Emerald

That screening should ideally happen before giving the guy the time of day, as you don't want the feelings to set in before you've gotten to know about him without the rose-colored glasses. That's why I only ever go for guys that I've already known platonically for some time. That way, when the good vibes and emotional spikes happen, they're happening with a guy who I can be happy with longterm... and not just in the honeymoon phase. I've made the mistake before of choosing a partner based on purely chemistry and feelings... and it's no good. Now, I don't recommend coming into it with "checkbox mentality". You just need to get a clear-headed idea of if he will be a suitable and compatible longterm partner before getting attached. Ask, "Could I live with this person for my entire life and be happy?" and "Would he make a good father?" Like you can have chemistry with guys that would be a solid "no" for both of these questions. And that's why it's important to only let yourself flirt with and buy into feelings for guys that you would say "Yes." to both.

Or you didn't know until you knew... as most people don't. It's not helpful for you to judge yourself.

This is quite a judgmental and un-compassionate reaction to something that can happen to anyone. And weren't you in one before? I seem to recall you mentioning that (some years ago) you were in a toxic relationship. I suppose you're not in it now. But still, your reaction is lacking in the understanding of how human psychology functions in these kinds of scenarios where one's life is already intertwined with an abuser. Also, both men and women end up in abusive relationships where they make up excuses for their partner. I've seen it in life and in my career as a coach. And as someone who has been in an abusive relationship when I was in my teens, it's difficult because you end up intertwining your life with that person that it becomes so difficult to leave. For me, I genuinely believed he would kill himself if I broke up with him. Nearly 16 years later, and I'm pretty sure he's still alive. But I really felt I would have blood on my hands and that it was my responsibility to love him unconditionally and keep him alive. And I constantly threw myself under the bus to try to make that relationship work, as I though that's what unconditional love meant (it was before my Ayahuasca experiences). But after the fact (if you heal and develop more discernment), it makes you a lot more selective with who you choose to spend your time with. But I would not shame anyone who finds themselves stuck in such a relationship because I've been there before. But yes, you must incorporate logic in order to properly screen for dealbreakers and to select a partner you can be happy with longterm.

I am actually quite typical in my attractions to men. It's just convenient for you to frame me as some uncommon woman who knows nothing about female sexuality... as (deep down) you know I am correct.

I've seen that Teal Swan video too. So, I already know her perspective on that. And I agree... depending on the degree. I seek containment from my partner and my social circle more generally as it gives me context to bloom. But containment is very different than what Leo was talking about.... which (again) is the actual thing I'm arguing against. So, this "We should all treat each other like children" is just moving the goal posts and trying to get me into an argument that I'm not actually arguing against.

Gender differences are important to be mindful of... especially with sexual dynamics. But it requires more of a subtle delicate touch than a sledgehammer.

That's only fun for me (and most women) when the guy actually relates to me as his equal 90% of the time. And I'm sure that that's the case for your female partners. They probably feel safe to play to those sub/dom dynamics with you specifically because you're not ACTUALLY seeing them as children you must govern. Personally, I wouldn't even put myself in a position where I'd be calling a man "daddy" who literally saw me as a child he needs to emotionally manipulate to regulate my emotions for me. If I were in such a relationships, it just sounds like I'd be living my life inside of a bad bdsm porno... which is like the 7th circle of Hell. There just wouldn't be anything interesting there for me... and it would be stifling.

Well, thank you. But it's okay. I like to debate. It's hard to resist even with this topic because I sense I'm really pushing up against a very all-encompassing false paradigm that's creating a lot of suffering for people. It's like fighting a dragon that's holding people back from the joy that's possible for them and making people's lives worse. I likely won't succeed. But I like to fight the good fight.

I'm bisexual. So, that doesn't apply to me.

Well if we're going genetically (like with chimps), then men and women are 100% similar. But you're missing my point. Men and women can only have a deep intimate relationship when the relationship is built on a foundation of similarity. It's clear that most nerdy guys who suck with women suffer because they see women as so alien and different from them. And if they just recognized that women are ordinary people like they are, they wouldn't suck with women as much. And telling them to treat women as children is NOT helping them. You're seeing the poison as the antidote and the antidote as the poison.

100% There's a difference between containment and being able to depend on a man... and being treated like a chid.

I assume that by mature, you mean that you and I are both eggheads for this deepening consciousness and understanding reality stuff. So, in that case, I have the same relationship to other women that you have to other men. Do you really feel like you feel differently about women than the average Tom, Dick, or Harry down at the pub? I may be able to articulate my feelings about men better because I'm an egghead like you... but most women feel the same way as I do. I know because when I describe it women are often like "100%!"

It is both helpful and true that men and women are 95% similar.... just like the males and females of other species (including highly dimorphic species like lions and cows). It is true because it's true. We just over-focus on our differences because differences are more note-worthy than samenesses. And it is helpful because of what it does to men's ability to relate to women when they believe men and women are so different. They miss the foundation of sameness that's necessary to have a real intimate relationship. And they suffer because of it. But don't straw man me as making a stage green argument. I'm not saying there's nothing that's different about men and women. That 5% is noticeable and significant enough to pay attention to. And it can be played with to enhance male-female relationships. But as soon as that 5% gets taken as the full reality, the foundation of sameness is eroded... and no relationship can happen. That's why so many of the guys on here (including you) are stunted with regard to relationships with women. And it's important to recognize where you have a weak point so that you don't lead others astray... as most men likely do not want the relationship that you have with women. And these deficits are not because they are too unaware of the differences between men and women. These deficits are there because they're far too focused on it and aware of it. And this causes you and them to relate to women and aliens and children as opposed to as ordinary human beings like yourselves. But of course most women like to be treated in a Feminine way. But that doesn't require a man to see her as a child. These dynamics are more subtle and are only healthy as the icing on the cake of commonality.

Why do you believe that I'm so different from other women? I am not different than most women in this way. The average woman will agree with me and react similarly to such things.

The fish and shark analogy doesn't work for what you're trying to say... because sharks are fish too. And plenty of non-shark fish eat other fish and they are not imitating sharks. And no, Masculine and Feminine is not defined by our survival deficits... and they're not defined by the absence of certain qualities of the opposite polarity. The Masculine and Feminine is about what is there... and not about what's not there. And Masculine and Feminine is immutable. You can't add it or take it away because it just is the building blocks of your personality. So, these are subtle polar energies that co-mingle together to make up the human personality... and everything else in the known universe. It's Yin and Yang. And I know that this dynamic doesn't work because that's just not how human relationships function over the long term. It's not sustainable and no intimacy is possible unless there is a foundation of human-to-human sameness and friendship for the polar dynamics to exist within. Polarity is the spice... sameness is the foundation. And friendship and a recognition of basic human sameness is not possible if one partner is operating like the other partner's parent. But I'm not saying that highly Feminine woman is not healthy to date. There are plenty of very Feminine women who are integrated and mature. The same is true that there are plenty of very Masculine men who are integrated and mature. So, integration isn't about making everyone more androgynous than they actually are. Everyone has a unique Masculine/Feminine signature. And it's about embracing all of what's there.... instead of repressing parts of what's there in favor of jamming one's self into a narrow category. What I'm saying isn't that naturally Masculine or naturally Feminine men and women respectively aren't mature. What I am saying is that people who polarize and repress the opposite energy end up stunting themselves... and that leads to under-development and immaturity. And immaturity can happen whether a person is androgynous or non-androgynous... just like integration is possible for the androgynous and non-androgynous alike. Different people have different Masculine/Feminine signatures. To give an imperfect picture, I'll put numbers on it. The average person is like 75% towards the polarity that corresponds with their sex... and 25% towards the opposite polarity. That's probably what my signature is... 75% Feminine, 25% Masculine. But people are all over the spectrum. And probably only about 10% of people or so are 90% towards the polarity that corresponds with their sex. It's fairly uncommon for someone to have such a naturally polar Masculine/Feminine signature. But yes, seeing women as children that you need to help her manage her emotions is looking down on her. And unless she herself is underdeveloped and non-integrated, she will not be interested in a man who sees her that way.

The framework that I use for the Masculine and Feminine more generally is more archetypal and reflective of Yin and Yang. And you can notice subtle difference in men and women generally as it comes to these qualities. It's just that people like to exaggerate these differences because we respond sexually to super-normal stimuli around the more subtle sexual dimorphism of our species. We can see it in the way that some cartoonists depict cartoon characters... with an unrealistic exaggerated distinction between male and female characters. But that's not reflective of what's actually true as we are not 2-d characters. All human beings are 95%+ similar to one another. But we're very attuned to subtle differences, so we only focus on the 5% that's different. So, we like to think of men and women as very different, when we're 95% the same. And we want people to fit neatly in little Masculine and Feminine boxes.. but we don't. And those who expect themselves to will often feel shame. But these categories are valuable in that they show us where our resistances are. But they're incredibly unhelpful if we try to shove ourselves into either box... and doubly so if those boxes are more based in social constructs than in Yin/Yang. But in terms of Masculine/Feminine relationship dynamics, the key to understand is that they're subtle and the differences are only meaningful because we are so much the same. And these dynamics arise naturally without need for performance or orchestration... and without getting the mind too much involved. When you're trying to orchestrate it, you've already lost the real thing. And you're just play-acting. It really only arises in a meaningful way that strikes a deeper chord when you find it on the inside instead of an idea put on from the outside.

I think this viewpoint that a lot of the guys share on this forum (including Leo) comes from a lack of Feminine integration... and emotional stunting and lack of real relationship experiences with women that arises as a result of that stunting. It's juvenile Masculinity in a nutshell. Men who think this way about women just wouldn't be able to have a really deep mature relationship with women beyond the bag of tricks for attracting a woman during pickup. So, the ability to actually operate in a more human-to-human way with women is blocked off in favor of more simplistic user-friendly understandings where they can feel more in control. It tends to be more often that men who have had real longterm relationships with women tend to value a mature equal partner (though of course, there are plenty of exceptions... as immature men and women can also get together and stay together codependently). But the ability to relate to women in a mature way is often what enables men to establish longterm relationships with women in the first place. And men who cannot do that and who don't have a good relationship with their Feminine side, will stay alone theorizing and crunching the logical numbers of how to "play the female instrument" and maintain control so as to avoid being hurt. And minimizing women and seeing women as childish... and going for under-developed immature women that need someone else to regulate her emotions for her is just another way of trying to avoid feeling out of control and getting hurt.

You're saying a different thing to what Leo was saying. So, you're moving the goal posts. Sure, men are generally better equipped for things that require physical strength if that's what you're saying. But that isn't what Leo was saying, and it's not the point that I was arguing against. Leo was saying that you have to emotionally manipulate women and treat them like children. And he was saying that Feminine women are bad at survival and are irresponsible for their own emotions. And that the more responsible a woman is for her own survival and her own emotions the more Masculine and unattractive she is. That's the thing that I'm arguing against because it's not a tenable view to hold to have a deep intimate male/female relationship. I'm not arguing against the idea that men are generally stronger than women physically and might be more suited to physically taxing work. Nor am I arguing that women generally don't like to feel taken care of by their male partners. Generally, women do like to feel like the beloved and be treated as such. It's just the mindset that I mentioned above that I'm arguing against, because it's an unsustainable foundation for a relationship.

@integral I'm not saying people have to be hermaphrodites to be healthy... though over-attachment to one or the other polarity creates repression, so that isn't healthy. I'm a mostly Feminine woman myself, and I like to play at more traditional dynamics to some degree. But these exaggeratedly polarized ideas just don't fit with how human beings function. Masculine and Feminine dynamics are subtle when they work well. And they don't need to be orchestrated. Otherwise, it's just confining... and it makes people lose sight of the commonality. And that's where intimacy is lost.

I see. So, the issue is not really about you being picky, persay. Nor is it as case of feeling scarcity relative to relationships. So, you fall in neither of the categories I was mentioning before. So, the advice I gave to the other person would not fit you... as it's intended more towards guys that feel like they have to take whatever dating opportunities they can get. It's more of a sense of feeling scarcity relative to money... and deciding to forego realtionships until you get financially stable. That's a perfectly fine decision to make... as long as your expectations are realistic. Like if you want to be making enough to afford to live before getting into a relationship, that feels like a realistic expectation. But if you feel you need to be a millionaire before you can have a relationship, that would warrant some more exploration... as you may be using finances as a way to avoid relationship or feeling like you have to have some secondary boon for a woman to like you. (Those are just some examples, not saying that specifically describes you)

100% It really reduces the Feminine down to something very narrow... because that makes the Feminine feel less threatening.

It actually goes right along with my point. My point is that if you shift your mindset to one of abundance rather than one of scarcity, you can be more selective and have what you want without having to worry about "Do they like me?" Instead, you can ask yourself "Do I like them?" The same is true with people calling you picky. Who cares what other people call you? Just do what feels right to you. You don't have to fit other people's expectations of you because you have options. Now, since it's your friends calling you picky... you can question whether their perspective is reflective of some avoidant tendency they notice in you or if they're just not selective enough. If it's the former, you can consider if there's any validity to that perspective. But there is nothing wrong with being selective... as long as you're being realistic in your expectations and it doesn't prevent you from having a relationship. If it does, you might consider your friends' advice... as that's the other negative side of the spectrum relative to the person who has no standards at all.

Why do you care what someone else calls you? Just do what feels right to you.

Why is that the lesson?