Emerald

I don't necessarily think that's the function of women hiding their attraction cues from men, as there are other more obvious survival advantages that female sexual opacity provides. There are other functions for weeding out the wrong men that are more efficient than that. Truthfully, if she's genuinely attracted, she's already done the instinctual selection and has already gotten past the smell test around qualities that give her the ick. And at that point, if she has sensed that she's not attracted, she doesn't really have an attraction to hide. My experience has been that my tendency towards opacity about my attractions has been in relation to the following... Starting off platonically without me indicating attraction directly allows for a more organic basic human-to-human intimacy to form. And this sets up a better foundation to build upon romantically. And if I create more ambiguity, it will keep an interested guy engaging in the interaction over a long enough period of time for platonic intimacy to happen... which sets a better stage for pair bonding. I've also hidden my feelings because I'm nervous to show them before I know they're reciprocated for fear of rejection. Also, I like deliberately slowing things down and allowing mystery, sexual tension, and anticipation to build over time... because it's 10x more interesting and exciting to me that way. I have deliberately cultivated a self-image and reputation as being someone who is a bit more sexually reserved despite also being a naturally sensual person. And I tend to find more sexually reserved men and women more sexually attractive because I find them more mysterious, as hidden sexuality makes it more intriguing to me. So, being more socially opaque about this facet of myself makes me feel more attractive and feel like I'm being perceived as more attractive. Being more opaque with my sexuality and my attractions as my general MO sets up a solid platonic status quo. And when that platonic status quo shifts to something more amorous with regard to a specific person, it means something more to me (and them too if they're a good person to match with). And the contrast between platonic and romantic creates a tension of opposites that intensifies the depth of my erotic heart-centered feelings and sets a better stage for me to open up to deeper levels of merging and pair bonding. Many negative experiences from age 13-15 where I wore my flirtatiousness and sensuality on my sleeve and was treated really badly by both male and female classmates. It made me a target for quite a bit of hate and disrespect. This caused me to make strategic changes when I was 15-16 to become a lot more reserved and opaque about my sexuality. And from that point onward, I got a lot more power and respect... and higher quality people who were interested in me. So, I'm more opaque because of those negative experiences... but as a consolation prize, it helped me find a more empowering feeling sexual frame and identity to inhabit. If I like him and we're interacting regularly and things are progressing... why rush it and ruin the unfolding process with tons of unnecessary directness? I find it simultaneously adorable, exhilarating, and meaningful to be alone with the guy I'm interested in and witnessing him doing his best to work up the courage to overturn the platonic status quo, as I can see he's putting in some emotional labor to be intimate with me. So, I can't really imagine getting to the point where I'm already attracted to a guy and being instinctually opaque with my signals to screen further. I've never had a situation happen like that where I was already attracted to a guy and he misread a signal and I lost that attraction. Yet again, I have pretty high standards for what I consider an attraction to be. So, it depends on how you define attraction. Perhaps if it's a shallow generic attraction like "Hey, that guy's kind of cute." but then he misreads my level of interest to the point where he tries to kiss me right away, that's going to kill any real attraction that could have ever grown there. But my perception, from looking at my conscious decisions to be more opaque, is that my opacity around my sexual feelings isn't really about the vetting men's weaknesses. Rather, being sexually reserved creates the necessary conditions that deeper levels of intimacy, meaning, and pair-boding can be built upon. And this would be more difficult if I was super open with my sexual expressiveness. And it is also helpful to me socially in general because it communicates that I have more selectiveness about my mate choice and higher standards. And this in turn, creates a perception of higher value and abundance in many social contexts.

Usually if a woman you know personally and are interacting with a lot has a crush on you, she'll do a few predictable things... She'll probably try to be in your proximity quite a lot. She'll laugh a lot. She may start focusing more on her physical appearance. She may tease you. She may even act a bit awkward or strange in your presence. She could even potentially avoid being around you if she's really nervous or insecure. But many women (especially less confident women) will be somewhat tight-lipped about her feelings because having feelings for a guy is pretty high stakes. If you only get a crush every once in a while when the feelings are super strong, and the guy you're invested in isn't interested in you, the rejection rips all the potential away forever with that specific person. And keeping those feelings under wraps is a way of maintaining that potential, even if nothing comes to fruition due to non-action. And there's already so much investment into that one person that could be lost, which would cause some degree of grief. So, women can often avoid being direct about their feelings to avoid the pain of potential rejection. Plus, women can also worry about creeping the guy out and feeling like an obsessive stalker. So, she may underplay her feelings if she has this concern that the depth of her feelings are inappropriate and that he's going to feel icky and violated by the depth of her feelings for him. Like, I've hidden my feelings SOO many times from guys because of these concerns. Now, in more casual interactions where general attraction is more relevant (like clubs), the woman will probably make more eye contact if she finds you attractive. But you'd have to feel it out more in these contexts through making a slight advance and seeing how she responds. And if she responds affirmatively, then continuing to advance. Like if you get closer to her or touch her platonically, does she pull away or seem to move closer? And if you notice she's okay with these mild advances, you can get a somewhat bolder with your proximity and touch. But the main thing is to advance things slowly and gauge her response. Think of it like a wordless conversation. Like if you're sitting next to her and you let your legs relax and it happen to press slightly against hers, does she pull away or keep her leg in the same spot? These communicate two different things. So, you don't have to go from 0 to 100 from a single look or anything like that. Instead, make gradual advances when you intuitively sense that it's the right time. And if she's laughing and having a good time with you, you can probably make the first advance like closer proximity or platonic touch. Or you invite her to sit next to you to look at pictures on your phone that are attached to a personal story (like a vacation or memories with friends) and keep the phone towards her but still in front of you, and see how much liberty she takes to get close to you to see the pictures. If she gets quite close or wants to stay sitting next to you, that's typically a good sign that you can advance things somewhat further. But taking it slow until the kiss is important.

You're welcome!

He's not taking out of his ass either. For men's pragmatic purposes, the things that he's learned will give a guy enough know-how to interact with and attract women... in lieu of deeper feelings of shame that might get in the way. The reality is that, if you can interact with women in a way that shows you have objectively valued qualities, you will be more successful with women. And more women will be attracted to you if you possess more attractive qualities than if you don't. But the issue is in believing that, just because these things that he's learned from dating experts work for him practically that he has an accurate understanding of how female sexuality and attraction really works subjectively. And he makes tons of assumptions about how women are operating that fit as a puzzle piece into his pragmatic operating system regarding women... but that are totally off from how women are really operating. And this leads to a lot of false conclusions about how women experience men they're attracted to... which leads to inaccurate narratives that produce shame in men.

It's just because it's a misrepresentation. That's why it bothers us. It takes 20% of our sexuality and pretends it's the whole story... and weaves a distorted and inaccurate narrative. And it makes it impossible to be seen because so many men already believe they know better, when they don't. It's the confident ignorance of it that's really annoying. But it's just not being seen accurately that's upsetting too. Female sexuality is a lot more interesting than it's being given credit for.

Thank you! I've noticed that it tends to be the case, that when a guys more integrated with his Feminine energy that he's far more subjective in his attractions. And it's tended to be that I can have more interesting and fulfilling friendships and romantic partnerships with men who are more integrated in this way, as it's easier to see and be seen. And I need this to feel like I'm on even emotional footing with a guy in a relationship. Otherwise to make an emotional analogy, it's the equivalent of me giving him a $100 bill in exchange for a $1 bill. I mostly share these perspectives on here about my experiences of female sexuality, because I keep seeing that the guys on here are struggling with connecting with women. And they keep doubling down on these perceptions of the world that are antithetical to the Feminine principle. And there's a lot of misconceptions that a lot of the men have on here that they have to keep adding more Masculinity and to themselves and subtracting Femininity from themselves to get better with women. But that doesn't work out well.

Listen. I don't want your help. You were saying this same thing to Princess Arabia the other day that she's refusing your help. But neither of us is asking for your help. And if you want me to fully read your replies and engage with the content of what you're saying, you're going to need to stop with the condescending tone and ad hominem attacks. I have to admit that I've only been skimming your replies because they're SUPER condescending. I won't be replying to you again until you can speak to me with respect.

Sure, what's the question?

That's the thing. What I'm saying doesn't contradict with what they're saying. These perspectives reconcile, and I recognize this. But they aren't able to integrate my perspective because they are too attached to what they "know" about female sexuality. They perceives that it's either/or, so they don't want to listen and learn. I understand their perspectives 100%. And I get that it's what they must do to be pragmatic... to enhances their objectively attractive qualities to attract women. What I'm just saying that they aren't understanding my perspective and how their perspective is only like 20% of the picture of female sexuality. And they believe they know better about female sexuality than women do because guys on the internet told them so. And I get tired of having 20% of my sexuality overshadow the understanding of the other 80% because of these narratives that so many men get stuck on. And it creates tons of shame for men, because they believe that women are looking at them as precisely the sum of their parts. But the way we see men is different than that. Basically, there are kernels of truth in what they're saying but they're leaving out the most important things. It's like someone was in a red and yellow room and came to the confident but ignorant conclusion that the entire world is red and yellow. And when we say "No it's actually mostly blue and green." They say, "You're just kidding yourself. I've seen that it's red and yellow."

That's correct! I don't differentiate between feelings of attraction and pair bonding because I am a woman, and my sexuality sees those as one and the same. I can notice attractive qualities in a man. But they aren't initially any more interesting or arousing to me than an elderly woman would be. So you're finally understanding and starting to get somewhere in your understanding of female sexuality! This is how female attraction AND pair bonding works. Deep female attraction and specific pair bonding with a unique person only ever comes as a package deal. And generic attraction traits generally aren't compelling from the female perspective because the only compelling thing is the unique romantic pair bonding drive that's anchored on that SPECIFIC person. This is why men are driven wild and hyper-compelled by objective qualities like nice tits and ass. But women don't care that much if a guy looks like a super model... or has a ton of money... or is charismatic... or possesses x,y,z objective traits. Until the pair bonding drive kicks in towards a specific man, guys who possess these qualities are just platonic dudes that populate the planet, until there is a deeper spark that has to do with his unique personality and vibe and how that interacts with her feeling states. Generic attraction traits don't do much of anything for a woman unless those traits are attached to a specific person with a specific personality she wants to uniquely pair bond to. But once she is set on that specific person, she will appreciate the objective qualities that he has because he's "that guy." And that's true whether those qualities are attractive or not in the way she conceptualizes abstractly of an attractive man. And she will prefer that one guy over all men... including men who are more objectively attractive. So, she is not settling for who she chooses and just wishing the guy was some guy in the supposed top 20% of guys. She really prefers him in particular. In contrast, for men, generic attraction traits are highly compelling. And shallower attraction and pair bonding are totally separate to where love and sexual attraction are separate things. And men tend to be far more compelled by the initial sexual attraction than by the desire to pair bond. So, a man is generically attracted to most women who have x,y,z objective traits... usually visual ones. And there is a kind of inherently objectifying element there because men are compelled mostly by the initial attraction. Because of this, men make the mistake of thinking women operate the same way. And they believe that women are similarly objectifying them... but in a pickier way that involves a variety of qualities instead of just looks. But we don't. We are hyper-subjectifyng in our sexuality. We hyper-subjectify the man we have the pair-bonding drive kick on in relation to. And he becomes the only man who sparkles. And this is why it is painful to us when men are more objectifying in their sexuality. And that's because sexuality and pair-bonding come as a package for women. And sex tends to mean love and pair bonding to us if we're having sex with someone that the pair-bonding infatuation has kicked in for. And it's precisely because sexual attraction and deeper pair bonding drives are one and the same for women. And the deeper pair bonding toward that unique person must come first. And of course, this makes sense from the perspective of evolutionary biology. Women need attraction and pair bonding drives to come together because she's instinctually looking for a partner to raise a child with. She can't afford to be compelled by objective qualities like men do. For men, attraction and pair bonding are separate. So, he can get tons of women pregnant that he feels nothing about. And if some of the children survive in lieu of his support, then his genetics will still be passed on.

Thank you for the kind words! I do tend to post more for the curious passive viewer than to try to convince those who are not open to my perspective.

They don't see women as normal humans precisely because they don't believe they need to understand women beyond what seems immediately pragmatic to themselves. Not only does this create an intimacy issue where women understand men better than men understand women. It also causes these men to get caught up in distorted stories about how female sexuality work that prevent them from having healthy relationships and interactions with women. The men who are attached to these narratives and who ignorantly believe they know better than I do about female sexuality, don't realize that I'm telling them very valuable information that can dispossess them of the falsehoods that create and exacerbate their shame... and in turn would help them with women. They only just keep doubling down on the "I have to be in the top 20% of guys to get a woman to look at me" idea and trying to fit that mold of masculinity... as that feels quantifiable and semi-controllable. But these are surface level solutions to a deeper problem... which is shame and also ignorance about how female sexuality actually operates because they're projecting their own sexuality onto female sexuality and they are being too reductive. And in that reductionism, a male shame narrative gets papered over how female sexuality actually operates.

I agree that pick up tends a clown show. It's annoying to approached by random guys outside of social contexts where that makes sense. And personally, I don't even like it in contexts where it does make sense... like clubs. But my point is, that pick-up operates off of numbers game sales tactics. Enough approaches to random strangers and eventually someone will say yes. And he might have to approach 10 or more women to get one saying yes to giving him her number. But in more personal social contexts, it's about attractions organically sparking and forming into something deeper. And that just takes a willingness to engage with women acquaintances and friends socially and a willingness to be playful. And of course in all of this, it helps to have more objectively attractive qualities. But everyone on this thread whose been replying to me keeps missing the mark of what I'm actually saying and arguing past what I'm saying. The core of what I'm trying to communicate here isn't about pick-up or objectively attractive male qualities or any of that. A lot of people on here already knows what those are and still don't seem to be able to have productive interactions with women. And that's because lots of people on here are operating off of distorted reductive understandings of female sexuality that has been cobbled together by male dating experts. And this creates lots of insecurity and shame in men who operate off of these paradigms that are actually foreign to the way that women subjectively operate. So, there's a lot of focusing on surface-level solutions like "Be more masculine" or "Develop yourself into a high value man" or "Be more confident". But it doesn't address the root problem of why so many men on here struggle to have interactions and relationships with women. The root issue is that the men who believe the false narratives that men spread between each other dogmatically about female sexuality, gives men this sense that women can't possible truly be interested in them because they're not in the top 20% of guys. And it implies that a woman will settle for them, but not actually prefer them... which isn't true. And it aggravates all the pre-existing shame wounds around feeling unwanted and unlovable in the eyes of women because they're "not manly enough".

Sure, that's undoubtedly true that the mind matters more than other factors. If a guy is up in his head and terrified to talk to women, that's not going to help him as that will scare women off. But cold approach specifically is a numbers game, just like cold outreach in sales is a numbers game. You'll get lots of nos, but the occasional yes. That's the way it goes with cold approach because most women aren't very receptive to cold approach. And that's especially true with day game in grocery stores and stuff like that. But pick up and cold approach is just about applying sales principles to dating. That's why pick up artists even use terms like "closing" because they are operating off of a sales-based paradigm. And with sales, the numbers count.

I'm not denying, nor have I ever denied that some men are more attractive to women than others in terms of looks or social acuity. Some sales people are better than others too. But sales is still a numbers game at the end of the day. And if you're not putting in the numbers, you won't be successful.

Sure, that's true. But I'm not even specifically thinking about looks. That was just an example. I could have also used qualifiers confidence, shyness, success, etc. to make my point. I'm making a point that all objective qualities come secondary in female attraction to the gestalt of the person. So, I tend to be platonically oriented towards the majority of men, where I can notice if a man is more or less objectively attractive based on looks, status, success, maturity, charisma, humor, etc. But these things won't do anything for me and won't evoke feelings in me by default because objectively attractive qualities without the presence of deeper seated feelings about that specific person with that specific personality don't do anything for me. But if a guy that I've become smitten with the gestalt of his personality, happens to have those objective qualities, they're super attractive to me. But if a guy that I've become smitten with the gestalt of his personality, happens to not possess those objectively attractive qualities, his qualities will still be attractive to me... unless he becomes mean or irresponsible. Mean and/or irresponsible kills attractions for me, even if I have attraction to the guys whole personality.

Cold approach is a numbers game in the same way that cold sales is a numbers game. In sales, you have to learn to build rapport and show there's value to what your selling. The same it true for approaching. But the most important thing is to be social and have interactions. In business, conversations equal sales. The same thing is true for guys approaching women. But again, this is all just practical stuff that you can learn from anyone anywhere. My main point is that this doesn't give very much insight into how women develop an attraction to a man subjectively. And it's important to recognize the discrepancy between what works practically and how women's subjective experience is... and not to conflate the two. This is especially important for men who are consuming all these false narratives that cause copious amounts of unnecessary insecurity and shame with regard to women. They start believing that women are sizing them up in a way that is mostly objective and measurable... which is only one factor of attraction. What really interests a woman is in sensing the actual essence of a man. A woman becomes attracted to whole personalities and not just to qualities. And there's not really an objective measure of the man's personality, as the attraction is arational and illogical. And this is great news for men because women aren't just preferring the guys on top of the hierarchy and then settling for less if the guy she ends up with is down in this perceived hierarchy. Women tend to prefer their male crushes and partner's on the unique personality level over some objectively more attractive guy. For example, when I was in the 7th grade, I was head over heels for this kid who rode my bus who very shy and had a big head. And he also had this way of speaking very quickly and mumbling a little bit. But he just lived in my mind rent free because my heart was set on him specifically. And at the time, I was also into boybands. And Justin Timberlake was what I thought of as an objectively attractive guy. And that was fun to have little celebrity mini-crushes on these kinds of guys. But I was thinking at the time if I had to choose between Justin Timberlake and the big headed kid that rode my bus, Justin would have lost and it wouldn't have even been a contest. And the same is true for any objectively more attractive guy that I was acquaintedd with. It was just that one person pushed all those psychological buttons for me. And that's always been the way my attractions have gone. Most guys are platonic to me, regardless of any objective qualifiers of attractiveness. But then, when an infatuation or deeper feelings arise, it's hyper-specific. And it's wanting that one-of-a-kind personality... even though there are flaws. In fact, the flaws become attractive through that lens.

Some men are definitely sexier than other men. That's pretty obvious that sexiness is a semi-objective qualifier that most women would have some degree of consensus about. But a woman can genuinely prefer a guy who is less sexy over a guy who is more sexy because women's attractions are more subjective. It's really like 20% about the semi-objective qualifiers of attraction... and like 80% an organic arational chemical reaction to his fundamental essence as a human being. And the latter part is the cake, while the 20% is just the icing. Like, I see a guy with a nice physique and it means nothing to me. But if I become attracted to a guy based off of his personality essence, and he happens to have a nice physique, it's the sexiest thing in the whole world. And it gives even a little extra excitement to it because he possesses something universally appealing. Or if I see a guy who is skinny and nerdy, it means nothing to me. But if I become attracted to a guy based off of his personality essence, and he happens to be skinny and nerdy, it's still the sexiest thing in the whole world to me. It's like the attraction to the whole of the man comes first. And then I can appreciate the objective qualities he has... and I appreciate them because they belong to him and he's the guy with the halo around him. And those objective qualities can either coincide from or diverge from what I would consider attractive in the abstract if I'm just naming off attractive qualities in a man.

That 20% of predictable conditions are things like confidence, charisma, emotional intelligence, nice physique, humor, responsibility, and other qualities like that that are nearly universally recognized as attractive qualities by women. But the men who have sex with lots of women don't even necessarily have too many of these qualities. But they are able to have sex with lots of women because they're out there approaching lots of women. If you want to sleep with a whole bunch of women, it's a numbers game, plain and simple. Cold approach in dating is just like doing cold outreach to get people on sales calls. And if you hit your numbers, you know you're going to get a sale eventually. For example, maybe for every 100 cold emails a marketer sends out, 10 people get on a sales call with them, and 2 people buy. Similarly, maybe for every 100 cold approaches a pickup artist does, he'll get 10 phone numbers, and 2 women will go to bed with him. That's the essence of what men do to get laid a lot. But you can also use warmer tactics (like social circle connections) to have a higher conversion rate... but typically for more serious relationships. So, if you approach or talk to a lot of women you will have some success with getting laid. And if you don't approach or interact with women, you won't get laid. Plain and simple. And to do that, you have to develop a certain degree of social acuity and the ability to flirt and show up confidently as yourself. And you HAVE TO get rid of these insecurities about your level of attractiveness, because you won't be able to interact and have a normal no stakes conversation with a women with these insecurities in effect. But attraction DOES tend to be evenly distributed in the actual real world. And you can notice this if you actually observe real life ordinary people. Women tend to naturally become attracted to a particular man who's in their proximity. And they are usually intuitively attracted to someone they perceive as their match. Look around at couples and you will see that the man and the woman in the couple tend to be about the same level of attractiveness. And your flatmate is having that issue because he's interacting and flirting with lots of women. He might be attractive too, which always helps. But it's fundamentally about his ability to be at ease having lots of interactions with women. But all of this is just the 20% of practical stuff that a man can do to increase his odds with women as a conglomerate. But these don't actually tell you anything about the way that women experience attraction to a man subjectively. And if you knew how this process goes for women, you'd recognize how subjective and particularized it is. And it would take away a lot of the insecurities that you've built up around these false narratives about how women's sexuality works. Currently, you seem to be under the impression that no woman will prefer you. But that just isn't true. If you shake your insecurities and have real normal interactions with women in your social circle, some women in your social circle will get a crush on you. And things can naturally unfold. But you actually have to interact with women for this to happen. And you have to get comfortable with yourself so that you can stop seeing women as invalidators of your worthiness. And what can help with that is to realize that all these stories you believe to be true about women are just stories that men made up and that they tell each other to make sense of what they don't actually understand.

You're projecting the way you understand attraction onto women's sexuality. And you believe that women are just seeing men as a collection of objectively more or less attractive/valued qualities. But that only accounts for like 20% of the picture. And ChatGPT was talking only about this 20% because those are the only things that can be generalized and understood about female sexuality. But that doesn't account for the 80% of women's sexuality that operating off of patterns that are unique to her and are totally arational. When a woman organically develops an attraction to a particular guy, it's like a wave forming in the ocean or a random weather pattern that starts to emerge. Certainly, there are some predictable conditions for this that men should learn if they want to be more successful with women in general. But just like a pattern in nature, there is only so much control that someone can exert. So beyond this 20%, the core of female attraction comes non-quantifiable, subjective, holistic, arational, passive perceptions of a man as a gestalt and not as a collection of qualities. Like you can have two guys that are identical in all ways value-wise and attractiveness-wise, and a woman can feel everything for one of those guys and nothing for the other. And a woman's patterning can lock in on a guy who isn't objectively more attractive or compatible because the feelings that arise are ineffable and unpredictable from the woman's perspective and the perspective of all outsiders.

It's not painful, it's just a misrepresentation to say that women are only attracted to the top 20% of guys and that everyone is just settling for their partner instead of preferring them if they're under the top 20%. And it's annoying and frustrating to have your sexuality constantly misrepresented with such confidence and ignorance all at once. But the real victims of this kind of misinformation is men... especially young inexperienced men. It would be like if there was a woman with total and complete authority telling a bunch of younger inexperienced girls and women that, "You'll only be attractive to men if you are rail-thin and have under 5% body fat. And men will settle for you if you're over 5% body fat, but they will always prefer the thinner woman." Then, when most men say that they're not really that attracted to rail-thin women... the women say some stuff like "Sure, men will say that. But they don't want to look at their REAL preferences because it's too painful for them to face with. They're either lying to themselves or lying to you." And then you get tons of shame-filled women with eating disorders that feel like they can't eat and be loved at the same time. And I remember what it was like to be in that mindset as a child and young teen. And it was really horrible. And now, the same thing is happening with men and boys because of all these false narratives about female sexuality that are framed as "harsh truths".

I don't think that's what she means. Men do crave deeper experiences with the Feminine and with women. They really deeply want that, in fact. And I 100% know that she recognizes that because I know her personally and we've discussed this topic a lot. But men generally also have lots of fear and shame in regard to women and the Feminine, so they default to holding onto shallower paradigms of understanding relationships with women and how women operate that make them feel more in control of avoiding the shame they feel in relation to the Feminine. And this semi-scientific reductionism of the female perspective on men and female sexuality makes men feel like they can 'figure it out' and mold themselves into the type of man that women want to be with. But this also reduces women and Femininity in their intellectual framework, to a safer more understandable collection of symbols that can be understood logically.... like eyelashes, and handbags, and hourglass figures, etc. And these are culturally and/or archetypally understood symbols of the Feminine that evoke the deeper desire for the Feminine... though these symbols are just surface-level representations. But many men in certain Internet communities, want to hold tightly to these shallower and more understandable symbols and concepts so that they don't have to grapple with the mysteries, unknowns, and arational functioning that's inherent to the Feminine. And there's also a lot of social reinforcement between men who hold these paradigms that encourages being strong, in control, detached, etc. But all of this actually backfires and keep men from developing the deeper relationships with women that most men deeply desire... but probably don't admit that even to themselves because it doesn't feel Masculine enough... either in the eyes of women or in the eyes of their male social group or both.

The call is coming from within the house. Your issues with religious people are actually a problem you have with unconscious parts of yourself that you see in them.

Of course it's authoritarian in every instance to consider taking people's voting rights away, because you'd be wielding an asymmetrical amount of power to prevent other people from exercising the basic power that democracy affords them. And yes... power can be abused by ANYONE! And that includes you. And your desire to take basic voting rights away from religious people would be authoritarian and a huge abuse of power. This is the issue. You're afraid they're going to be authoritarian and abuse their power over you... precisely because that's what you want to do to them. And that's true, even if there are lots of authoritarian Christians out there.

Hey! Good to see you on here! This is 100% accurate. And it's so frustrating that so many men think we're kidding ourselves or lying when we say things like this because they keep projecting the way their sexuality works onto us. And it's a shame, because female sexuality is a lot more interesting than that because it tends to be geared towards a real person with unique thoughts, feelings, mannerisms, quirks, flaws, etc. And it's really geared towards a devotion of attention to that specific person with that specific personality. But so many men try to gain intel and are like, "Um, actually... according to evolutionary biology, women ...." or "According to dating experts, women ...." And all of that is so foreign to the way women ACTUALLY experience an organic attraction to a man in her subjective experience. And if they could experience the actual way that women become interested in a man just once, they'd lose a lot of their insecurity around women because they'd recognize how profoundly subjective and particularized it is... and how wrapped up it is with the gestalt of a man rather than specific qualities he has. But it's difficult, because many men rely on external validation from women to compensate for poor self esteem. And they need to weave the narrative to themselves that woman are objective arbiters of male worthiness. So, swallowing the idea that women's sexuality is subjective, would take away the objective arbiters that could validate them. Like if women could genuinely prefer a 5 to a 10, it would be like having a bunch of Olympic judges that say that the person who got a 5 got first place and the person who got a 10 got last place. It wouldn't make any logical sense and it would be unfair... in this Olympic game they feel they're competing for their worth in. But that's the way that female sexuality is. It doesn't make logical sense, because it's operating off of chemistry, resonance, and deeper seated psychological patterns.