I want to hear a womans opinion

[Olaf]

@Emerald don't worry he is just, I don't know, trolling or something

[Emerald]

Just now, Olaf said:

@Emerald don't worry he is just, I don't know, trolling or something

Still. Your question is normal and like @Joshe said, shows humility and a willingness to learn.

I'm just not cool with men trying to Masculinity-police other men out of hearing women's perspectives on their own sexual/dating experiences. 

[Joseph Maynor]

10 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I'm just not cool with men trying to Masculinity-police other men out of hearing women's perspectives on their own sexual/dating experiences. 

Can you elaborate on this more?  

[Joshe]

20 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Can you elaborate on this more?  

Sorry for butting in, none of my business, but can you elaborate on what specifically you want elaborated? 

I'm asking because it always feels like you're trying to insinuate or hint at something, but I don't know because you don't share enough of your yourself. I suspect it's to do with being paranoid of other people's intentions. For example, the other day you insinuated I was doing frame control on Natasha and you're always talking about how we don't know who the person behind the profile really is. 

Just a perspective of someone who's been perplexed by your online behavior. Take it or leave it. I'm guessing you'll leave it, lol. Either way, I mean no disrespect. Just trying to resolve my confusion.

Edited 7 hours ago by Joshe

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, Joshe said:

Sorry for butting in, none of my business, but can you elaborate on what specifically you want elaborated? 

I'm asking because it always feels like you're trying to insinuate or hint at something, but I don't know because you don't share enough of your yourself. I suspect it's to do with being paranoid of other people's intentions. For example, the other day you insinuated I was doing frame control on Natasha and you're always talking about how we don't know who the person behind the profile really is. 

Just a perspective of someone who's been perplexed by your online behavior. Take it or leave it. I'm guessing you'll leave it, lol. Either way, I mean no disrespect. Just trying to resolve my confusion.

I would rather have her respond.  But I appreciate your issues which I will note as important.  

[Joshe]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

I would rather have her respond.  But I appreciate your issues which I will note as important.  

👍

[Joseph Maynor]

I'm open to hearing a woman's perspective, but I need to know what it is to then incorporate it and react to it over time in a way that makes sense for me. I feel like a lot of this is abstract and overly theoretical and I need to use my intuition to decide yay or nay with a good faith response, which I do not see a lot of the time.  

[Joshe]

21 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I'm open to hearing a woman's perspective, but I need to know what it is to then incorporate it and react to it over time in a way that makes sense for me. I feel like a lot of this is abstract and overly theoretical and I need to use my intuition to decide yay or nay with a good faith response, which I do not see a lot of the time.  

I'm actually shocked by how often Emerald's articulations match my own intuitions that I myself never unpacked. Upon examination, most of what she says almost always tracks with my own intuition and understanding. Which leads me to believe she's actually pulling it out from her own intuition and lived experience, as opposed to an adopted/biased logical framework. That's the vibe I get.

I think she's probably just very good at understanding her intuition. To make them legible to others necessitates linearity, logic, or a bit of intellectualizing. 

Edited 6 hours ago by Joshe

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Can you elaborate on this more?  

So, there's a relatively common general pattern of some men policing other men on their level of Masculinity... and an expectation of adherence to a certain standard of Masculinity.

And a man who doesn't match up to these (often arbitrary) Masculine standards will get called a pussy (or some other Feminine insult)... or there will be insinuations made about him being somehow insufficient in the eyes of women. 

This often turns into a kind of group hierarchy thing among male in-groups where hyper-conformity to Masculine standards will determine the level of status and respect he gets from within the male in-group.

This can cause issues when the expectations from within that group run at odds to what will bing him positive outcomes outside of the container of that male in-group.

And the Monster Energy guy was trying to do that to the OP in relation to his question.

Then, there's another dynamic within pick-up that frames women's understanding of their own sexuality as inferior to the pick-up-educated man's perspective on female sexuality. 

And there are certain thought-stopping cliches like, "Don't ask a fish how to catch it."

Then, when "Masculinity policing" meets "Don't ask a fish how to catch it"-logic... it becomes one guy telling another guy that he's lame and unmanly and "losing aura points" for even inquiring about what women are attracted to from actual women.

It's as to say, "A real man only asks other men about female sexuality. And expecting to get good answers from a woman is something beta guys do."

That's why I said, I didn't like when men Masculinity-police other men into not listening to women's perspective on their own sexuality.

Edited 6 hours ago by Emerald

[Yimpa]

@Emerald 🔥🔥🔥

[Olaf]

Nobody understands that I am just trying to gay max #gaymaxxing

[Emerald]

52 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I'm actually shocked by how often Emerald's articulations match my own intuitions that I myself never unpacked. Upon examination, most of what she says almost always tracks with my own intuition and understanding. Which leads me to believe she's actually pulling it out from her own intuition and lived experience, as opposed to an adopted logical framework. That's the vibe I get.

All of my perspectives are based on what I've experienced directly in relation to my own romantic/sexual/dating life over the years.

And I always try to put it in very clear and specific language, as I think that there's all kinds of unnecessary mystique that surrounds female sexuality... which leads to women not knowing themselves well enough... and men filling in the blanks of that mystique with partial truths that are strung together into a web of bullshit. 

And that mystique even used to confuse me about myself and make me believe that I was a minority of one growing up and navigating my own sexuality... until I learned to cut through cultural misconceptions, observe myself, and put my experiences into words.

I also often get the feedback from women that "Wow! I always knew that. But I never put it into words." So, I'm always glad when I can do that.

So, your intuition is correct... it's definitely not abstract or theoretical. It's me putting my experiences and observations into words.

Though, for someone who is operating more theoretically (like practical theory) from a 3rd-person perspective about female sexuality... my experiences will contrast quite a bit from those practical theoretical frameworks as those playbooks wouldn't work very well with a woman who has a lot of self-knowledge regarding these facets of life.

This self-knowledge often comes with a higher expectation of shared meaning and  "long-term emotional fermentation under the tension of mystery of unspoken feelings" to feel the longing for a person.

Also, because women are generally abundant in options, it gives space for us to get more selective about the level of emotional stimulation that's sufficient to move us to want to get closer to someone. 

And for some women, pick-up is emotionally stimulating enough (perhaps coming from validating feelings like, "Hey! Maybe I am attractive if I have a guy approaching me!".)

But for other women, it's going to register as emotionally boring and kind of draining... without a lot of meaning.

And it may be confusing to hear how the real thing is for me, when it's not as comforting or leverage-able as the practical theoretical framework is.

It's like, "WTF am I supposed to do with that?"

But that's the thing... it's simply for knowing NOT for leveraging or systematizing, as the core of female sexuality and a woman's love is so homed in on who a man is holistically... and not as a sum of his objective parts.

But the knowing of these truths is what's valuable, as it cuts the illusions that the more leverage-able theoretical framework spins.... which create the illusion of a very objective and parts-based version of female sexuality.

The issue is that my feelings towards a man are highly subjective and based on all the subtle nuances and energies of who is as a person. A man is more like a flavor to me, in this way.

So, adding more objective attraction factors and strategies could be helpful in small ways... but can never over-ride my feelings about the core nature of a man, as that is the actual thing that I become attracted to.

Edited 5 hours ago by Emerald

[Emerald]

32 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

@Emerald 🔥🔥🔥

 

[Ulax]

49 minutes ago, Olaf said:

Nobody understands that I am just trying to gay max #gaymaxxing

Gay game is very slept on

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, Joshe said:

@Natasha Tori Maru Thanks for explaining. That tracks with your previous reports. 

Yeah, I knew there was a woman in there 😝

What makes the difference is what I'm interested in. I'm sure it's nothing super exciting. Probably mostly explained by traits.

I didn't explicitly state the working mechanisms for healthy, genuine relational connection I experience & prefer. I just chose to answer OP's question around cold approach only (how I prefer it to be done, not if I do or do not want it etc). I read @Emerald's response and agreed with the mechanics as described. I just didn't explicitly make my agreement there clear  I didn't mean to appear to be hedging or anything. I felt she nailed it and I had nothing else to add. I tend toward the conclusion that the sort of women to generate instant attraction (or just deeper feelings in a rapid manner) may be responding to some sort of internal, unconscious version of love learned from childhood that may not be healthy. 

I suppose my non-aversion to cold approach dovetails in well with my little project of resisting Ni compression/closure we have been touching on. I definitely compress and spearhead for closure as a default. I am going the opposite way as a method of meta mind exploration - and I feel like this insane experiment might appeal to you, haha! So far it has lead me down some unusual growth paths - namely in being able to cross pollenate and merge different frameworks together. Feeling and emotional based stuff.

@Olaf

Quote

so basically you are joining Emerald and eos_nyxia in the indirect approach through friends or work/sports e

If your goal is a secure, long term, healthy and mature connection with a women - in my opinion this is the optimal path.

Connection through third spaces (or even second, but this has inherent risk, although it is time tested!) is great method.

[Olaf]

@Natasha Tori Maru time to pick up 10 new hobbies 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, Olaf said:

@Natasha Tori Maru time to pick up 10 new hobbies 

Killing two birds there - developing yourself and attracting some ladies at the same time

I find men who engage in a passion and share it very attractive. I think this applies to many people in general.

[Joseph Maynor]

I wonder what the male version of "the ick" is?  

[Olaf]

@Joseph Maynor what you mean? I have so many icks in women. Have you ever seen a drunk woman?

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, Olaf said:

@Joseph Maynor what you mean? I have so many icks in women. Have you ever seen a drunk woman?

That's what I am getting at.  The Ick runs both ways lol.