“I Love you” and the razor’s edge

[Spaz]

This feels like surrender.

She knows it..

She and all women intuitively feels it in some men...

And it terrifies her to her core as she can't help herself be drawn to such a man.

This is the true power of masculinity.

 

[sazc]

LMAO

 

[guru1000]

in the Monad/Henid the man is the single point of eminence of masculinity so that she, being substance without form, or a form dictated by a social structure or even a past “Alpha” that shaped her, would be operating in her assumed reality.
For her to be drawn to this new single point of eminence, his frame would require that he be an individuated monad. It is then that he can shape her to the new environment, him.
The only thing we should pursuing is our dreams. Not women. .

I see the seemly clash in ideology: fluidity vs leadership. How could fluidity--the act of being seemly formless, shapeless--be the source of a man, while, at the same time, this same man be expected to lead and shape her or their world into his own construct?

However, there's no contradiction: Fluidity does not clash with being a leader. In fact, fluidity (to her needs) makes you a more effective leader.

To lead effectively, YOU, as the arbiter of the greater dynamic we call frame, must meet their needs (or give the illusion of meeting their needs) to garner his/her/their deference to your cause. The broader question is how can one willingly defer to your leadership, if they are not gaining value from the process?

Simple example: Employee seeks a job with a certain level of income and status. Should employer not service employee's income/status requirement first, the employee can not and will not defer. However, should employer service employee's needs (or provide the illusion), the employee willingly defers to the employer's leadership and cause.

What one should not do in the context of fluidity is compromise his own needs/desires/agenda in furtherance of hers. Within this context, as @mrgoodstuff was getting to, YOU--the arbiter of frame--are no longer meeting one of her needs, that is, the need to be led.

Powerful is he who knows the audience and gives the guise of tending to their needs.

 

[Ranger]

I see the seemly clash in ideology: fluidity vs leadership. How could fluidity--the act of being seemly formless, shapeless--be the source of a man, while, at the same time, this same man be expected to lead and shape her or their world into his own construct?

However, there's no contradiction: Fluidity does not clash with being a leader. In fact, fluidity (to her needs) makes you a more effective leader.

To lead effectively, YOU, as the arbiter of the greater dynamic we call frame, must meet their needs (or give the illusion of meeting their needs) to garner his/her/their deference to your cause. The broader question is how can one willingly defer to your leadership, if they are not gaining value from the process?

Simple example: Employee seeks a job with a certain level of income and status. Should employer not service employee's income/status requirement first, the employee can not and will not defer. However, should employer service employee's needs (or provide the illusion), the employee willingly defers to the employer's leadership and cause.

What one should not do in the context of fluidity is compromise his own needs/desires/agenda in furtherance of hers. Within this context, as @mrgoodstuff was getting to, YOU--the arbiter of frame--are no longer meeting one of her needs, that is, the need to be led.

I understand. One would need to demonstrate that her needs can be met. His version of love so to speak.

 

[guru1000]

I understand. One would need to demonstrate that her needs can be met. His version of love so to speak.

Yes, though, tricky topic, often misconstrued.

Sometimes her "need" is to be challenged or spaced. Hence why dismissing can be en effective strategy in the beginning to prompt chase for some. Certainly not for all, as needs differ.

The need sometimes runs counter-intuitive, hence, "game."

 

[Ranger]

I do think that individuating and become that single point of masculine eminence is the primary in this dynamic of women. She won’t find it with the Femininized men. They are too busy shaping to her. Even with PUA tactics. Especially so. It’s the wrong model.
Sales of anything would have to be tweaked to the buyer or something the buyer is already seeking. If a woman is seeking masculine energy, which would correlate, then he would need to be that which eminates masculinity first.

 

[guru1000]

I do think that individuating and become that single point of masculine eminence is the primary in this dynamic of women. She won’t find it with the Femininized men. They are too busy shaping to her. Even with PUA tactics. Especially so. It’s the wrong model.
Sales of anything would have to be tweaked to the buyer or something the buyer is already seeking. If a woman is seeking masculine energy, which would correlate, then he would need to be that which eminates masculinity first.

Yes, masculinity is a deep need; though not the full package as then all the vikings of today's society would garner the most women. The distinction/limitations of meeting needs lies here:

What one should not do in the context of fluidity is compromise his own needs/desires/agenda in furtherance of hers. Within this context, as @mrgoodstuff was getting to, YOU--the arbiter of frame--are no longer meeting one of her needs, that is, the need to be led.

 

[Ranger]

I believe we have agreement. I won’t be sacrificing anything for a woman.

 

[guru1000]

Another key concept that leads us to the "Pursue only your passions, and they will come/stay." I call this the CEO paradigm.

While too busy "taking over the world" in pursuance of thy passions, who is no longer a source of your attention? Might be intriguing at first, but in LTR context, it fails.

Working around the clock in furtherance of power, exhausted during any free time, the CEO pays her little/no attention, leave her feeling unappreciated--neglecting her companionship need. Hence, "fvck the pool boy" dynamic arises or--if a woman has greater integrity--disrespect followed by the end.

 

[Ranger]

Another key concept that leads us to the "Pursue only your passions, and they will come/stay." I call this the CEO paradigm.

While too busy "taking over the world" in pursuance of thy passions, who is no longer a source of your attention? Might be intriguing at first, but in LTR context, it fails.

Working around the clock in furtherance of power, exhausted during any free time, the CEO pays her little/no attention, leave her feeling unappreciated--neglecting her companionship need. Hence, "fvck the pool boy" dynamic arises or--if a woman has greater integrity--disrespect followed by the end.

She isn’t shaping. Not feeling part of your world.

 

[guru1000]

She isn’t shaping.

Hence, the CEO paradigm, a natural leader of both men and women, cannot lead a simple relation. Why?

 

[Ranger]

This is also why a younger woman is optimum. One with less partners.

 

[Spaz]

Another key concept that leads us to the "Pursue only your passions, and they will come/stay." I call this the CEO paradigm.

While too busy "taking over the world" in pursuance of thy passions, who is no longer a source of your attention? Might be intriguing at first, but in LTR context, it fails.

I, too, have fall victim to this many times in LTRs. Working around the clock in furtherance of power, exhausted during any free time, the CEO pays her little/no attention, leave her feeling unappreciated--neglecting her companionship need. Hence, "fvck the pool boy" dynamic arises or--if a woman has greater integrity--disrespect followed by the end.

True and yet not completely so.

When a man reaches that stage, he has already has amassed sufficient skills in leadership, but yet somehow "fails" to lead his own wife/women ?

In truth, if a man looks deep within himself, it's because he no longer desires her as he once did nor is she really up to his standards, in effect it's a subconscious soft-dismissal.

 

[guru1000]

True and yet not completely so.

When a man reaches that stage, he has already has amassed sufficient skills in leadership, but yet somehow "fails" to lead his own wife/women ?

In truth, if a man looks deep within himself, it's because he no longer desires her as he once did nor is she really up to his standards, in effect it's a subconscious soft-dismissal.

Let's keep going.

Can this same CEO-type man value someone (as much) whom has already been won or "conquered"? If so, describe what type of woman this would be if at all possible.

 

[Spaz]

Let's keep going.

Can this same CEO-type man value someone (as much) whom has already been won or "conquered"? If so, describe what type of woman this would be if at all possible.

The ability of a woman to amuse me - that's her value and type.

 

[Ranger]

It seems to me that women get their daily mental needs met by their jobs, self help books, feminine crusaders, girl power stuff. Lol
The CEO paradigm is not suited to both paradigms. I think she needs both. Breeder and provider.
This duality persists. Of course she wants both in one man. Where does that exist? Fukking Mary Poppins and Disney?

I think a man can be both. That is a new frontier. Something that was said on here once makes a lot of sense.
“Just the act of committing to a woman, lessens a man to a certain extent. In her woman’s mind.”
I’m not saying forego commitment. Not saying that at all.

This is where shaping seems to be a key word. Thus younger women with less partners would be a good start. Despite this I like younger and older women. I just like women. They are interesting.

 

[lamath]

What number of partners is too many? Prob dont mater as much if you want to plate her.
Its also prob age and person dependent but still wondering.
The older i get the higher a women count will be in general, so i guess a man cant have too many expection of a women to have a low count

 

[Ranger]

What number of partners is too many? Prob dont mater as much if you want to plate her.
Its also prob age and person dependent but still wondering.
The older i get the higher a women count will be in general, so i guess a man cant have too many expection of a women to have a low count

Do you think that your count has the same effect?
What you wrote would be the feminine imperative thinking.
If a man is the single point emanation and the woman is made and built differently. Her frame molds for survival. So how can the effect be the same. Women acting and being men?

So how many men would it take before she can no longer pair bond at an intimate level?

Sorry, I don’t follow the Feminine Imperative directives. On a personal note, I don’t care because I will never marry her or tie her to my finances.

 

[lamath]

Do you think that your count has the same effect?
What you wrote would be the feminine imperative thinking.
If a man is the single point emanation and the woman is made and built differently. Her frame molds for survival. So how can the effect be the same. Women acting and being men?

So how many men would it take before she can no longer pair bond at an intimate level?

Sorry, I don’t follow the Feminine Imperative directives. On a personal note, I don’t care because I will never marry her or tie her to my finances.

My count might have some similar effect, but since we are wired differently then women it make me wonder.

The more men she has under her belt also affect the way she think and act towards men.
Ik about the female imperative and would not either marry or tie my finance to a women, with today world i think its just common sense.

However im not against some kind of LTR, so im wondering the effect of too many **** on her bonding capacity

 

[Ranger]

However im not against some kind of LTR, so im wondering the effect of too many **** on her bonding capacity

It is self evident that the older a woman gets the more baggage she gets. In relationship to a man. Now a man who was trashed by a woman can have quite the baggage as well. He still blames the women and her disregard for how much he gave to the relationship.

I asked a woman once about why does an older woman carry so much baggage. She was not offended at all but simply said....”men”

Now I know she meant her frustration with men. But how many times has a woman thought, “oh this new guy is the $hit!” Because of how he makes her feel. Then two months later...”Oh never mind, he wasn’t what I thought he was.” Boom. Bonded then went flat. Multiply that by 12.
She’s ruined herself. Then you pile the Feminine Imperative on top and then how everything is a man’s fault or the cult of men in general.

So a guy pair bonds and then gets trashed like garbage because of his raising. Then he decides to despise women for it. Baggage.

The last two “dates” I was on there were small things through conversations that pointed everything to someone else’s fault. Baggage.

Most if not nearly all of women, are incapable of self examination. They will think something critical about themselves and let tell her girlfriends and then “WHAT? Girl you are awesome. He didn’t deserve you. You are the $hit. He’s just a stupid man.” Boom!!! Any self evaluation is nullified by the imperative.

So yes. Every time she bonds, a little bit more of herself is flushed down with the tampon.
It’s rather sad if you think about it.

Even more reason to offer her redemption, femininity and protection. Let her mold to you if she can. There’s a living hell between her ears.