Emerald

This is a moralization. You seem to believe that you know how other people "should" be conducting their lives.

I'm not much of a Jungian scholar. When I was first learning about Jungian Psychology from books back when I was 23, I dove into the works of many Jungian authors for about a year... A read a couple of books by Jung (his Red Book and The Undiscovered Self). Then, I read a the work of a bunch of other Jungian authors: Jean Raffa, Jean Shinoda Bolen, Maureen Murdoch, John Sanford, Robert A. Johnson, etc. I probably read somewhere in the ballpark of 15-20 book that year, which is unusual for me because I'm not a big reader. Then after that year was up, every time I sat down to read a Jungian book, I just felt like I wasn't learning anything new and I ran into a strong resistance to reading more than a few pages. And what used to leave me with a ton of "Aha!" moments became like covering the same ground over and over. And at first I felt like... "Did I just go on a year-long wild goose chase?" I had been so passionate about reading about inner work, and it suddenly had lost all of its spark. Then, I eventually came to the conclusion that my sudden loss of interest in reading about Jungian psychology was because I had started to use reading about inner work as a means of avoiding the inner work. Then a couple years later, when I was 26, I started my YouTube channel... and my Shadow Work videos were the ones that took off. So, my focus for the past 13 years has been more experiential... either learning through doing the inner work or by helping others do the inner work in my coaching practice. I've also learned a lot from my medicine journeys. So, my understanding of Jung's work is not very scholarly or academic. It's more experiential, and a lot of it derives from direct insight or the observation of human patterns that I've noticed after working with well over 600 clients and students. It's really my own insights shared through the lens of Jungian Shadow Work.

For me, it's always romantic 100% of the time. Otherwise, the sex just isn't very exciting or gratifying. And it's probably the same for most women. If we like a guy enough to long for sleeping with him... we're definitely romantically interested. My experience is that the determining factor of how exciting and satisfying sex is... is the feelings coming up in the center of the chest. And casual sex just can't deliver those highly erotic heart-centered feelings... because casual sex lacks the meaning, connection, intimacy, and context that make having sex with a man feel really good. And honestly, if I (or any woman) wanted casual sex, I/we can get it just about anywhere from the majority of guys. So, casual sex just isn't very meaningful or compelling from a 'fantasizing about a specific man' perspective. Though, it may be exciting for some women based on embodying the party girl lifestyle. But it won't be about a specific guy... it's more about the excitement of the promiscuous party lifestyle itself. And a woman who's genuinely interested in casual hook-ups (either because she's sowing her wild oats... or she's a Kim from Sex and the City type) probably won't care too much about the guy she's doing it with... as long as he's physically attractive enough and has an attractive enough vibe. But men will be pretty interchangeable from that perspective. So, a woman who's interested in casual sex probably not going to fantasize about a specific guy... she's just going to find a good looking enough guy and do it. Ultimately, there's no scarcity, so there's no tension... or meaning in casual sex because it's always available and easily procured. And there's nothing to "will we or won't we" about. It's just sex to a woman who's genuinely operating with a casual attitude about sex. But if a woman is fantasizing about a man, she probably wants him specifically to be her partner. And that's where all the spiciness comes from. It's not, "Hey, there's a random attractive guy... I wonder if we'll sleep together."... it's "There's Johnny. I love it when he wrinkles his nose when he laughs and how silly he can be. And he seems so calm in stressful situations. I wonder what it would be like if he (fill in the blank with sweet and dirty thoughts)."

You're welcome!

That's no fun! That deflates all the tension and meaning!

I was wondering if you were an INFJ when you asked actually... that or INTJ. Are you close together on your Thinking and Feeling scores?

I still think that you're adding extra ideas and delineations to the mix that need not be there. Let the lines be a bit blurry. Like, you needn't communicate a complete lack of interest if you don't have a complete lack of interest. Just don't get into a friendship with a woman solely for the sake of having something sexual happen. (which I don't think you're doing) Just let your interest be there without feeling like "Oh no! I need to escalate quickly or this will go away." Build up some tolerance for anticipation and sexual tension to simply exist and build. And wait to escalate until you feel a deeper kind of pull towards her than just sexual. That can be your boundary. I will only escalate the relationship with a female friend if I'm seriously interested in having a relationship with her.

I have no idea why that's happening to you. Usually, the more familiarity that I have with a guy that I know (platonically or romantically) my fondness for him tends to grow. That's true, even with guys who I have zero attraction for as well. Familiarity breeds fondness, in my experience. So, if there's a pattern where women are becoming rude or unpleasant after 3-6 months, these are my hypotheses... She's just that type of person. She was hiding it at first for the first few months... but then she revealed her true colors. She was appreciating your presence in her life at first. Then, you did some things or revealed some intentions that changed her opinion of you... and she lost respect for you. Those are the two options that come to my mind. But there may be others.

Personally, I prefer a relationship that begins as a platonic relationship... and I pretty much require that a guy is part of my social network. Otherwise, there's no context or meaning behind an interaction with a man to develop an attraction around. Like... how am I supposed to be attracted to some random? I don't know enough about his personality to be attracted. So, I think you're going in the right direction building a social network of people. And you don't have to have such firm delineations between friend women and relationship prospect women, as long as you're not making friends with women solely for the purpose of having something romantic happen. Just let yourself interact platonically with all your friends... and throw out all the pick-up "escalate quick" ideas. Then, if something organically grows from that, you will sense it. To me, that's the best way for a relationships to begin... because you already know each other well enough for intimacy to transcend the sexual domain.

The longer that I know a man that I have chemistry with, the spark only grows... unless he specifically does something that changes my perception of him. (like something gross or unethical or something) So, I think you're operating off of pick-up logic that doesn't actually work with how women actually operate. Generally, women like a slow burn. The longer she knows you, the more it adds meaning and context to your interactions. And it gives her time to wonder about you, crush on you, and long for you. Think of it like allowing sexual tension and intimacy to build through delayed gratification. Women love a good, "Will we or won't we?"

I don't talk about it on here, as I don't see this as a good container for inner work... as it's a very competitive and combative space. And I come here mostly to intellectually spar with other people... as that's a part of my personality that doesn't get much space elsewhere. But inner work is highly relevant to my day-to-day business endeavors. And my system is inspired by Jung's work. What I do daily is that I help people overcome self-sabotage with deep inner work.

I'm an INFJ

I have a lot of the symptoms of harm OCD and moral scrupulosity OCD where I'm always worrying that I'm hurting people or that I'm evil. And it creates these obsessive rumination loops. I haven't had contamination OCD. But I know that OCD is quite rough. Everything feels unsafe all the time. But what I'm talking about isn't contamination OCD. It's just the normal level of disgust-sensitivity that the average woman has baked into her physiology.

Okay, I get what you're saying now. So, it's not like you're like at a club at night and you spontaneously get her to leave the club with you and go to a restaurant/cafe then making her buy her own coffee or worried that she's going to get a free coffee out of you. But it's more like you take her to go for a walk or something. That makes sense, and wouldn't ping on my radar as particularly concerning.

I typed this into Google: What's the difference between how sensitive to disgust and "social and environmental toxins" a woman is compared to a man... and a non-pregnant woman is compared to a pregnant woman? And I got this answer from the AI overview... Women vs. Men: Disgust Sensitivity Higher Overall Sensitivity: Across extensive psychological research, women consistently report and display higher disgust sensitivity than men across core (pathogen), sexual, and moral domains. Visual and Physiological Responses: Women spend more visual attention time looking at disgust-related facial expressions and can show stronger physiological reactions (such as skin conductance) to gross-out or contamination stimuli. Evolutionary and Hormonal Theories: Evolutionary psychologists often attribute this gap to parental investment and the historical need for offspring and self-protection, though differences are also influenced by circulating reproductive hormones. Age-Related Convergence: Large-scale studies (spanning over 28,000 participants) show that sex differences in disgust sensitivity and food/contamination fears are prominent in younger adulthood, but diminish or nearly vanish as people age because men's disgust/vulnerability scores tend to rise over time while women's remain relatively stable. Non-Pregnant vs. Pregnant Women: Disgust Sensitivity Heightened Sensitivity During Pregnancy: Pregnant women—particularly during the first trimester—exhibit significantly elevated disgust sensitivity and food/odor aversions compared to non-pregnant women. The Compensatory Prophylaxis Hypothesis (CPH): During pregnancy (and during high-progesterone phases of the menstrual cycle), the maternal immune system is naturally downregulated or modulated to prevent it from rejecting the semi-foreign fetus. Hormonal and Behavioral Compensation: To compensate for this temporary dip in physiological immune protection, rising levels of hormones like progesterone trigger an enhanced "behavioral immune system". This manifests as a sharp increase in revulsion toward potential pathogens, spoiled foods, and toxins to force active behavioral avoidance. --- Then I typed this into Google: How about with "social toxins" like socially un-attuned behavior? Like if someone does something weird or creepy or just socially uncalibrated? The AI overview said: Women exhibit significantly higher sensitivity to socially unattuned or "creepy" behavior than men, and pregnant women experience an even greater elevation in vigilance and threat-avoidance toward unpredictable individuals. In evolutionary psychology, "creepiness" and social awkwardness are classified as threat-management ambiguities. When an individual violates subtle social scripts (e.g., staring, standing too close, uncalibrated laughter, or misreading boundaries), they signal either social incompetence or an inability/unwillingness to abide by mutual cooperative norms, turning them into a potential social risk. Women vs. Men: Detecting "Social Toxins" The Ambiguity Threat Detector: Landmark research on the nature of creepiness by McAndrew and Koehnke found that creepiness is essentially an evolved alarm triggered by ambiguous danger. Because men pose the overwhelming statistical risk of physical and sexual violence, women maintain a much lower threshold for detecting behavioral miscalibration. Decoding Subtle Nonverbal Norms: On tests of nonverbal decoding, emotion recognition, and "theory of mind," women generally score higher than men. They register slight disruptions in conversational cadence, incongruent micro-expressions, or invasive proximity faster and flag them as uncomfortable or "off". Sexual and Predatory Attribution: While a man encountering an uncalibrated man usually views him as merely "weird," annoying, or socially inept, women are far more likely to perceive that same behavior as a potential sexual threat, intrusive boundary-testing, or predatory intent. Non-Pregnant vs. Pregnant Women: Heightened Social Vigilance Elevated Vulnerability and the "Smoke Detector Principle": During pregnancy, a woman faces acute physical vulnerability, decreased mobility, and an inability to easily fight or flee. Consequently, the brain’s social threat detection shifts heavily toward a "better safe than sorry" bias: false alarms carry low costs, but failing to detect an erratic or dangerous person carries catastrophic costs. Progesterone-Driven Vigilance: High progesterone levels—prominent across pregnancy and during the luteal phase—are associated with heightened threat perception, negative emotion bias, and social avoidance. Pregnant women tend to display faster detection of aggressive or unpredictable faces and an increased need for personal physical space. Shrinking the "Tolerable Margin" for Weirdness: A non-pregnant woman might give an eccentric or socially clumsy acquaintance the benefit of the doubt. In contrast, pregnant women typically exhibit a much lower tolerance for boundary violations. Uncalibrated behavior signals unpredictability, and unpredictability is treated by the brain as an immediate safety hazard to both the mother and fetus. Nesting and In-Group Selectivity: As pregnancy advances, social preferences narrow toward familiar, trusted, and cooperative "in-group" support networks. Strangers or peripheral acquaintances who display socially awkward or poorly regulated behavior trigger heightened anxiety and instinctive withdrawal.

I'm talking about the physiology of having a female body. Just because people are often playing different roles in modern day than in the nomadic times, doesn't mean our nomadic wiring doesn't exist. Humans were nomads for like 97% of the duration of the human species... and that's what our wiring is adapted to. Also I'm not begging anyone to do anything. I have never had a hard time finding a man who feels deeply. I just don't really resonate with people who are too stony and serious. So, I'm less likely to have a closer relationship/friendship with someone who is cut off from feeling in that way.

Many Feminine gay men are pretty close or even equivalent to the level of sensitivity that the average woman has. So, I'm not saying it's not possible for a man to be as sensitive as a woman. I've met plenty of highly sensitive men... who are also very Feminine. And those Feminine men will be very attuned to social toxins and toxins in the environment... and will have a high sense of disgust. And they will pick up on a ton of social information. So, there are a ton of men who are just as sensitive as a woman. But they usually also like men. And I'm also not saying that men (even straight men) can't be just as emotionally intelligent as women are either. Men and women have just as much capacity to be equally emotionally intelligent. Similarly, I'm not saying that women are inherently less athletic than men. A woman athlete and a male athlete have the capacity to be equally athletic. However, women's sensitivity (receptivity to raw emotional data) is a bit like a man's strength, where there's a pattern that can be noticed where most women are more sensitive than the majority of men... and most men are stronger than the majority women. And women's heightened emotional and environmental sensitivity makes sense... given the social nature of the roles that women have played within the human species. And it's important that the ones preparing the meals are also sensitive to poisons and toxins. And it's important that we're sensitive to dangers and little signals of unsafely because the kids are under our care. And it's important to keep your ear to the ground for gossip, so that you're aware of what social disturbances may arise that affects the cohesion of the group. So, the increased sensitivity is physiological and it makes sense. Also, men have historically needed to kill people and animals for protection and sustenance. And it makes sense that men might benefit from a bit less emotional information coming in... and to tune out from dangers and disgusts. Basically, it's easier for men to tune out from feelings and to disconnect. But it can be observed there's also just less raw emotional data that average Masculine-oriented men pick up on. Like, if the average woman is picking up on 10 units of emotional information at her peak of emotional sensitivity... the average man is picking up on 8 units of emotional sensitivity at his peak of emotional sensitivity. But when men close off to their emotions... they may only be receptive to 2 or 3 units of emotional sensitivity. So, unless your body is built to protect you from being poisoned when you're pregnant... it makes no sense to say that men are more sensitive than women. But sensitivity is a double-edged sword. If you don't learn how to "read" it, then it can be more of a curse than a blessing... because it can be inundating. But knowing how to read it does give you some super-powers also.

I don't think we disagree here. My point is that most women will viscerally feel disgust at predictable behaviors that men (and others) do... unless they're desensitized or their wires are crossed. But what the mind does with that disgust is an entirely different matter.... as that requires crystallizing those watery feelings into icy insights. And that's a different skill altogether. Women do seem to generally take in more raw holistic data in the form of feelings and vibes because of the heightened sensitivity. And the more data you're sensitive to and the more you take in, the more skill it will require to process that data. That's why a lot of women get confused and overwhelmed when they're pregnant... because their senses are heightened even more, which bring in more data... which can feel overwhelming to process and crystallize into sense-making. And if you don't know how to process it, it can be confusing and overwhelming. The same thing is true if you lack experience, and you crystallize that raw vibe/feeling data into the wrong intellectual forms... that can also be a problem. I'm guessing where the disconnect is who we consider to be the average woman. The average woman, in my experience is no slouch with processing the raw feeling-based data.

Gotta be careful. Coffees are expensive... and it's a dog eat dog world.

So, there's a skill component to this... which requires lived experience and the ability to think deeply about what a certain vibe/behavior combo means. And these skills start to develop for most women in their teens. Like, I already knew how to spot and sort from consideration player-types from age 15 onward. But it took some skills to know, "Sort guys from consideration who have this vibe." But there's also an intuitive vibe component that doesn't have to do with skill. It has to do with "How sensitive are you?' And it's fully feelings-based and physiological. It's like the Princess and the Pea... can you sense the pea underneath 12 layers of mattresses. And women tend to naturally be highly sensitive to their feelings of 'disgust', which alert her to social and environmental toxins... unless there's a specific reason she had to tune out from and numb that sensitivity and go unconscious to her disgust signals. For example, if a woman was always around a bunch of people who were yelling at her all the time since childhood... she's going to be pretty de-sensitized to her disgust "social toxin alert" feelings around people who yell at other people. It's kind of like going nose-blind to a persistently bad smell... so the smell doesn't evoke disgust. Also, using the same example, there can be a "wire-crossing" where men who are more likely to yell at her and verbally abuse her can evoke feelings of attraction. And there are a variety of reasons for that... both psychological and physiological. So, while there are definitely women who don't have the skills to correctly crystallize insights around these intuitive vibes... almost all women get the disgust vibes when a guy operates in certain ways, unless she is specifically desensitized to her disgust OR has her wires crossed, making things that would otherwise evoke disgust, instead evoke attraction. But even the average woman can be pretty good at reading these vibes and crystallizing accurate-enough information about a man... or a person in general. That said, there can be other added projections and things like that, which can cloud judgement.

Sorry. I'm spoken for.

I tend to sense a guy holistically. So, there absolutely could be a guy who has a boundary like "I always split on the first date."... and I will sense where that's coming from. But it may prick up my ears and cause me to have to pay more attention. It's like a yellow flag... like, "Hmm. Pay attention to that." But relative to your statement of "The behavior is observable. The motivation behind it isn't." that just isn't true. You can absolutely sense where someone's motivation is coming from if you're interacting with them in real life... and you pick up on other clues. People's motivations are readable. Also, it wouldn't be like I'm spending my time thinking a ton about these things... or not approaching the person with curiosity. It's just that people are readable. And you can definitely get a sense of why someone is doing what they're doing by not just their actions... but their facial expressions, vibes, gestures, and thought processes when they're doing those actions. There absolutely could be a guy who's like, "I only split on the first date" for a reason that isn't so bad. Like if he's like, "I don't like to do things in traditional ways because I grew up around a lot of expectations to 'be match the male gender role' in a very traditional society. And now, that feels like pressure." But there could also be a guy who's like, "I only split on the first date" and he's operating off of a whole red pill philosophy around avoiding being a simp... which carries with it victim's mentality, feeling women have all the power, resentment towards women, and a generally closed attitude where he doesn't want any woman getting a single bit of his energy without some kind of mutual transactional exchange. And you can feel this intuitively. You know what people feel like... and you can feel what motivates them. Plus, you're going to be talking with them too. So, ask a bunch of questions and people will tell you who they are without even meaning to.

That's why it's best to err on the side of caution... and move very slowly with relationships. When in doubt... sort him out!

That's fine if it works for you to attract compatible women that you're able to establish healthy relationships with. And you're definitely wise to not have "What will women think of me?" as a guiding compass in your life. You have to do what's aligned with your own values and personality. I just know that if I were otherwise vibing with a guy and he pulled a "pay for your own coffee" when he led me to a coffee place... it'd be a bit of a turn-off and I'd start wondering what it might imply about him and his relationships with time, money, and energy. So, I was just letting you know that some women might be sensitive to that. And because you made that boundary to ward off women who want to use you, you might end up repelling non-user women that are just looking for a guy who's relaxed, open, and generous. But if you're truly happy with your relationship and you feel like the women you attract are already amazing people who see you as an amazing person, then carry on.

Everything that I was speaking of is highly intuitive and fully feeling-based. It's not a laundry list of qualities. It's all vibes and what the vibes communicate to me about that person as holistic human being. And there are just certain vibes/flavors that give me pause and put me in mind-mode, wondering what his actions and tendencies imply about his personality and character... and how viable he is as a potential partner. This happens instantaneously. It's not a purposeful intellectual consideration. I feel someone's personality and character right away... and I can predict pretty accurately how they will be. And I'm rarely surprised. This has always helped me find highly compatible and wonderful friends and partners in recent years. When I was younger and had less experience, I still lined up with relatively good people... but who may have been more chaotic or irresponsible. And those are now things that I automatically sort for... friendship-wise and relationship-wise (if I were single).