out. Open up a cabinet and a few would fall on you. Kick the dog's bowl and fifty would come skittering out. Open up my backpack in highschool, and hope that no cockroaches stowed away with me. They were everywhere. But after a few days of infestation, I pretty much had to get used to it. Human beings can get used to ANYTHING, and quickly. Exposure therapy totally works. Now, I have no fear of cockroaches. But I'm very glad that I don't have to live with them anymore. Also, I feel obligated to do a little infomercial. I'm normally not one to advertise about things online, but this product totally works. So, if anyone is struggling with a German Cockroach infestation, then I HIGHLY recommend getting "Dupont Advion Cockroach Gel Bait". You put little dots in the corners of the room and cabinets. And in two weeks, you'll have ZERO cockroaches, even if they have completely taken over your home for years. It's a life saver.

I'm glad that you're okay Leo. I never even thought of the possibility that you might be affected. It's not that I don't know that you live in Vegas, but you don't strike me as a country fan to such a high degree that it literally never even crossed my mind.

I feel like you're probably unaware of the irony of your post.

You have to click on your avatar in the upper right-hand corner of the screen. A drop down menu will appear and you click on "Account Settings". From there you'll go to another page and on the left-hand side you'll see menu with four options. Choose the bottom option titled "Signature" and you should be able to write in whatever you want for your signature along with the link to your channel.

Fair enough. I'm not really an expert on Rome. I had always heard that Gladiators were mostly just similar to things like public executions where people get to gawk at scenes of violence and carnage. But I'm not an expert. But I did study art history as a minor in college, while I double majored in fine art and art education. And from that it's very apparent that so many things in Roman culture were just a complete plagiarism of ancient Greek culture. American culture and European culture though are completely different from one another, though you can see influences. But there is no plagiarism there. So, I was just saying that Rome didn't really have the amazing amounts of culture like you said it did. It was mostly just a copy of the past. The selectivity of the slutty side would be if a guy is simply attractive in a general way. I'm not saying that there's no selection to the "slutty side". But I'm saying that the selectivity doesn't come with a "find the right guy" mindset. It's just whoever is generally attractive. But there just isn't a big emotional pay off in the first place for women to abide only by the lower nature. Engaging in this side by itself is just unsatisfying because it's always high risk and low reward. For men it's medium/high risk and high reward. So, the lower nature doesn't have very much positive in it for women in general. It's pretty much sucks. The shame here is that it's much more difficult for women to be in touch with their more animalistic instincts and it gets locked away in the shadow because the lower nature is a minefield of threats to the ego. This limits personal growth so much because the energy to grow the higher nature comes from the lower nature's libidinal energy. It's been a really uncomfortable process for me to dive into because there are lots of demons down there that would be easier just to ignore and not risk dis-empowerment or lowering my self esteem. But in early human times, when we were in groups of 30 or 40 nomads, it is posited that all non-related adults would engage in sexual activities together. So, everyone in the tribe raised all the kids. And paternity wasn't expressly known. It was only when we settled in agrarian societies and tribes that we started to become monogamous. And because paternity had to be known to know who inherited the land, sexuality was highly controlled. This is especially true for women's sexuality. So, a slutty woman and her children were probably punished by ostracism and death because female sexual oppression was the glue that kept society together. Agrarian cultures are always like this. But this is an adaptation to a particular type of social structure and not actually indicative of feminine nature. As a firsthand experience, I can tell you that my sexuality first brandished itself in a very slutty way before I learned of the hazards of it and the lack of reward. I remember at age 11 thinking that I was going to sleep with tons of guys when I was older because it was an exciting thought. But when I was 13 or so, I agreed to kiss a guy that I liked between classes. And then we didn't do it. But then he told everyone and I was ridiculed for being slutty. So, I became much more reserved in my attention. This became even more true after I experienced that if a guy wants something physical, then it doesn't mean that he cares about the girl or even likes her as a person. And that there is no scarcity of guys who will be interested in something physical. So, I can tell you from first hand that women are generally very erotically inclined... perhaps moreso than men. It's just a lot more dangerous (physically, emotionally, and socially) and a lot less satisfying in lieu of more subtle and powerful emotional states. So, I'm not talking in some theoretical way about women's slutty side... I know it well. And I know why I don't let it lead. And I know what to do with it to make the experience more satisfying for myself. Of course, this is just me. Some women may be different. Again, I come back to the question... are you using the spanking in a tongue in cheek kind of sexual way? Or are you being serious about it? Because, trust me, no healthy woman wants to be spanked for real for some sort of transgression that her partner perceives. A relationship like that is very smothering and unnerving. Think about the feeling you got when your Mom or Dad punished you unfairly. And I say unfairly because if your partner is acting like your parent... it's just not fair. It's not fun or exciting. It's just frustrating. The only people who might actually enjoy genuinely masochistic acts, are people who are playing out some psycho-sexual scenario because of past traumas. Otherwise, the normal reaction is to go into fight or flight when someone commits a genuine act of violence against you. But as I said before, these scenarios can be fun to play with in the bedroom. But if you think a real spanking is an aphrodisiac... then your theoretical framework for what women like is interfering with becoming aware of how women tend to actually work.

The gladiator fights were basically where they would put a criminal, socially outcasted, or enslaved man in to fight with lions. It was pretty much a guarantee that he would lose. And the people would come to watch the carnage. This doesn't really sound like a good society to live in. Certainly, the Pax Romana would have been nice to live in if you were in good social standing. But the quality of life back then is nowhere near the level of quality we have now. It's important not to glorify the past too much. Also, Roman culture was basically just a rip off of ancient Greek culture. They just rebooted everything and gave it a new Roman spin. That's true. But it was the best thing we had at the time and did bring us forward in human evolution. The rigid rules allowed for us to keep our baser drives outside while we worked on developing other aspects of humanity. And Jesus' teachings were always about compassion for one another. If we allow the rule of the jungle to be the leading mindset in society, then only the biggest and strongest people would rule. That means, that intellect and creativity and compassion mean nothing. Orienting society in a way that is more compassionate and in line with the higher nature and its principles allows for our better angels to lead us and society. You see the strategic aspect and "finding the right guy" is part of the higher nature. The lower nature is very indiscriminate and just focused on indiscriminately following the sexual impulse. So, any guy will do for the task of simply getting pregnant. Now, in the earliest days of humanity, this was probably a guarantee of death for yourself and your child because the mother could not go out and hunt to provide while taking care of a newborn. But it is still part of the lower nature. It has no consideration for the future. It just follows the primal instincts.

One thing that I only alluded to briefly in my post is that this is from an American perspective. I understand that customs are different in different countries. If I were in that position where I wasn't sure what to do, I would tell her "Hey. I'll pay for this one. You can get the next one." And if she still insists on splitting the bill, then you agree to split. The main thing is to not treat it as a huge deal.

There are very good reasons for this to be the case. A society that's lead by our more animalistic nature is more barbaric and unconscious. It devolves humans into mere apes. And it sounds like it would be a sexy thing to let the sexual nature lead, but it's not. A society that's lead by the lower nature has no room for anything that makes life more than just a zero sum game of fuck, eat, and shit. It's a dirty type of world. And it takes all the beauty and mystery out of sex. I'm not religious but I'm going to bring up the Bible. The Bible warns against the nature of the beast and is so focused on shaming sin. Society had been very barbaric before the morality religions came about, so creating these rules of behavior was a major step forward for us in human evolution... even if it's a step backwards for us now. I believe the mystics of morality based religions saw firsthand society lead by our lower nature becomes degenerative. So, that is why they were so focused on controlling (or sometimes outright suppressing) our baser drives. They knew that society as a whole would not be able to become as conscious as them, so creating strict rules for controlling the lower nature was the best they could do given the level of evolution that humanity was at. It was the most loving thing they could do at the time given the nature of the era and culture. A society that's lead by our higher nature is moving in the direction of greater human evolution. This is the part of us that creates things that make life better. And it's the part of us that has principles and ideals, and works for the good of others. It's the only reason why our lives are anything near the quality they are at now. I know there's a lot of cynicism about the state of society at present. But if we had the contrast with the earlier eras, it would be very clear to us how lucky we really are to live in such a society. However, on the flip-side, when the higher nature has no connection to the libidinal energy from the lower nature, the whole thing stagnates. So, it's important to be able to channel the lower nature's power upward toward more evolved forms of expression. Also, sex is a lot more interesting when approached from the higher nature because the emotions are a lot better. Sex from the lower nature only allows you to feel the emotions of shallow lust, orgasm, physical dominance, physical submission, pain, and other such feelings. Sex from the higher nature allows for all these feelings in their more exhalted forms as well as sensuality, sexual tension, love, longing, connection, rest, belonging, eroticism, emotional rapture, ecstasy, and all sorts of other far more interesting and fulfilling emotions. So, the sexual nature will always glint through a person with a highly developed personality. But it will be very subtle and mysterious... and a lot more tantalizing. I'll give an example of the female version of the lion/lion tamer dynamic because you can probably relate more to that example and see the difference that it makes to let the lion tamer lead and not the lion itself. A woman's lion is her (for want of a better word) slutty nature. The woman's higher nature is the part of her that has principles and values and behaves like a proper lady. So, is it sexier to see a woman who leads with her slutty nature and shows it off in any context? Or is it sexier to see a woman who behaves like a proper lady in public... but in the bedroom she let's her slutty nature show?

I'd say that it's pretty safe to say that most psychologically healthy people don't enjoy being punished and physically smacked by their significant other in any kind of real way. Psychologically healthy people don't like to be physically dominated or controlled by their partner in the context of non-sexual life. They may enjoy it in the context of sex because you're playing around with the lower nature, which works very differently than the higher nature. This is what BDSM is. It's people who are indulging in and playing with the power dynamics of the lower nature in a safe and consensual context. But to take those power dynamics outside of the bedroom is just really unappealing in reality... especially from the female perspective. So, spanking a woman when she disobeys your whims in real life is just violent, regressive, and completely un-sexy. It's a quick way to lose a woman with any shred of self-esteem. Have you ever had a serious significant other and then try to spank them in a real way? I suspect not. I suspect that the idea of punishing a woman who gets mean with you is probably a fantasy of yours. Many men feel like women are aggressors because they are of the thought that women are holders of their sexual value... and by extension their actual value. So, it makes sense that sex, dominance, and punishment would play out in the context of some male fantasies. Because it is both sex and revenge bundled together in one package, that's topped off by an affirmation of your own dominance and desirability. Then if she eventually enjoys it, it hits even more psycho-sexual buttons because that means that she's come to learn to enjoy her subservience to you. So, I recommend keeping the lower nature in the bedroom, and to play these fantasies out with a woman who shares the reciprocal fantasy. But when you bring the lower nature out of the bedroom, it will wreak havoc on your life. Think of the lower nature like a lion, and the higher nature like a lion tamer. Everyone's lion is very animalistic and primal, and has appetites that are less than socially acceptable. The lion represents all of our baser instincts like sex. The lion tamer is the higher nature, which in healthy people has strong principles and ideals and is skilled at taming and controlling the lion. The mistake that I see people make is to believe that the lion itself is sexy. So, they want to let the lion lead. But the untamed lion is not sexy. The lion by itself is just scary and destructive. But with a skilled lion tamer, the two of them become very appealing. This is why women generally enjoy being with man with a dominant and aggressive vibe in the bedroom, but prefer a warmhearted gentleman in almost all other contexts. They are attracted to the lion tamer and his ability to control the lion. So, a man who is aggressive and sexual all the time is just not sexy. Because it seems like the lion tamer is just unskilled at taming his lion.

Is this a tongue in cheek kind of play like "You deserve this!" Or is it a serious thing where you want to spank a woman when she does something that you don't like as a legitimate form of punishment? If it's the former, then it's probably a fun and playful sexual experience that enhances whatever other erotic thing that the two partners are engaging in. So, she probably enjoys it if she chooses to engage in it. Small amounts of pain can feel good in that context. Also, spanking tends to mimic the sensation of a man's hips banging up against her in doggy-style sex and it makes blood flow to that area. So, if she likes it then it probably makes her feel turned on, naughty, and submissive. Some women may dislike it though. In this case, she will let her partner know. But if it's the latter then it's just a shitty thing to do to her. And she's probably going to hate it and hate whoever is doing it to her. It will be the opposite of a turn on and something that will legitimately make her upset.

You talk about spanking women a lot. Is it a fetish kind of thing for you?

I will always offer to split the bill because that's just common courtesy. It speaks to a woman's character if she doesn't offer to pay. But if a man invites me out on a date with him and doesn't insist to pay for the bill, even after I've offered, then it does register as a little red flag that I watch out for. First off, because he invited me out. If you invite someone out, then you should offer to pay. It's a bit rude to invite someone to something at their own expense. But that unawareness I could let go of. But below are the deal-breakers that COULD relate back to him being unwilling to pay for the date that he invited me on. So, this decision to split the bill will put me on high alert for these things... and will give me uneasy feelings about the future of the budding relationship. 1. He's really resistant to any and all traditional gender roles to the point where he's willing to sacrifice romantic polarity and having a good time. 2. He's petty and stingy with his money and lacks generosity of spirit. He's afraid of the woman getting one over on him so he pays really close attention to not paying for anything beyond his portion of the date. 3. He's unemployed or has money problems. 4. He's socially unaware and doesn't know that it's still an expectation that he pays on the first date. (This is true in America, at least) 5. He's not willing to go through the effort to court me and is more concerned about money. (Note: I put a lot of time and effort into courting a man that I'm interested in. So, this is an incongruence of effort and values.) All these things have very little to do with the money, itself. It has much more to do with the man's level of maturity relative to dating and finances. And if the above concerns don't show themselves in his personality, then the concern about him not paying goes away. I don't care about the money. I care about having a good time on the date and the person being a mature potential partner that doesn't get hung up on small things. So, I would never say that a man SHOULD pay on the first date. Do whatever feels right. Equality is important to a functioning society. But it's just kind of a turn off. The traditional mating dance works really well for me. So, if a man isn't willing to step into the traditional masculine role for even one date, then it's just kind of a buzzkill. It's an anti-aphrodisiac.

My husband used to hold this belief about his past too until he started looking into it. He thought that he had completely "fixed" himself when he came to America and learned how to be high functioning and productive. And he still thinks that he has no anger toward his parents. They're not alive anymore. But I've noticed that in his interactions with his sister who "messes up" a lot because of her anxiety and alcohol addiction... there is never an ounce of anger or criticism that he shows toward her... even when it is at Richard's expense. I can look at him the wrong way and get verbally torn up and half the dishes will be broken. But his sister can take his money that he gives her for food and spend it on booze and all he feels is a deep sense of guilt and responsibility. It's clear that he feels powerless in the situation. The same can be seen in how he speaks of his parents. But I suspect that he is very angry at them deep down, but that he doesn't want to admit it because it would be painful.

My husband has the same problem. He's a good person, and he's a really loving and dependable father and husband. He would give his right arm for his family. And he works so hard. But he is very critical of me and blows up in fits of rage multiple times a day at me and everything else. And it doesn't take much to make him blow up. He's wired to perceive anything as an attack. I can ask him an innocent question like, "What did you buy at the store?" And his mind will automatically interpret it as, "I bet you didn't get the right things at the store you idiot loser asshole. Go die in a ditch!" So, he's always on the defensive because he feels attacked by me and everything else. And this is not because I actually attack him. I do my best to walk on eggshells as to not set off that reaction... which is really not good for me. I shouldn't have to do that. But that's just a side note. It's just that the world is full of imaginary boogie men for him that he just can't handle. And I'm boogie man number one because I'm his significant other. So he has a lot of anxiety and low self esteem that results in a really bad anger problem. It used to be much worse three years ago to the point where I thought of leaving him. Which is really serious since we have children together and it is my number one priority to give them a loving and stable home with both parents. So, I'm glad that since that time he has been really trying to work on himself and figure why he is the way he is and to work this issue out. So, it got a lot better, even though it's still really bad. Some of the revelations that he's had in the past few years, is that he is constantly anxious. This is because his childhood was very rough. He grew up poor in Hungary. And he and his sister were raised by his mother who had a terrible issue with anxiety herself. This resulted in her abusing alcohol to the point where she would pass out every day. So, he had to take care of his mother as a child instead of the opposite. His father was mostly absent except for when he came around to take money from his mother which created even greater darkness and instability. His sister also had issues with alcoholism and anxiety and would go missing for days. His mother was diagnosed with Schizophrenia when he was 14, and she was suicidal because of her delusions. He just lived a very dismal life that was in constant threat of upheaval. So, when he came to America at age 23, he completely left his old broken down self behind and he adopted a very strong work ethic and rigid standards for himself to abide by. And if he fails to meet these high standards this also causes him to go into fits of panic and rage. He also suspects that he incurred some serious early childhood trauma that he doesn't remember. His fits of rage are essentially like a two year old's temper tantrums... except in a 40 year old. He feels anxious and out of control, so he unconsciously attempts to get control of reality through aggression and anger and nit-picking every detail of me... since I'm the person that he most associates with himself. So, it's like part of himself got repressed away when he was a toddler and never grew up. And now it gets triggered any time it perceives that he needs to protect himself against any perceptions of threat... which to a two year old, everything adult looks threatening. It's too much for him to handle emotionally even the most basic of adult activities without being completely overwhelmed by frustration and anger. He pushes himself into things anyway and it really grinds him down every day. He looks very high functioning from the outside. But part of him is really just a toddler doing his best to pretend like it's an adult. I don't know if this describes you in any way. But my husband is definitely dealing with the same issue. So, I figured that I should share. Does this ring true to you?

@username Since I had my experiences of ego transcendence without any expectation, knowledge, or interest in spirituality, this has been a huge difficulty for me over the course of the past eight years. I just wanted to try a psychedelic for fun and to add that experience to my identity. But I ended up temporarily transcending the ego and shattering my entire paradigm and falling down a rabbit hole. And since this happened when I was 20, it really fucked up my sense of direction in life. Prior to this time, I thought I knew exactly what I wanted and I had 100% trust in myself. So, life was very challenging back then but it was also very simple. I knew what I wanted and what I had to do to get there. Life was just a single-pointed success game about achieving goals. Then, I saw that I had no clue about what I actually wanted in life and constantly lied to myself simply to cope with the suffering that had always been there. So, it left me in a really bad way after the ego took hold again because I was now pulling myself in two different directions while my worldview lay in piles of rubbish on the floor. I had no access to wisdom. And my demons that were kept at bay because of my worldview escaped from their prison and also began to reek havoc on me. And life sort of fell apart. So, this has been my biggest challenge with really high stakes. It may COMPLETELY ruin my entire life, when all is said and done if I can't see my way through it and actually get some perspective on what I want and not just what I think I want. But it may lead to something so indescribably beautiful. I'm just so grateful to even have been able to live a handful of hours of my life truly free from the ego. Most people never get that. And it's given me a lot of perspective on all sorts of topics. But the problem now is that I know that I'm suffering and unconscious, and that there's a heaven here that I don't have access to. So, it's torture... like "Water water everywhere... but not a drop to drink." I can function now and life is improved... but I'm still really not living. And I'm definitely not thriving on the worldly front, despite the fact that I know that I could be very successful very easily. Because my work ethic took the biggest tumble after those experiences, my willpower is still so repressed in me that I feel unable to make a strong commitment to what I think I want... because I know that I don't really know what I want. So, definitely don't make an enemy of your will-power and work ethic like I did. It was one of my biggest mistakes... if not my biggest mistake. You still need it. Just don't identify with it. Will-power is the best medicine when taken in moderate doses, but a poison when taken in large doses.

Well, that's not exactly true. There is a friend-zone, and there are definitely assholes. It's just that people don't understand how either of these things work. So, there are a lot of confusion around these topics.

You're welcome.

That's unfortunate that you think that most men will lie simply because the woman would be willing to have sex on the first date if she believes his lie that he's interested in a relationship. That's not what I've experienced in my circle of male friends/acquaintances/family members/lovers. There's a sizable minority of men who have poor character and will deceive people to get what they want. I've certainly met some. But luckily, most men that I've met and associate with have strong principles and good character. But I guess this just comes down to who a person decides to associate with. Maybe you hang out with a lot of men with weak principles and character to the point where you've come to see it as the norm. But if you see it clearly from the outside, it's just a really immature and petty kind of behavior to deceive others.

Yeah. I don't see anything here that I disagree with.

I didn't make any spiritual claims or claims that don't jibe with social functioning when I said that seeing sex as a commodity is a distortion that's very unhealthy. And seeing friendship as a commodity is even less healthy. Both sex and friendship at their core are simply experiences. And at their most exalted forms they can be be expressions of love and oneness. So, there is no need to view the world through this limited lens as it's a very reductive mindset about something that is so much deeper and beautiful than this mindset allows you to see. Basically, from your assumptions and beliefs about these topics, sex and friendship simply become a means for gaining social status or receiving something of objective value. And if you're around someone who's effected by that mindset when you're not effected by it, you can feel it weighing very heavily upon them. This is because what should be joyful experiences, become very painful when you think that no one will think that you're worthy. It will cause you a lot of suffering in relationships (platonic and sexual) if you continue to view these things in that manner. You'll be able to find no love and joy in either, simply because you view it in a manner that's very closed off from its essence and instead functions as just a means to feel more valuable to compensate for a sense of lack. This is probably because there is a perceived lack of self worth that underlies this thought. I understand that this can be a difficult distortion to let go of if you've been un-successful with women, as this puts you in scarcity mindset about the topic of sex and relationships. So, it feels like these "everything has a price" understandings of the world are necessary to believe in in order to find ways to be accepted and valued and to protect yourself from pain and rejection. Mostly because it gives you an objective marker to determine your own worth relative to the sex/dating/relationship game. And it gives you the illusion of being emotionless and objective about these topics, and therefore completely un-phased by them. But this is just a self-deception game to avoid negative emotions that bubble beneath the surface. And it feels like a survival need because connection with others is an actual human need. So, there is a rigidity and stinginess to anyone who senses a lack relative to this topic. And this stinginess is an expression of the shadow feminine, which comes up in lieu of the ability to express generosity of spirit which is part of the healthy masculine. I see this pattern in men who have become bitter and begin to see sex and relationship in a very cynical way. And who struggle with feelings of lack and worthlessness, then project these feelings upon women as a group who are then seen as aggressors who hold men's worth in their hands that need to be taken down a few notches. That's not as to say that women who mirror this issue don't exist. In fact, you'll probably be attracted to women who meet the description who also see sex/friendship as a commodity and a marker of social value. Holding these types of mindsets creates an attraction point for other like-minded people and prospective mates. This is another reason why you want to drop any and all distorted mindsets, that keep your life small. But if you spend time around people who are more emotionally mature and have a more subtle form of awareness relative to life and themselves, you'll realize that they see sex and friendship in a totally different way. And these are such better quality relationships, that any person who has this awareness would never want to go back to the shallowness and superficiality of the value labeling game. It's just a lot of unnecessary suffering and distortion.

Here's the thing though. I cuddle with my female friends. I have gone swimming late at night with my female friends... a few times naked :D. I have gone for walks in the woods alone with my female friends. And women text eachother all the time. Really intimate female friendships are just intimate like this. So, if she sees you as a real friend, she will want to do these things with you naturally. It's not a manipulative tactic at all. It's just how women relate to their friends. Perhaps it shows a blindspot to the male interpretation of those actions. But it's not a nefarious thing at all. She just cares about you and likes your company.

By "asexual marriage-like relationship" do you mean "friendship"? If so, nobody lures or manipulates anyone into friendship. Friendship is just something that happens between two people that enjoy eachother's company. It's a spontaneous thing. So, a man is mistaken if he thinks that he was lured or manipulated into a friendship. Friendship is always mutual. He may have had other intentions for trying to be friends... but this is his personal agenda. And if he doesn't tell her up-front about this agenda at the onset of the friendship, then she's not doing anything manipulative at all by keeping him as a friend. It's just what you do with people you enjoy being around. To answer your question, the man would be upset if she has no interest, because he has feelings for her. So, he feels a sense of unrequited attraction and rejection. But for her, it was only ever just friendship. So, feeling rejected and bummed out is totally normal. But feeling cheated and lied to because a woman didn't see you as a romantic interest when you were just friends, is just a really distorted mindset about the situation that smacks of entitlement. And it serves the purpose of making the guy feel better because then those negative feelings of being rejected can be projected onto the woman, as she can be seen as manipulative and as the aggressor of the situation. But in reality, she entered into the friendship with the man as a mutual partner, just like she does with her other friends. So, when the man wants things to be romantic and she doesn't, it isn't her that did any manipulation or misleading. She just doesn't have feelings for him. It's as simple as that. Now, there are women out there that lead men on. This is manipulative and misleading. But that's not what the friend zone is. The friend zone is just where a man is attracted to a female friend of his but she doesn't reciprocate the feelings.