Communities of Shame - (Red Pill, Incels, MGTOW, etc.)

[OBEler]

5 hours ago, Emerald said:

It’s really obvious that most men feel lots of anxiety and pressure around approaching women. Just look around this forum and you’ll see clear evidence.

Some of that is from the shame dynamic that I mentioned. Some of that is because rejection is difficult at any rate.

Yes but still I wanted to tell you something different.

We men get anxious by approaching a woman because it's a win and lose in it. That has nothing to do with vulnerability. It's the same or even bigger anxiety men have who go into casinos and bet a big amount, waiting for the result. If a woman rejects you you feel a pain of loss.

 

[mr_engineer]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

There’s deeper intimacy, cuddling, sex, parenthood and lots of other subtle dynamics that can only be had with a male partner as opposed to a friend.

Except for parenthood, all of these can be had with a friend. Or, a 'friends-with-benefits', so to speak. 

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

And I don’t see why provision would be off the table as something men are valued for after Feminism.

I personally prefer a dynamic of mutual contribution in a relationship. But that’s still provision.

A big shadow of the patriarchy is that if women don't have equal rights, men have to provide for the family and if a man does that successfully, he can be assured that she will stay, she won't leave. And he will be valued for providing. Providing was 'enough' for a man to be valued by a woman, before feminism. 

I'm not saying that women getting equal rights is a bad thing, by any means. Women should absolutely have professional skills and the ability to survive on their own in the modern world. Having said that, feminist women have swung the pendulum to the opposite extreme, where they want to be 'boss babes'. Meaning, this idea of 'women being independent and doing everything alone' is really being glorified. This makes the 'mutual contribution' thing unappealing to a man who wants to be valued as a provider. 

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

It’s just the sense that I don’t have to do it all alone and that I have someone to share life with. And that I have someone that I can rely on for help if I need it. It’s a feeling of relaxation knowing I don’t have to deal with things alone and that I don’t have to struggle against life by myself.

It’s the closeness, affection, companionship, and mutual support that I value the most. And I prefer that dynamic with a man.

Now, here's the tricky part. 

You could get this with any conscious man. Any conscious man recognizes that connection and companionship are needs in him and in others and you can have it with him. 

Why should one individual stand out from another for you? What would result in a genuine strengthening of the relationship? How does he know that the relationship with you is secure? Isn't he replaceable? 

By the same token, he can also get these things with any conscious woman. Aren't you also replaceable? 

Wouldn't the commitment stay loose, in reality, if these are your most important deciding-factors with a man? 

What would make you stay with an individual man long-term? How would you choose between two men who can give you this type of relationship? 

Edited April 9 by mr_engineer

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I'm not talking specifically about pickup guys. I'm talking about Red Pill, Incels, and that types of guy.

You can find this pattern in pickup communities too because there is crossover. But I'm talking about a different sort of echo chamber.

There's a lot of overlap between Red Pill and pickup. But less so with Incels because they took the path of victimhood and inaction.

Pickup community requires massive action, so that excludes a lot of the lazy, depressed, and hateful people.

Edited April 9 by Leo Gura

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, OBEler said:

Yes but still I wanted to tell you something different.

We men get anxious by approaching a woman because it's a win and lose in it. That has nothing to do with vulnerability. It's the same or even bigger anxiety men have who go into casinos and bet a big amount, waiting for the result. If a woman rejects you you feel a pain of loss.

 

The men that I'm primarily referring to in this post (that are involved in Manosphere groups) get anxious because they believe that, when a woman rejects them, it means something about their measure as a man and their existential worth more generally.

This is a dynamic that occurs mildly in most men to some degree or another.

But in the groups that I mentioned, that internal narrative is more extreme and almost take on a Social Darwinian view where attractive women are the arbiters of male worth and that men "have to be in the top 10% of men" to be worthy.

[OBEler]

10 minutes ago, Emerald said:

The men that I'm primarily referring to in this post (that are involved in Manosphere groups) get anxious because they believe that, when a woman rejects them, it means something about their measure as a man and their existential worth more generally.

This is a dynamic that occurs mildly in most men to some degree or another.

But in the groups that I mentioned, that internal narrative is more extreme and almost take on a Social Darwinian view where attractive women are the arbiters of male worth and that men "have to be in the top 10% of men" to be worthy.

You mean the black pill community.

It is so a man who is not in 10-20% knows instinctively he is not as valuable. But that doesn't make him vulnerable.It just means he knows that he is less valuable and has probably more difficulty to find girls. It's frustrating for him for sure.

On the otherside you could define vulnerability that if he get rejected he will feel a lot more pain than the high value man who has a lot of options.that definitely true

For me vulnerability is more like shame and easy to break once self confidence 

 

Edited April 9 by OBEler

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

There's a lot of overlap between Red Pill and pickup. But less so with Incels because they took the path of victimhood and inaction.

Pickup community requires massive action, so that excludes a lot of the lazy and depressed people.

Sure. There are better and worse ways to cope with the shame.

Red Pill guys and pickup guys (the ones that this shame dynamic applies to) are generally going to have better coping strategies to deal with their shame than Incels and Black Pill guys.

In fact, some men (and people in general) can become wildly successful with women and with life in general because they're coping with shame.

But if you look, you'll see that the common thread of toxicity that runs through each of these communities is a shame-based toxicity. 

That includes the toxicity in the pickup community. But the pickup community is more of a mixed bag because there are guys that end up there just because they want to learn attraction skills. It's a place where some go there to chase two rabbits... to get good with women and to try to alleviate shame through female validation. And some go there to chase one rabbit... to get good with women.

That's why, in my original post, I didn't include pickup as directly being a community of shame. But I mentioned pickup as a side element that has a lot of this dynamic within it... but isn't what I would call strictly a community of shame.

This is the exact quote of what I said....

"And the pattern that has coalesced can be seen in communities like Red Pill, Incels, MGTOW, and the Manosphere in general. You can also see it in men who aren't directly involved with these online communities but that tend to have a lot of bitterness and mistrust towards women. And you can see these same patterns arise in pickup/male dating communities a lot as well."

[mr_engineer]

Now, I'm going to share the biggest challenge with this from male perspective. 

In the 1950s, there was religion, i.e. a belief in God by default. So, through the Bible (or your religious scripture), 'God' defined 'family'. This is important, because if God says that you are meant to be together in a certain configuration which God calls 'family', it would give you a sense of purpose that is strong enough for you to defend your family from a tiger, at the risk of your own life. And, 'God' laid down the rules for how a 'family' should be run. Then, when you followed those moralistic rules and did those religious rituals, you were being 'good' in the eyes of 'God' and for that, you would get a sense of 'family' or 'belonging'. 

Then, what happened is that technology made progress, because of which people's minds started to become more scientific and intellectual, and less dogmatic. They started to question the concept of 'God', they became atheistic. So, factor #1 - no more 'God'. And, when you reject the concept of God that comes from religion, you start to disagree with the religious definition of 'family'! Meaning, the single-family household, the rules your parents made you follow in your religious upbringing start to be a problem for you. Up until this point, we're fine. 

The problem, now, is that we don't have a 'right definition of family'. Because of which, when we date, we don't know what we're trying to construct! We say 'we have emotional-needs, we have these boundaries, we have these dreams and goals and aspirations and these elaborately intricate definitions of compatibility' but in reality, will that result in a 'sense of family'? Which is exceedingly important, because only when you have God telling you that you're meant to be together, will you be willing to make sacrifices to be together. Only then will the commitment be strong! Or else, the commitments will stay loose. 

And, obviously, if there is no sense of family that's coming out of your dating-experiences and this results in weak commitments, this will result in the 'shame' that you talk about in the OP and all of the problems that come from that. 

Now, how do we fix this? Let's say we get a newer, more non-dual, spiritual definition of 'God'. I'm assuming that you have some degree of enlightenment. Now, given this definition of 'God', what societal structure would work better than the single-family household to create a sense of family? 

Edited April 9 by mr_engineer

[Emerald]

46 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Except for parenthood, all of these can be had with a friend. Or, a 'friends-with-benefits', so to speak. 

It's a different kind of connection altogether that can's be had with friends. I don't know how to explain why exactly as it's more intuitive. That would feel totally different.

A big shadow of the patriarchy is that if women don't have equal rights, men have to provide for the family and if a man does that successfully, he can be assured that she will stay, she won't leave. And he will be valued for providing. Providing was 'enough' for a man to be valued by a woman, before feminism. 

That's not being valued as much as it is being needed to the point where a woman can't escape because she can't survive on her own. It's more of a desire for economic stability than it is about valuing her husband.  

A good relationship is based off of both people mutually loving each other and wanting to be there. A relationship only based on needing the other person for what they provide is more transactional.

I'm not saying that women getting equal rights is a bad thing, by any means. Women should absolutely have professional skills and the ability to survive on their own in the modern world. Having said that, feminist women have swung the pendulum to the opposite extreme, where they want to be 'boss babes'. Meaning, this idea of 'women being independent and doing everything alone' is really being glorified. This makes the 'mutual contribution' thing unappealing to a man who wants to be valued as a provider. 

As a boss babe myself (lol), it doesn't fundamentally change what feels good in a relationship with a man. It feels good when a man gives support and I can trust and depend on him. There are certainly some women out there that are hyper-independent for a variety of different reasons who might resist being supported. This sometimes is just a personality trait but often comes from having trauma wounds around trust... usually from childhood familial dynamics.

But by and large, most women (including ambitious women) want a supportive male partner that they can depend on. 

Now, here's the tricky part. 

You could get this with any conscious man. Any conscious man recognizes that connection and companionship are needs in him and in others and you can have it with him. 

Why should one individual stand out from another for you? What would result in a genuine strengthening of the relationship? How does he know that the relationship with you is secure? Isn't he replaceable? 

For me personally, I usually form connections out of my pre-existing social circle. I'll know a guy for a number of months and seemingly spontaneously, I'll have feeling arise. And sometimes those feelings have been reciprocated and sometimes not.

But no guy that you love is really replaceable. You can find someone to take his place in the role of partner eventually. But if the relationship ends, you'll never get that same "flavor" again as his personality is unique to him. And that's a difficult thing to lose.

What makes a relationship strong is spending lots of time together and bonding more and more deeply through living life together and pair bonding activities like cuddling and talking. Sex is in the dynamic too. Basically doing anything that produces oxytocin bonds partners deeper together.

And you can usually tell when a person is a stable/secure partner or not. It's a personality trait. 

By the same token, he can also get these things with any conscious woman. Aren't you also replaceable? 

Not if he loves me, I'm not. He may find someone else to play that role, but it will always be a loss.

Wouldn't the commitment stay loose, in reality, if these are your most important deciding-factors with a man? 

No. Because that's not how pair-bonding works. People don't bond together solely on the basis of transactional need. They bond together because they want to live their lives through with that person.

What would make you stay with an individual man long-term? How would you choose between two men who can give you this type of relationship? 

If I loved him and felt good in the relationship with him and felt like he was invested and willing to commit. And if the relationship was sustainable.

And I wouldn't choose between two men using my mind by weighing out pros and cons of what he can provide as simply the sum of his parts as that wouldn't lead to a deeply bonded relationship.

I'd go with whoever I felt the most connected to who is also wanting to invest in me in the same way. If I value having a longterm partner and companion to live my life with, I'm going to choose whoever I feel like I can live the happiest life with.

I recommend checking out the work of Drs. John and Julie Gottman. They have done decades worth of research on what creates a happy relationship and can predict with 94% accuracy which couples will stay together and which won't. They just did an interview on Diary of a CEO recently...

 

Edited April 9 by Emerald

[Princess Arabia]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's part of the story. But mostly it's simpler than that: guys are just horny and want pussy. And when they don't get it they get very pissy, manipulative, and invent all sorts of stories and rationalizations about it.

The pickup community is just an elaborate scheme to satify guys' need for pussy. It's hard for women to understand this because wome don't have the same need.

You go deep into epistemology, existentialism, dynamic models, political psychology etc, but when it comes to sexual affairs and relationship dynamics, you treat it so lightly and tend to dismiss the deeper issues that causes these problems between the sexes. It's OK, as you're just one person and certain things aren't for everybody to delve into. The thing i see though, is that when someone does, you have a tendency to dismiss it and treat it lightly as if, it is as simple as men have needs and women just don't have the same need. 

Well, women also do have the same need. We are not stoic humans who just walk around with sticks up our assess who doesn't enjoy sex or have sexual desires. Most men just don't know how to please a woman sexually without taking the time out to get to know her body and her sexual preference. Plus for most women, it takes much more than to just look at a male and get sexually excited and be ready then and there to go have sex with him even if she's sexually attracted to him. 

Usually, the ones that do are under the influence of alcohol or some stimulating drug as in ecstasy or whatever else people take out there on the streets. So that's why it may seem that we don't have those needs or desires, we just don't openly express them with just any man and are just not willing to do it with any man, attractive or not. Money or not, status or not, because some women will still try and pursue these men, but try to stall as much as possible to not have sex with him right off the bat because she knows it hurts her chances of getting whatever it is from him that she wants from him and it could even be marriage or for him to want and love her back and to provide and protect her. So it's not necessarily about using him but she wants more than a one night thing and wants to be the object of his desire. She is equipped with what she needs to stall of the sexual encounter and men not taking a priority to please women sexually is one of them, so it becomes easier to stall. A lot of women are home masturbating for this reason.

About this thread, though, it is very important to getting to the real causes as to why some men are having a hard time getting laid or even sustaining a relationship. Just because a man is only interested in women just to get laid and nothing else, doesn't mean some won't find this information valuable in decreasing the problematic issues around their inabilities for success in this regard. I saw the problems she raised and the issues some of the men on this forum have with women - I saw the similarities. I won't name names, but it was like to a tee what she said and how they comment on the forum and the things they say about women and the circumstances surrounding that. It was so on-point certain images came to mind while reading it and i could see their issues were similar just from their presence here on a constant basis talking about the same things over and over and i could even see how the shame dynamic was a factor from remembering some of the stories they told and the questions they asked.

Not all men are just in this for pussy for pussies' sake and to move on with their work and what they find more important to them. Some are genuinely interested in finding solutions to their issues and to stop their porn addiction and/or hatred towards women because they truly love women and would love to connect with them intimately but don't know how. 

You just brush off posts like these saying men are just horny and just want to get laid. Maybe that's in your case but not all men just want to get laid. They might have given up on trying to understand women and trying to connect with women but maybe OP can shed some light and open their minds up again to even want to try and to get away from those redpill and mgtow movements. 

Women are the ones having sex with men, so we are the ones who know men on a sexual/intimate level, except for men who study this field, and i can assure you that men are craving intimacy with the opposite sex, more than how much they verbally like to admit especially to other men as to not come of as emotional, feminine, or simpy. Some realize it, but some don't and will act in ways where they may come off as just horny and just want sex to other guys but when around women, they act differently. This is why there is a fetish called the "girlfriend experience", where men will pay a woman to act like their gf for a short while. It is very popular for this reason. People's stories and ideas around the morality of this is irrelevant to the fact that it is a thing. Men do crave intimacy. They just use sex as a mask and continually get disappointed because they really desire more than just sex from women to the point of giving up and this post might be helpful to those men who have this recognition.

 

[Emerald]

28 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

You go deep into epistemology, existentialism, dynamic models, political psychology etc, but when it comes to sexual affairs and relationship dynamics, you treat it so lightly and tend to dismiss the deeper issues that causes these problems between the sexes.

Great point 🙂

[Leo Gura]

41 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

it is as simple as men have needs and women just don't have the same need. 

Women have the need but it is different.

[mr_engineer]

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

It's a different kind of connection altogether that can's be had with friends. I don't know how to explain why exactly as it's more intuitive. That would feel totally different.

Is it a 'sense of family'? And, if it is, what would that be based on? 

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

As a boss babe myself (lol), it doesn't fundamentally change what feels good in a relationship with a man. It feels good when a man gives support and I can trust and depend on him. There are certainly some women out there that are hyper-independent for a variety of different reasons who might resist being supported. This sometimes is just a personality trait but often comes from having trauma wounds around trust... usually from childhood familial dynamics.

But by and large, most women (including ambitious women) want a supportive male partner that they can depend on. 

Define 'support'. 

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

For me personally, I usually form connections out of my pre-existing social circle. I'll know a guy for a number of months and seemingly spontaneously, I'll have feeling arise. And sometimes those feelings have been reciprocated and sometimes not.

But no guy that you love is really replaceable. You can find someone to take his place in the role of partner eventually. But if the relationship ends, you'll never get that same "flavor" again as his personality is unique to him. And that's a difficult thing to lose.

What makes a relationship strong is spending lots of time together and bonding more and more deeply through living life together and pair bonding activities like cuddling and talking. Sex is in the dynamic too. Basically doing anything that produces oxytocin bonds partners deeper together.

And you can usually tell when a person is a stable/secure partner or not. It's a personality trait. 

'Personality' changes with time. Even who you are on the inside changes with time. The 'flavor' will also change with time. 

What will keep you committed to him long-term? Forget about whether he's stable/secure, what would make you stable/secure? 

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

Not if he loves me, I'm not. He may find someone else to play that role, but it will always be a loss.

What's 'you'? Who are 'you'?

'You' are such a complex topic that you've probably written 10 journals about yourself. So, which aspect of 'you' is he supposed to 'love'? And, what is 'love'? 

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

No. Because that's not how pair-bonding works. People don't bond together solely on the basis of transactional need. They bond together because they want to live their lives through with that person.

That is correct. 

But, they will choose whom to bond with, solely on the basis of transactional need! It may not be physical needs or logistic needs, it will be emotional-needs. 

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

If I loved him and felt good in the relationship with him and felt like he was invested and willing to commit. And if the relationship was sustainable.

Define 'commitment'. Commitment to do what? 

Define 'investment'. Investing what? 

These were well-defined before feminism, when men's job was to provide. 

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

And I wouldn't choose between two men using my mind by weighing out pros and cons of what he can provide as simply the sum of his parts as that wouldn't lead to a deeply bonded relationship.

No matter how much love a man feels for you, commitment will always be a rational decision for him. (If he is high-quality and smart and he understands the stakes.) There are life-altering consequences based on who you commit to, it's a high-stakes decision for your life. 

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

I'd go with whoever I felt the most connected to who is also wanting to invest in me in the same way. If I value having a longterm partner and companion to live my life with, I'm going to choose whoever I feel like I can live the happiest life with.

Is it his job to make your life happy? 

Edited April 10 by mr_engineer

[Emerald]

49 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Is it a 'sense of family'? And, if it is, what would that be based on? 

Define 'support'. 

'Personality' changes with time. Even who you are on the inside changes with time. The 'flavor' will also change with time. 

What will keep you committed to him long-term? Forget about whether he's stable/secure, what would make you stable/secure? 

What's 'you'? Who are 'you'?

'You' are such a complex topic that you've probably written 10 journals about yourself. So, which aspect of 'you' is he supposed to 'love'? And, what is 'love'? 

That is correct. 

But, they will choose whom to bond with, solely on the basis of transactional need! It may not be physical needs or logistic needs, it will be emotional-needs. 

Define 'commitment'. Commitment to do what? 

Define 'investment'. Investing what? 

These were well-defined before feminism, when men's job was to provide. 

No matter how much love a man feels for you, commitment will always be a rational decision for him. (If he is high-quality and smart and he understands the stakes.) There are life-altering consequences based on who you commit to, it's a high-stakes decision for your life. 

Is it his job to make your life happy? 

You’re trying to rationalize all this way too much. But you won’t be able to understand what it’s like until you experience this type of connection.

Most people are capable of forming non-transactional relationships with one another on the basis of mutual love. And that in itself is what most people who truly value having a relationship are looking for.

Mind you, there are many people with traumas/coping mechanisms that could shake a relationship apart. There can also be fundamental incompatibilities that make a relationship untenable.

But in lieu of these complicating factors, most people want to love and be loved.

The relationship dynamic itself is the thing that is of primary value. The other give and take elements are just side components.

It seems like you believe that a woman would only value a man out of some external need that he meets. You don’t seem to believe that a woman can value a relationship with a man because she loves that man in particular:

Edited April 10 by Emerald

[mr_engineer]

@Emerald I don't even know what you mean by 'love'. 

Let's start there. What is 'love'? 

[mr_engineer]

Keep in mind that we're trying to solve the shame-problem here. So, when you're saying 'you won't understand it until you experience it', that's not very helpful to them. 

And, if you don't want to help solve this problem, what was the point of talking about it in the OP to begin with? 

[Emerald]

29 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Keep in mind that we're trying to solve the shame-problem here. So, when you're saying 'you won't understand it until you experience it', that's not very helpful to them. 

And, if you don't want to help solve this problem, what was the point of talking about it in the OP to begin with? 

Me saying that you have to experience it is a means of me trying to get you out of rationalizing mode.

I cannot explain to you what must be directly experienced nor would it be helpful.

If you wanted to learn how to play basketball, you could read every book and figure out every technical understanding of the physics of it intellectually.

But no amount of rational understanding will help you learn how to play basketball. You have to actually play basketball.

Likewise, understanding love on a rational/intellectual level won’t help you develop this kind of connection.

My best advice is to let go of the need to know what love is intellectually and instead focus on developing warmth and connecting with other people (women and men) on a friendly level.

Then, after you get used to connecting, this will set the stage for you to connect in a more romantic way.

Edited April 10 by Emerald

[mr_engineer]

24 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Me saying that you have to experience it is a means of me trying to get you out of rationalizing mode.

I cannot explain to you what must be directly experienced nor would it be helpful.

There are multiple authority-figures giving multiple definitions of 'love'. 

Maybe our parents say that 'love is the self-sacrifice we do for you'. Or, rom-coms say that 'love is a positive feeling-state towards someone'. Or, religion says that 'love is the desire to do good for your fellow humans'. Or, non-duality says that 'love is the realization of Oneness'. 

All of these definitions refer to different 'direct experiences'. 

So, what's your definition? 

26 minutes ago, Emerald said:

If you wanted to learn how to play basketball, you could read every book and figure out every technical understanding of the physics of it intellectually.

But no amount of rational understanding will help you learn how to play basketball. You have to actually play basketball.

So, you're talking about 'love' as a noun or a verb? This sounds like a verb to me. 

26 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Likewise, understanding love on a rational/intellectual level won’t help you develop this kind of connection.

The problem at hand is that the process of understanding love on a rational/intellectual level has already begun with the different types of conditioning we have about it from different sources. Everyone has a different definition of it. 

29 minutes ago, Emerald said:

My best advice is to let go of the need to know what love is intellectually and instead focus on developing warmth and connecting with other people (women and men) on a friendly level.

Then, after you get used to connecting, this will set the stage for you to connect in a more romantic way.

So, love is 'friendliness'? Why does friendzoning happen, then? 

[Emerald]

Just now, mr_engineer said:

There are multiple authority-figures giving multiple definitions of 'love'. 

Maybe our parents say that 'love is the self-sacrifice we do for you'. Or, rom-coms say that 'love is a positive feeling-state towards someone'. Or, religion says that 'love is the desire to do good for your fellow humans'. Or, non-duality says that 'love is the realization of Oneness'. 

All of these definitions refer to different 'direct experiences'. 

So, what's your definition? 

So, you're talking about 'love' as a noun or a verb? This sounds like a verb to me. 

The problem at hand is that the process of understanding love on a rational/intellectual level has already begun with the different types of conditioning we have about it from different sources. Everyone has a different definition of it. 

So, love is 'friendliness'? Why does friendzoning happen, then? 

In this case, what I mean by love is a relationship between two people based on a deep feeling of bondedness that has grown over time… and where people’s lives have grown intertwined with one another over time.

But the issue with your questions is that you’re trying to make love fit into your current paradigm about male/female dynamics. And love can’t fit into that paradigm at all.

Lao Tzu said, “If you want to gain knowledge, add things every day. But if you want to gain wisdom, remove things every day.”

You’ll have to embrace the “not knowing” to open yourself up beyond your current paradigm… which might feel scary.

I sense that you ask all these questions to try to get maximum assurance so as not to get hurt. But it’s that very tendency that will keep you from opening up and connecting,

[mr_engineer]

32 minutes ago, Emerald said:

In this case, what I mean by love is a relationship between two people based on a deep feeling of bondedness that has grown over time… and where people’s lives have grown intertwined with one another over time.

So, is this relationship the cause of love or the effect of love? Or, is it 'love' in and of itself? 

32 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But the issue with your questions is that you’re trying to make love fit into your current paradigm about male/female dynamics. And love can’t fit into that paradigm at all.

That is my entire question. What is the right paradigm within which love can fit in? 

32 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Lao Tzu said, “If you want to gain knowledge, add things every day. But if you want to gain wisdom, remove things every day.”

You’ll have to embrace the “not knowing” to open yourself up beyond your current paradigm… which might feel scary.

I'm asking questions! What more do you want me to do to open myself beyond my current paradigm?! 

32 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I sense that you ask all these questions to try to get maximum assurance so as not to get hurt. But it’s that very tendency that will keep you from opening up and connecting,

To be completely honest with you, I have to know what I'm signing up for when I 'open up and connect' with people. 

The reality of our world is that people use our vulnerabilities against us. And what helps them sleep at night doing this, is that they're doing it 'out of love'. The most abusive individuals on the planet think they're doing what they're doing 'out of love'. So, this is a very important conversation. 

Edited April 10 by mr_engineer

[StarStruck]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Women have the need but it is different.

Women can get inherently horny I think, especially during the time of the month. But from my experience, women just don't horn dog out of nowhere. From my experience, when I get horny, it is easy to get her horny because feminine women just mirror your state most of the time.