Reflecting on my relationship to this forum...

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, zurew said:

If you picture a typical russian woman in your head, then I doubt that you would picture a very submissive woman

Not submissive per se, but living in a female role and expecting her man to play the classic male role.

More "traditional". 

A lot of this is about the roles we play, which are highly socially influenced.

For example I have heard my pickup friends talk about how Asian girls are more about taking care of her man. As that is part of the culture. Whereas American girls will be more into having a career.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

25 minutes ago, integral said:

I agree men and woman will hold onto there emotions and try to validate a point with it, but emotions seem to linger much longer in woman.

Yep, agree.

I think this could be because women bare children and must caretake as part of base survival process - so they are physiologically wired to pay more attention to their inner state (feeling, emotions, body sensations) and the wellbeing of children (interpreting expression, cries, feeling states). There is some evidence that shows men are socialized out of emotional/feeling attention, but many men experience alexithymia which indicates there is a survival mechanism at play. But overall I think women and men both feel the same range and power of emotions. Men may not have a good a grasp of understanding/sensing and deciphering, and women pay so much attention to feelings/emotions they indeed 'lingering much longer' to quote you. Just within the realm of my experience - men do feel just as much emotion/feeling as women, they simply aren't always as aware of this. But this last part might be up for debate, as I may not have a proper experiential dataset. I am pretty open in admitting while I can see other perspectives and frames - experience is king.

Quote

Did you have mature parents?

Mother - not at all. Father - yes. Unfortunately, my parents split when I was 15 or so. My grandfather had a huge hand in raising me. My mother, after the split, dated a man with BPD. Lots of parallels with your experience! I think I had a really good representation of love and secure attachment in my most formative years. This helped me a lot. But I did attract men who had BPD and attachment issues for a good time. This tells me I did end up with a slightly misinformed understanding of love, as I was driven to be attracted to men with similar unhealed wounds. Since my most catalytic relationships I have healed a lot. In addition - some real securely attached relationships after these facilitated healing and I now consider myself pretty mature and capable. Overall no regrets engaging with BPD men, but it really taught me a lot.

The experience of being with them and a BPD stepdad (he ended up in maximum security jail for 8 years). Really gave me some great skills with people. Being able to read them and understand them/their needs very very quickly. A lot of hypervigilance. And I am familiar with you reporting how you had to 'pretzel yourself' into something to manage your Dads feelings. The danger is we think we are responsible for others feelings of others - this is not so. And you can destroy your own boundaries in this way. Took a lot of healing and understanding to get past this (for myself at least ).

Quote

This is a good insight, Do you recover from emotions super fast? like a few minutes? and do you have healthy strategies to manage them?

I had to learn to fully allow them. It feels like surrender. Then I always have a deep feeling of love from my chest upwelling as the feeling dissolves. Sometimes I have to fully sit, close my eyes, and imagine the feeling playing out IE me punching a wall, or yelling at the person. And the imagination method is so powerful it purges the emotion. 

I used to suppress - which resulted in anger. And when I didn't express anger I ended up depressed. Not good.

Quote

The thing that would kill my sexual interest in a partner is them not seeing any value in me. If they don't see the work and value, I put into their lives then I am so repulsed that I don't want to touch them. I guess this could be framed as being looked down upon? And the opposite is also true the more you value everything I do for you, the more I want to do for you. The more that a woman expresses how they value their man's actions, choice or behaviour the more the man falls in love with them.

I get you completely. 100% 

I always show deep gratitude and appreciation when I am in love with someone. It is core to the feeling for me. Part of my drive is to express how much value, support and enrichment a man shows to me through physical affection and acts of service. Just my particular love language. When a women fails to appreciate her man there is no faster way to emasculate him. And I can understand why this would destroy your sex drive. Men typically engage in their own emotions and expression when a woman shows they truly value his place and role in her life - and this emotional connection feeds into female sexual desire. Very symbiotic. This could just be my own dynamic - but it is always the most healthy I have engaged in.

You sound like you have seen a lot - and not in a bad way - in a way that has made you grow in consciousness and strength,

[zurew]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

but living in a female role and expecting her man to play the classic male role.

I agree with that.

I would even say that they dont just expect it, but they are probably inclined to put pressure on the husband (if it is necessary) to play the masculine role.

Edited 57 minutes ago by zurew

[Leo Gura]

But in my expereince American girls are plenty feminine. I never had a lack of feminity there. Maybe the opposite.

Edited 58 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[Xonas Pitfall]

I think the issue here is that people often don't realize how "fluid" and "vaguely defined" these categories of femininity and masculinity really are. We all want to think "we KNOW intuitively" when someone is feminine or masculine and point out a "TRULY masculine" or "TRULY feminine" person, but that's just a fantasy or an archetype in our minds. Actual reality will always force you to embody both to truly get things done.

For example, often these "red pill" people will define a feminine woman as submissive, extremely passive, and almost "child-like" with innocence and naivety. They won't value her intelligence or ability to strategize, organize, plan, or lead, since those are seen as more "masculine" traits. But then, at the same time, you'd expect her to be a wonderfully caring and intelligent mother, taking care of your children, organizing the house, being an intelligent homemaker, and in a way, a "leader" of the house (at least in terms of homemaking and child-raising). So which is it?

Or, for example, they might define men as stoic, non-movable, and the penetrative force of masculinity and strength. But in an actual relationship, you need emotional intelligence, the ability to gently guide your woman and children, knowing when to soften up and be vulnerable if you want your relationship to have depth and connection. Or perhaps they'd say you need to "emotionally move" women when you're courting them, by playing with them and giving them a fun experience. These traits are much more akin to a social, extroverted, playful woman who "doesn't think" than to a stone-hearted warrior. To be able to do silly, meaningless, funny things with your family, to play, have fun, joke around, and be expressive, those are highly emotional and social traits, which you'd classify as feminine. Yet, they're often now considered "masculine" if a guy does the same thing and has "rizz/charisma of a player Chad." So again, which is it?

This is kind of what I mean: we all have these "ancient archetypes" of what femininity and masculinity are, but in reality, both of these traits will be played out, because that's what reality requires from you.

It's kind of a meme that when a man is intelligent, he's seen as a 'logical/pragmatic/strategic thinker,' but when a woman does the same, it's considered 'intuitive.'

Edited 50 minutes ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Inliytened1]

On 11/16/2025 at 8:04 PM, Leo Gura said:

Sometimes a forum is just a forum.

You guys take this place a bit too seriously.

Remind yourselves that nothing you post ultimately matters.

With that said, don't post crap 

True words.  But also it is more for many of us.  It's an escape or an addiction in some fashion..  but what isn't these days social media.  

Edited 50 minutes ago by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

11 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

I think the issue here is that people often don't realize how "fluid" and "vaguely defined" these categories of femininity and masculinity really are. We all want to think "we KNOW intuitively" when someone is feminine or masculine and point out a "TRULY masculine" or "TRULY feminine" person, but that's just a fantasy or an archetype in our minds. Actual reality will always force you to embody both to truly get things done.

For example, often these "red pill" people will define a feminine woman as submissive, extremely passive, and almost "child-like" with innocence and naivety. They won't value her intelligence or ability to strategize, organize, plan, or lead, since those are seen as more "masculine" traits. But then, at the same time, you'd expect her to be a wonderfully caring and intelligent mother, taking care of your children, organizing the house, being an intelligent homemaker, and in a way, a "leader" of the house (at least in terms of homemaking and child-raising). So which is it?

Or, for example, they might define men as stoic, non-movable, and the penetrative force of masculinity and strength. But in an actual relationship, you need emotional intelligence, the ability to gently guide your woman and children, knowing when to soften up and be vulnerable if you want your relationship to have depth and connection. Or perhaps they'd say you need to "emotionally move" women when you're courting them, by playing with them and giving them a fun experience. These traits are much more akin to a social, extroverted, playful woman who "doesn't think" than to a stone-hearted warrior. To be able to do silly, meaningless, funny things with your family, to play, have fun, joke around, and be expressive, those are highly emotional and social traits, which you'd classify as feminine. Yet, they're often now considered "masculine" if a guy does the same thing and has "rizz/charisma of a player Chad." So again, which is it?

This is kind of what I mean: we all have these "ancient archetypes" of what femininity and masculinity are, but in reality, both of these traits will be played out, because that's what reality requires from you.

That's right.  Honestly to be a man..to really be a man, is to integrate feminine traits.  It takes sensitivity and communication to be a man - and this is something men are not built with out of the box..(generally).  We have to work on it. That's what it takes to be a man.  And the same goes in reverse.   A woman should incorporate masculine qualities- such as strength and vigor - and dominance.   The problem is how do the integrated men and women coexist? That takes some fine tuning.

Many women just look for the strong insensitive type- while many men want the less dominant female.  Personally I like to be challenged.  It keeps the boredom level down 😀

 

 

 

Edited 42 minutes ago by Inliytened1