Emerald

I was never very attracted to Robert Pattinson as Edward Cullen. Both he and Kristin Stewart do too much umming and uhhing in Twilight and it feels like forced attractive awkwardness... even though I find them both pretty attractive in other contexts. But a few years back, I saw an ad with Robert Pattinson that raised my eyebrows a bit. And I watched the ad like several times in a row as it tapped into some kind of intriguing Masculine expression. It doesn't hurt that it's to a Leonard Cohen song. I watched it now, and it didn't have the same kind of magic as when I first saw it... probably because the version of him in this video is younger than me now (though he's a few years older than me in actuality) and my taste in men has become unaligned with this imagery. But it might still be interesting to share...

From AI on a Google search... "Testosterone is generally considered the hormone more directly associated with arousal, particularly in males, while estrogen plays a significant role in female sexual desire and arousal, but to a lesser extent compared to testosterone in men; both hormones contribute to sexual function in their respective sexes."

That would be super lucrative because it would reinforce all the male shame narratives that are floating around on the internet and enable a lot of bitter wound tonguing and misogynistic love/hate anger. And then, like 5-10% of the young men who watched the video would become Neo Nazis like 3 months later... without even realizing why they ended up there.

Yes and no. Yes, it would take the shame out of dating and the fear that "If I'm not x, I won't have love and connection." Like, when I was in my early to mid twenties, I used to have this gut-wrenching fear that men aren't capable of loving a woman if she's over the age of 30. And this used to make me dread aging out of my 20s because I felt like I was sliding off the conveyor belt of lovability and that getting love that outlasted my youthful beauty was impossible. It was a whole decade where I felt like I was losing lovability with every passing minute. And I started fearing aging out of lovability as soon as I turned 16. But this fear wasn't really about men at the core of it. So, this is where the "no" part of the answer comes in... as these fears are usually coming from deeper seated dynamics. I'll give a personal anecdote to explain.... Using shadow work, I eventually discovered that the reason why I had this fear that I would age out of men's love and that men couldn't really love a woman beyond fleeting youthful qualities, was coming from childhood traumas surrounding my mom where I aged out of my mom's love and that she can't really love a child beyond fleeting youthful qualities. (She actually does love me, and I know that. But she hasn't really acted like that because of her own patterns.) I was my mom's golden child as a very small child, and my mom is really good with small children. She absolutely ADORES small children and is like the best, most attentive carer of young children I've ever met. And she's super encouraging of children's strengths and talents. Like, she really makes a child feel like the most important person in the world that's capable of doing and being anything. And she's SUPER attuned to the child. And she was my favorite person back then. But she has an intense need for control and a need to control the narrative as she must see herself as right and righteous, and she doesn't trust anyone over the age of 8. So, once I got to be about 8, our relationship degraded. So, she couldn't connect to me anymore because, once I was an older child, I was no longer a safe person to connect with for her because I had my own personality and my own ideas... and those would disturb her sense of control. So, connection and admiration from my mom was at its peak when I was a baby and was sharply declining minute by minute in the first decade of my life, and I was spent like a washed up celebrity by the time I was 8. So, I was transferring the pain of aging out of my mom's connection, love, admiration, and embrace onto men, and it was bringing up all the same heart-rending, stomach-churning feelings that I buried when I was an older child when I went sharply from hyper-admiration and worship of my mom to rebellion and anger. And digging into this dynamic is actually what moved the needle on these insecurities about men... even though they seem like totally different situations. It's just that, when men would appreciate me physically and would be delighted/impressed with me... it gave me a taste again of being the impressive golden child. And there was a fear I'd lose my place as the beloved again, once I lost my youth. Beyond that, coming to understand more about men at a deep human level and that men are capable of real love helped me a lot with this fear as more clarity made it more difficult to project my Shadows onto my uncertainty about men's inner workings. It's been especially helpful working as a coach over the past 6 years as you get to understand people (men and women) at a very deep level. And you get to see how all human beings long to love and be loved. Ayahuasca has also showed me, in one instance, how men are operating with regard to age, beauty, and love. And it was a lot more human and deep than I had been projecting. That said, the only REAL remedy for shame is 100% unconditional self-compassion, self-acceptance, and self-love. Once you put a condition on your validity, shame starts eating you up. And if the condition is "A woman has to love me for who I am for me to accept myself." then it just becomes another situation where you live and die by the sword of external validation.

@MsNobody I just watched a little bit of one of the videos, and just from her opening rationale on the 'exploit men' video, I don't think her advice is going to yield you the relationship results that you really want. A few years ago, I took a deep dive into some female dating/relationship channels that helped me out tremendously with understanding ways that men and women are different and how to have a healthy and fulfilling relationship/courtship with a man. And there was a really strong emphasis on knowing yourself and your worth and setting healthy boundaries. And one of the more important things was sorting out men with red flags, who aren't treating you well, and aren't investing in you. And they're great for women who are dealing with codependency as they're about connecting to your Feminine energy and becoming more in tune with your dealbreakers and avoiding investing in a guy who is lukewarm or toxic. It's these types of non-toxic channels that will help you have more fulfilling relationships with healthier men. And I recommend them to my female coaching clients when the things they're going through are relevant. The channels are Adrienne Everheart, Helena Hart, and Rory Raye. Here are some of their videos...

I can see that what he was doing was potentially just as shallow and exploitative, if he's only interested in women for their looks and nothing more. But attractive women aren't necessarily that way, so I don't follow the 'knowing better who those women are' idea. I've known many beautiful women who are very caring people who love their partners for who they are. With all that said, the whole scenario is quite sad as this mutual objectification and exploitation dynamic would feel the opposite of love and belonging. And to engage in the idea of exploitation of men on the basis that it's even and that they do it too, would stick a woman down in some pretty dysfunctional transactional dynamics.

Do you say this because you believe that hormones aren't naturally different between men and women... and that they don't impact men and women's sex drive differently? And are you saying that men and women's hormonal differences are environmental? This seems to be what you're implying because you seem to be using it as a rebuttal to my statement that men have a stronger drive towards the physical act of sex and ejaculation due to hormones like Testosterone.

I didn't watch the videos, so I'm not responding to the videos specifically. But what you had said about your friend whose ex used him for money and then left him for a wealthier guy is a shame. Often times, men can feel a great deal of shame and unlovability and a sense of not being enough as they are. And they may end up in relationships where a woman exploits these vulnerabilities because he feels like he needs to compensate for his perceived unlovability by over-giving. And using these types of tactics for the sake of exploitation will create unhappy dysfunctional relationships. Plus, only guys with self-esteem issues will be willing to put up with it. Also, most men naturally like to give and be appreciated/loved for it. So, it takes a very nice pro-social quality and exploits it. If you want to make a man happy using this knowledge and help him feel closer to you, ask him to help you solve a problem. And then appreciate him for it and tell him how his help made you feel. Or if he gives a gift of his own volition, light up and appreciate him for it. But if a woman keeps telling a man "This is not sufficient. You need to give me more.", men who are already on shaky ground self-esteem-wise will keep trying and trying and trying like a little boy trying to impress a callous mother. And it's just exploiting a deep human vulnerability. And of course, no intimacy is possible in this type of situation.

Yes. The presence of more Testosterone will lead to a higher drive towards the physical experience of sex. And Testosterone can even sometimes be given to post-menopausal women who are experiencing a decrease in their sex drive.

That's not quite how it is for women. When it comes to sex itself, there's a lot of abundance. But that doesn't mean that much to the average woman as there isn't typically a strong drive to seek out sexual experiences with lots of guys. Perhaps here and there. But it's just not that exciting. And the drive is more towards emotional experiences, and that is quite rare to come across. So, there isn't really a sense of abundance from our point of view, because we don't view abundance of sexual options as what's valuable to us. In many cases, it can be like water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink. But men do have to work more for sex. And I'm sure that plays into the stronger craving for it. But there's also just a biological driver there that makes sexual sensation itself more compelling to seek out for a man. There is a strong biological driver towards sexual sensation and ejaculation itself. And women don't have that as same intensity of drive towards pure sexual sensation for purely biological reasons. Instead, we tend to need emotions to compel us in that direction. And that's a bit more difficult to come by. And without that, the drive towards sexual sensation 8 times out of 10 isn't compelling enough to seek out sex or self-pleasuring.

Thank you for the kind words

I actually really like the Scooby Doo metaphor, and I don't see it as a negative thing when I say it. I like that quality about men's sexuality. It's just a really straightforward earnest excitement and enjoyment for sex.

I disagree with you that women don't masturbate as often or seek as much quantity of sex because of our sexual abundance... and that men masturbate and seek sex more because of their lack of sexual abundance. Sure, it is easier for women to find a man to sleep with. And this could have some subtle psychological effects on sex drive to know this. But there are deeper biological factors at play that make men more interested in the physicality of sex and sexual sensation compared to women. And this biology makes men feel more of a charge towards the physical experience of sex and orgasm. Most men feel the urge to orgasm at least several times per week... and commonly every day. For women, we don't tend to have that charge towards sexual sensation and orgasm come up as often. Rather, the emotional factors have to be in place first before we can open up to the desire for sexual sensation (whether in sex or self-pleasuring). Like, I probably feel the urge towards orgasm once per month or even less than that. And this is probably 90% biological. That's why you see tons of guys developing an unhealthy relationship with porn but very few women struggling with porn in the same way.

??? To be clear, Leo was the one that brought up the glory holes thing as an example of "Scooby Doo sex". But I was thinking very differently about my Scooby Doo metaphor. The metaphor is just that Scooby Doo and Shaggy are in love with food and eating itself. And this is what seems evident to me about men's relationship with sex and sexual pleasure. And there is a desire for a lot of "food." For women, there is an equal appreciation of food. But quantity isn't the main factor that comes into play. The emotional flavors and textures are far more compelling than the process of eating lots of food in itself.

I do know that most men do want more than Scooby Doo sex. It wouldn't be interesting to sleep with a man if that's all there was. Men are still living, breathing, emotional human beings that long to love and be loved. And even if some men may deny it, the desire for sex is directly linked to the desire for connection and love. But I have witnessed that men tend to be highly compelled to seek out sex and sexual pleasure for its own sake.... mostly because of the enjoyment of the physical sensations. If we take away sex itself and we just think about self-pleasuring, you'll find that most men will frequently masturbate because they are compelled by the physical sensation and to seek orgasm. And this is where the Scooby Doo analogy comes in because Scooby Doo just enjoys the process of eating itself without much complex discrimination. And as long as there is physical attraction to the image of the woman, then it will suffice to scratch the physical itch... even if he does crave for more emotionally oriented sexual experiences. And his desire for more emotional sexual experiences won't deter his drive towards orgasm. For women, they usually won't masturbate or seek sex as frequently because it doesn't really scratch the emotional itch that compels her more towards sex. And she doesn't feel as strong of a drive towards climax and the physical sensations associated with sex like a man does. And this is why people often think that women are less lustful than men. We are not. It's just that there are other angles we are focused on that take precedence over the raw physical element. And we don't generally get very excited by things like seeking variety either.

That's definitely true. You can't really win a guy over. He's just into it or he isn't. But you could even repel a guy who is into it by over-functioning.

I don't really think this factors in that much because we're really talking about two different modes of operating. And I can operate in both modes. Like, I can have sex in the Masculine way or the Feminine way. With the Masculine way, sex is an a to b journey to orgasm. And I can get this through watching porn or even having sex with random guys I feel nothing for if I wanted to. And it's just very physically oriented and the stimulation feels pretty good... but not good enough to want very often. With the Feminine way, sex is a non-linear soak in subtle erotic emotions. And I can't get this in any other format than fantasizing about or having sex with a man that I feel a deep sense of intimacy with. And it's mostly an emotional whole body somatic experience. And it's the latter that feels really gratifying and motivating with tons of libidinal energy.... bordering on obsession. And it is the one that I fantasize more about. The former is one of those, once a month kind of things where it's like "sure why not, I'm feeling squirrelly enough."

That's true. To use my metaphor, I'd say I have a 25% itch towards Scooby Doo sex... and a 75% itch towards Gordon Ramsey sex. Either way, it may come across that women aren't as lustful. But it's just that we're pickier because it's more complicated for us to scratch the itch in a way that's really gratifying.

Another straw man. I didn't say women are above it either. I told you that I've had my fair share of that kind of sex and that it's fine enough. What I'm saying is that that usually doesn't scratch the itch.

That's a straw man of what I'm saying, and you know it. I never said many men are compelled by glory holes. I'd imagine that less than half would be willing to go to a glory hole. I said, that men are compelled towards sex the way that Shaggy and Scooby are compelled towards food.... but that that orientation towards sex doesn't usually scratch the itch for women.

Yes, that's true. Erotica tends to be a lot more stimulating than porn from my pov as well because the story evokes emotions and mimics in the imagination the real life experience of being with a living breathing person. And I can watch porn and be turned on by it, and it enhances the self-pleasuring. But it's a different mode of arousal altogether that's far less compelling. Like, there's so much heart-centered and mind-centered arousal that gets missed with porn. And I tend to feel drained afterwards. But I feel energized, if I've just used my imagination or read some kind of erotica (which I rarely do. I prefer my imagination.)

Sure, women can enjoy that from time to time. And I've certainly had my fair share "Scooby Doo sex" with some one night stands or even just routine sex with a partner. And there wasn't anything very complex about it, and it's enjoyable enough. Though, I don't think many women would enjoy a glory hole specifically as most women don't want to suck random dicks through the wall. I'm sure that some do. But I don't think that's very many women's fantasy. What I'm saying is that, women tend to be far less compelled by this type of sexual interaction... while men are highly compelled by it. Women are more compelled by all the emotional subtleties associated with the sexual experience. And we're HIGHLY compelled by it. But this makes us generally pickier with sex and less motivated towards it, because Scooby Doo sex usually doesn't scratch the actual itch. Scooby Doo sex is a bit like eating food that has no flavor. And that's fine for morning oatmeal. But if you're a woman, you're going to need a little more than that to get really excited. And because of this pickiness, the conclusion is often drawn that women aren't as lustful. But that's because there's a whole kaleidoscope of feelings that has to be in play for us to really want sex. And we're super obsessed with that kaleidoscope. But in most sexual encounters, you're probably not going to feel the kaleidoscope.

Thank you. I find that sex is super intriguing to me on so many levels, and I think about it a lot. But I don't need it in large quantities. It's a different mode that's less about the a to b pursuit of orgasm. And I'm not very motivated towards climax most of the time. It's very non-linear and non-directional. And it's more like bathing in a soup of very intriguing pleasant emotions and meanings. It's like a wine-taster who enjoys picking up on all these different subtle notes, but rarely drinks wine for the purpose of getting drunk. And without these complex subtle emotional flavors, sex and orgasm is somewhat boring because the physical sexual sensation by itself is only mildly compelling. It's taking something subtle and multi-dimensional and collapsing it down to something overt and uni-dimensional, which can feel draining. And this is what often leads men to the conclusion that women aren't as interested in sex. But that's not true. It's just that sex without emotions is like eating bland food with no spice. And Gordon Ramsey would probably go hungry rather than eat bland food with no spice.

Some can overlook taste in exchange for money. It's probably not the case that very many women would work a glory hole for her own gratification.

Yes, I would be fine with engaging with the content of his argument if he were treating me with respect. I'm happy to have a debate. But I have a non-negotiable boundary that I will not read or respond to arguments that are peppered with insults and personal attacks. So, I haven't dismissed his perspective as pure ad hominem, as I don't know what his perspective is beyond what I can take in at a cursory glance. But I refuse to read/engage with his perspective because of the screed of ad hominem attacks and the lack of a basic level of respect.