Is There an Ideal Way of Acting and Being in Male-Female Relationships?

[Andromeda]

An example of the rampant sexism going on in Germany.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1636333845610913800

Now, that's just a good idea.

 

[Kika]

Can you expand a bit more on which posts and why they had that effect? I'm genuinely interested.

Hi Joe,
The quoted paragraph contained one more sentence

I will refer to only one; If anyone has ever tried to attract me, so that he is waiting for me to start chasing him, he is most certainly still waiting.

which was supposed to be a signpost, in which direction to look.
But I will try to be more precise.

Take all the posts that say;
- women think/don't think this or that,
- women want/don't want this or that,
- women like/don't like this or that,
- women are/are not like this or like that .....
If you are a woman and I am, you start to wonder ; am I...?, did I...? do I...?, then you make some sort of benchmark, for example: Always-sometimes-never.
When the "never" started piling up, I thought, "Jesus, am I even female!?" Which leads to an identity crisis, and thus to CAPS+ identifications.
Then came that Aaaaaahhhaaaa (deep sigh and exhalation) moment. That's not a real question, the real question is: "Am I a Female ?"

To try to explain the difference in English (and I couldn't find the right words), I decided to improvise and make a little legend, so that they could follow me.

Human being = Čovjek lives on planet Earth; Ljudi = Human beings/People
It was created in two models:
male (adjective) = Muškarac = Man (mature adult)
female (adjective) = Žena = Woman (mature adult)
(if this reminds you of cars, it's a perfectly acceptable analogy, imagine a petrol and diesel car )

male influenced; hormones, instincts... for mating is Mužjak = Male (noun)
female is under the same influence is Ženka = Female (noun)
(now the old me)
The point is that I read those posts as a Woman, not as a Female. If I was in the "conditions/effect of mating", would there really be so many "never"?

So, Men and Women can live, work and communicate and perform all those activities that are included in platonic relationships, on an equal, human basis. Mutual respect, appreciation and recognition (imagine a herd of horses or cattle, both sexes and different ages grazing peacefully).
The confusion begins when Male and Female appear.
(The very title of this thread suggests that, and that's why I'm not surprised that the conversation immediately went in the direction of sexual relations. So all the manuals mentioned here are for the purpose of being a successful Male and activating Women to become Female. We can forget about building relationships between Man and Woman).
Possibilities:
- Male sets the target Women and she says WTF,
- Female sets the target Man and he says WTF,
- Male and Female meet, they talk a little and think even less, they mostly act.

The next morning (when the urge to mate is exhausted) and Man and Woman wake up, there are possibilities:
- Why did I need this?
- Can we do it again next time when the need arises? (optional or binding = longer term relationship).
- This person is the solution to my problems (dependent relationship).
I must mention here that Woman is at an advantage in this dependent relationship, because it easily simulates Female, while Man cannot simulate Male without additional stimulants (blue pills and the like).

The question arose, What happens when Man/Female or Male/Women wake up in the morning, or more simply - the question of promiscuity.
Recently, RA material came into my focus, so it's my turn to read it (work in progress). Here I found, for now, the best described; flow, theft, blocking of energy during sexual intercourse, and also state the reason for "hunger for sex", i.e. the source of promiscuity.

I have a question that the instrument has asked that I would like to ask for the instrument. She says, you speak of various types of energy blockages and transfers, positive and negative, that may take place due to participation in our sexual reproductive complex of actions. She states, please explain these blockages and energy transfers with emphasis upon what an individual seeking to be in accordance with the Law of One may positively do in this area? Is it possible for you to answer this question?



Ra: I am Ra. It is partially possible, given the background we have laid. This is properly a more advanced question. Due to the specificity of the question we may give general answer.

The first energy transfer is red ray. It is a random transfer having to do only with your reproductive system.

The orange- and the yellow-ray attempts to have sexual intercourse create, firstly, a blockage if only one entity vibrates in this area, thus causing the entity vibrating sexually in this area to have a never-ending appetite for this activity. What these vibratory levels are seeking is green-ray activity. There is the possibility of orange- or yellow-ray energy transfer; this being polarizing towards the negative: one being seen as object rather than other-self; the other seeing itself as plunderer or master of the situation.

In third* ray there are two possibilities. Firstly, if both vibrate in third* ray there will be a mutually strengthening energy transfer, the negative or female, as you call it, drawing the energy from the roots of the beingness up through the energy centers, thus being physically revitalized; the positive, or male polarity, as it is deemed in your illusion, finding in this energy transfer an inspiration which satisfies and feeds the spirit portion of the body/mind/spirit complex, thus both being polarized and releasing the excess of that which each has in abundance by nature of intelligent energy, that is, negative/intuitive, positive/physical energies as you may call them; this energy transfer being blocked only if one or both entities have fear of possession, of being possessed, of desiring possession or desiring being possessed.

* This should be fourth or green. Don and Ra corrected the error in session 32.

The other green-ray possibility is that of one entity offering green-ray energy, the other not offering energy of the universal love energy, this resulting in a blockage of energy for the one not green ray thus increasing frustration or appetite; the green-ray being polarizing slightly towards service to others.

The blue-ray energy transfer is somewhat rare among your people at this time but is of great aid due to energy transfers involved in becoming able to express the self without reservation or fear.

The indigo-ray transfer is extremely rare among your people. This is the sacramental portion of the body complex whereby contact may be made through the violet ray with intelligent infinity. No blockages may occur at these latter two levels due to the fact that if both entities are not ready for this energy it is not visible and neither transfer nor blockage may take place. It is as though the distributor were removed from a powerful engine.

This instrument was able, as an example of this working, to baffle the Orion group during [tape blank] experiences, as you call this substance, due to the fact that it effectively completely opened other-self to third-ray— we correct this instrument, it is growing low in vital energy— green-ray energy and partially open other-self to blue-ray interaction. May we ask if you have any queries before we close?

For homework , in the quoted scheme, interpolate sex with the organic portal and see where it leads. (I did it using the chakras as the radiation source, and then the same using the energy centers (lower and higher, according to Cass) as the source. I wonder how this exchange of energy, and whether it exists at all, flows in homosexual couples.)
I would like to specify something else. It was mentioned here that the goal is to make weak Men. I am in favor of the wording that the goal is to make a weak Čovjek = Human being. Thus, both Men and Women are included, as a subset of the Human Being set.
I believe that humanity needs strong Men as well as strong Women. (each with their own abilities as RA expressed).

 

[Turgon]

True, and this is what I meant by nature, I think it's better to be more romantic, sensitive, dorky even, for instance, IF it is who you truly are and have that drop "value" in terms of the transactional nature of the world, than to pretend to be cold and emotionless hoping it will increase your value with strangers. It just shouldn't be a by default thing that is never questioned.

Well, yeah. What would be the point of pretending to be someone you're not? That's just a recipe for unhappiness if a long-term, committed relationship is your goal. I think at the beginning, there's always going to be some impression management, trying to put your best foot forward and trying to seem more put together than you really are, but eventually the real you - which could do with some growth and improvement - is going to emerge. And so that needs to be accepted, or not, by your partner and vice versa.

Here's an example of the thinking one of the "leaders" of the men's red pill movement, who is himself a married man.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1653442566896103425

If you read the comments section, Rollo was roasted for posting that.

 

[Beau]

If you read the comments section, Rollo was roasted for posting that.

I did. He also tried claiming in the replies he was just trolling, which is BS. He's got some snake oil to sell men too.

 

[Wandering Star]

Hi Joe,
The quoted paragraph contained one more sentence

which was supposed to be a signpost, in which direction to look.
But I will try to be more precise.

Take all the posts that say;
- women think/don't think this or that,
- women want/don't want this or that,
- women like/don't like this or that,
- women are/are not like this or like that .....
If you are a woman and I am, you start to wonder ; am I...?, did I...? do I...?, then you make some sort of benchmark, for example: Always-sometimes-never.
When the "never" started piling up, I thought, "Jesus, am I even female!?" Which leads to an identity crisis, and thus to CAPS+ identifications.
Then came that Aaaaaahhhaaaa (deep sigh and exhalation) moment. That's not a real question, the real question is: "Am I a Female ?"

To try to explain the difference in English (and I couldn't find the right words), I decided to improvise and make a little legend, so that they could follow me.

Human being = Čovjek lives on planet Earth; Ljudi = Human beings/People
It was created in two models:
male (adjective) = Muškarac = Man (mature adult)
female (adjective) = Žena = Woman (mature adult)
(if this reminds you of cars, it's a perfectly acceptable analogy, imagine a petrol and diesel car )

male influenced; hormones, instincts... for mating is Mužjak = Male (noun)
female is under the same influence is Ženka = Female (noun)
(now the old me)
The point is that I read those posts as a Woman, not as a Female. If I was in the "conditions/effect of mating", would there really be so many "never"?

So, Men and Women can live, work and communicate and perform all those activities that are included in platonic relationships, on an equal, human basis. Mutual respect, appreciation and recognition (imagine a herd of horses or cattle, both sexes and different ages grazing peacefully).
The confusion begins when Male and Female appear.
(The very title of this thread suggests that, and that's why I'm not surprised that the conversation immediately went in the direction of sexual relations. So all the manuals mentioned here are for the purpose of being a successful Male and activating Women to become Female. We can forget about building relationships between Man and Woman).
Possibilities:
- Male sets the target Women and she says WTF,
- Female sets the target Man and he says WTF,
- Male and Female meet, they talk a little and think even less, they mostly act.

The next morning (when the urge to mate is exhausted) and Man and Woman wake up, there are possibilities:
- Why did I need this?
- Can we do it again next time when the need arises? (optional or binding = longer term relationship).
- This person is the solution to my problems (dependent relationship).
I must mention here that Woman is at an advantage in this dependent relationship, because it easily simulates Female, while Man cannot simulate Male without additional stimulants (blue pills and the like).

The question arose, What happens when Man/Female or Male/Women wake up in the morning, or more simply - the question of promiscuity.
Recently, RA material came into my focus, so it's my turn to read it (work in progress). Here I found, for now, the best described; flow, theft, blocking of energy during sexual intercourse, and also state the reason for "hunger for sex", i.e. the source of promiscuity.


For homework , in the quoted scheme, interpolate sex with the organic portal and see where it leads. (I did it using the chakras as the radiation source, and then the same using the energy centers (lower and higher, according to Cass) as the source. I wonder how this exchange of energy, and whether it exists at all, flows in homosexual couples.)
I would like to specify something else. It was mentioned here that the goal is to make weak Men. I am in favor of the wording that the goal is to make a weak Čovjek = Human being. Thus, both Men and Women are included, as a subset of the Human Being set.
I believe that humanity needs strong Men as well as strong Women. (each with their own abilities as RA expressed).

And I believe that people who have minimally activated their higher centers immediately detect the absence of activation of those centers in the person who initially aroused their interest.

Although as we know, people without those higher centers activated know how to pretend very well.

Only with experience is it seen that the person in front of you is actually a mirror of you.

As soon as you are not with him/her, that person returns to the normal of materialistic life at an enormous speed.

You just have to separate a little and observe how he / she acts with others. He quickly forgets about you and it's quite amazing to watch all the spirituality in him evaporate.

 

[Aeneas]

But is there? At least I do not believe so.
I imagine, maybe wrongly - as this is not knowledge but more of working hypothesis that we are like instruments playing different sounds, different vibrations and with good tuning we may play nice, pleasant harmonies, that are resonating and having a lot of energy, a lot more then one instrument by its own tune.

Exactly. An to borrow from the the music analogy, in order to play (as a side note, play is important in what is referred-to as dating or flirting etc.) in a harmonic way, there is no need to play the same instrument and the same note. A symphony also has tension (not "disharmonic" though) with resolution, which brings in movement, growth and space.

Yes, and with instruments, we only ever know how they sound if we allow it to be played. Thus the need to test the water. If we wait until we are perfect and the partner is perfect, then life is guaranteed to be lived alone.

To this comes also a big part of the puzzle, I think which is pre-incarnational lesson plan, karma, lessons needed to be learned etc. In getting together with someone there could well be some karma to work out where we get the possibility to grow and learn and ideally mutually help to fine tune our being.

@Andromeda made a good point to me on this topic recently. What about different types of people and purported OPs? Is it possible (likely even) that a lot of this kind of literature on "how to attract women" is using 'OP' women as a reference? Women who are largely content to be seen as 'giggling feminine girls' by men, and little more.

I think that is a interesting point. If 'OP's are used as a reference, is it not just becoming a caricature of love, where the examples given of how men and women are, is like a fascimile, a 2D copy without any depth?

I would also guess that, excepting a few of the 'scientific' studies, the science is as doctored and interpreted to fit demand as in any other field. And holy Caesar, who is in charge of evolutionary psychology? Many of the theories going fit better into 2D rather than 3D. Much less anything higher.

And maybe that is why these theories are pushed so as to reduce the complexity of 3 souled beings into a carbon copy version of what real human beings are, a copy that fits with the hypothesized OP version of being. In a way not dissimilar to the way of transhumanism and how the human-ness is taken out of society. The humanity is taken out with all its complexity and we are instead faced with more and more interactions with Apps and computer screens instead of real life human interactions.

Coming back to male-female relationship, then isn't the wish for most to have a relationship with someone with whom you can be totally 'naked' in the sense that you are accepted, warts and all, simply as you are without having to put up any protective shield? Someone to whom you can be seen both in your weaknesses as well as your strength without being taken advantage off and where this goes both ways. Having a partner who accepts you as you are, will help us to accept ourselves and heal past brokenness and become a better and more mature person.

To be fair, meeting people out is a useful skill to learn if you don't want your options to be limited to work/social circle/dating apps, but even then it's much more about shining your light and spreading good energy than it is about lines or tactics or games.

Yes, learning new tactics, games or lines can be just another layer added to a false personality which just creates more deception in the game. If it doesn't come from inside as mentioned by others, then you will just be a step further away from being able to just 'BE' with your partner, but will have to keep up the mirage to keep the potential partner from seeing you as you actually are. I understand that this is where some skills in testing the dating partner (whether male or female) comes in most useful. In my own life, I didn't have those skills and avoided dating out of a strange sense of super committedness, where I felt that if I slept with someone then I was committed for life. This was perhaps due my own parents divorce and not wanting to feel that pain again, thus only restricting myself from seeing the world as it is and limit growing into adulthood earlier with the responsibilities it entails.

The lessons are simple as the C's say, but we are complicated or at times make it complicated.

 

[Yas]

Guys heads are often turned by hourglass figures too. That doesn't form the basis of many relationships.

This is a good point too.

Let me expand on it: It seems that one of the problems with the "menosphere" ideas is that they put too much emphasis on what would generally attract a young woman at first sight when dating, and they seem to extrapolate that to the success of more long-term relationships. I say young woman, because I believe that more mature women wouldn't necessarily have the same "attraction rules".

Now, let's extrapolate this to what is attractive to men. According to many sources, one of them the video posted by Laura about female and male attraction, men give a lot more importance to visual attractiveness and specifically what they call the "hip to waist" ratio, that is, the hourglass figure. So, in the menosphere fashion, we can say: Men are attracted to the hourglass figure. That's it. Nothing else.

Ok, but I'm sure that, for most men who are in a long-term relationship here, that wasn't what made you choose your partner/wife. I'm sure there was much more than the physical appearance of your significant other. And I'm also sure that, as the relationship progressed, her appearance became even less important in terms of what keeps the two of you together, brings you closer and builds the love in the relationship. I daresay that for many of you, if not all, the 'hourglass figure' wasn't significant at all at any point in the relationship.

Now, that doesn't mean that generally speaking, men don't find the hourglass figure attractive, or maybe just beautiful or nice. The fact may still be true, and maybe for a some men, that's all they want, nothing more. But for many men, if not most, that's not something they really pay attention to when they choose the women they want to be their long-term partners.

So the same happens with women. Many of the 'manly traits' may be considered good and attractive by most women, but there's much more to why many women decide to have a long-term relationship with someone, and also much much more to why the relationship grows stronger, closer and more lovingly over time.

Yes, the biological base for what is attractive is interesting to know, but again, human beings are a lot more than that, so we can't try to explain everything related to relationships based on the evolutionary standpoint only, and I know that we aren't doing that here, it is just to make a point as to one of the reasons why the menosphere ideas fail to provide sound guidance to men and how to build loving relationships.

 

[Z...]

. It's very strange and alarming to me.

Hlat I ve seen you calling people worse names around the forum. So why all this drama - are you a snowflake too
Joking aside I think you are idolising Ms. Brown too much.
.

 

[Wandering Star]

For me this paragraph is great.

Coming back to male-female relationship, then isn't the wish for most to have a relationship with someone with whom you can be totally 'naked' in the sense that you are accepted, warts and all, simply as you are without having to put up any protective shield? Someone to whom you can be seen both in your weaknesses as well as your strength without being taken advantage off and where this goes both ways. Having a partner who accepts you as you are, will help us to accept ourselves and heal past brokenness and become a better and more mature person.

 

[BHelmet]

Balancing external consideration vs tell-all honesty is a thing.

 

[BHelmet]

….Only with experience is it seen that the person in front of you is actually a mirror of you.

Truly, vraiment y es la verdad.

As soon as you are not with him/her, that person returns to the normal of materialistic life at an enormous speed.

You just have to separate a little and observe how he / she acts with others. He quickly forgets about you and it's quite amazing to watch all the spirituality in him evaporate.

This part is tricky because it involves the self-centered pitfall: “oh, how dare you share your honest most intimate self and be 100% your natural self with another person and not reserve your inner special qualities for me only!” “I have this distinction, you should too”.

But some people just are who they are and we have to trust in that AND allow the freedom for the other person to be who they are with those other people. I can tell you that is a thing I have had to wrestle with! But after much self-centered pouting and mental anguish, I can honestly finally enjoy how vibrant, exciting and in-the-moment my wife is (which is what attracted me as I am more reticent and measured) even if she is attractive to others and at times I look at her in these situations and say “my God, what a shallow idiot” but…I know otherwise. The surface is just the surface.

 

[BHelmet]

Each person has to be true to who they are so I don’t think there is one set way to be and act except in a general sense of honesty. If men and women were houses, I think the architecture is… well they both have kitchens and living rooms but the hidden passageways and trap doors are engineered quite differently.

 

[Wandering Star]

Truly, vraiment y es la verdad.

This part is tricky because it involves the self-centered pitfall: “oh, how dare you share your honest most intimate self and be 100% your natural self with another person and not reserve your inner special qualities for me only!” “I have this distinction, you should too”.

But some people just are who they are and we have to trust in that AND allow the freedom for the other person to be who they are with those other people. I can tell you that is a thing I have had to wrestle with! But after much self-centered pouting and mental anguish, I can honestly finally enjoy how vibrant, exciting and in-the-moment my wife is (which is what attracted me as I am more reticent and measured) even if she is attractive to others and at times I look at her in these situations and say “my God, what a shallow idiot” but…I know otherwise. The surface is just the surface.

It has seemed strange to me that you draw all those conclusions from what I have said.

It's curious.

 

[Michal]

You can do a google search for the translation and meaning of the poem, if you gave google or an equivalent. If you still have questions or comments about specific passages after that, share them and I will try to help.

Robbie Burns is definitely a little difficult to understand at first pass. I read it several times before I really got it all and each time it just got better!




LOL! I have to admit, there was a brief period where I was afraid I might be a feminist. But, after closer inspection, it turned out that I'm just southern.

Hi @Andromeda, I hope You may check and help fill the gaps in my understanding of the first poem by Burns. Attached.
By the way. You cited this poem as an example of important things for relations for men/women? Or not only for relations but in general?
If I understand You correctly - relation between men/women is or should not be concentrating on mundane things... maybe wrong ... that is that our relations if founded on values like those mentioned by Burns: Prudence, Honour, Faith, etc is more important (also in the eyes of women) then worrying or putting much energy into knowing red-pils men art of catching women. I am not sure if I expressed myself clearly. But hope clear enough. So am I correctly seeing Your intention in citing those poems?
That good relation between men and women is on the good ground when both are focusing on high values which are universally important and not only practical usage (usage of knowledge of other human being: men or women alike) which serves basically only self.

 

[Revolucionar]

I would not call Sandra a snowflake. Is this the frequency we wish to anchor? I don't understand calling Sandra names, especially when she was participating here and she can read this thread since one of her posts was moved into here.

People show a lot of respect and tolerance for Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson despite their very large blind spots, such as having a buddy buddy meal with Netanyahu, and those guys don't post on the forum. Sandra posted here and less than a week later, multiple card carrying members in good standing are calling her names. It's very strange and alarming to me.

I think of a snowflake as someone who's too fragile to truly engage with anything that doesn't agree with their views. She did exactly that from what I could tell.

Men with insecure attachment issues are attracted to the idea of a manual to control the course and outcome of their intimate relationships, which they believe and feel to be inherently 'dangerous' or threatening.

Yeah. I think this shows how inherently narcissistic all of this is. They're trying to stay in control because otherwise their image is at risk.

The whole "philosophy" focuses on the pick up and dating game, but is largely mute on longer term/life-long relationships, where that question of what a woman wants in terms of life goals that no longer include getting a "manly man" because she already has one, comes up.

Again, they seem to think that women are unidimensional beings and that they (the men) are God's gift to the world. No woman in their right mind would decide to leave them when they have all of these "high-value man" qualities. If they did, they're a "hoe".

Yeah, maybe. With many exceptions depending on karmic lessons, trauma history, and familial programming. Guys heads are often turned by hourglass figures too. That doesn't form the basis of many relationships.

I agree. There are two almost entirely separate things that we're discussing here. Initial attraction and mate selection as opposed to sustaining a long term relationship. There's very little overlap there although people do select based on what they think they want in a lifelong partner, at least the serious ones do.

I find much of it morally repugnant because I sense an insidious current intended to subvert genuine masculinity in a time where it is in crisis.

I agree with this, but unfortunately it is the only popular "philosophy" that espouses some of the basic truths. People were brainwashed by the Hollywood idea of romance and this is the antidote. Another example of the cure being worse than the disease. We humans always seem to go from one extreme to the other. Hopefully, we here can help each other to find the middle ground.

So in your attempt to "defend women on the forum", you were actually being sexist!

I think this is a feature of most of these progressive liberal positions. The biggest racists are the anti racists (and I mean against the blacks even more than whites). The biggest sexists are the feminists (and I mean against women even more than men).
No disrespect to you Aeneas, just an observation on how even with the best intentions we fall prey to the insidiousness of the woke ideology if we accept even a little bit of it.

By "strong" I mean that in terms of nature or essence, that manifests in the woman standing up for herself, not being a push-over, challenging his assumptions or attitudes at times etc. etc.

This is probably the most attractive characteristic in a woman for me and something I would never compromise on. And funnily enough, it's the exact opposite of what the manosphere teaches men to look for in a woman. A woman needs to be submissive and mellow. I think they're all pansies.

Basically, be a "girly man", for a moment! Oh, the horror!