Hello Friend,

If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.

It will be the most efficient use of your time.

And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.

Thank you for visiting and have a great day!

Unrequited Love?

EyeOnThePrize

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 9, 2019
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
1,827
Age
33
Molding women starts from the beginning. It’s not something you start doing after you’ve started a relationship. At the very beginning, the frame is qualifying/dismissing her based on your standards.

If she doesn’t accept the conditions, then there could be no masculine-feminine dynamic. It would be more like some kind of weird “equal” relationship that most guys settle for.

The mindset is not focused on wins and losses, but rather, reward and punishment. You always win so it’s irrelevant to even think about it. When she acts up, you win because you get to disqualify someone who isn’t compatible with you. Losing an incompatible woman is a win.

Your time and investment is in direct correlation to her efforts. She makes efforts to give to the relationship, you meet her halfway with your efforts. Nothing is ever wasted.

This is how you mold her. You set the frame from the beginning. Lay out the parameters. And reward/punish based on her actions.

If she doesn’t follow your lead then there is no masculine-feminine relationship. It’s a buddy-buddy relationship.

It’s really simple. At the first sign of her not valuing you, you kick her to the curb.

If you really think about it, women are smart. They know how to play the relationship game. Even if a woman loses love for you, it wouldn’t show right away. She might be holding on to you before something better comes along.

So if she actively shows that she doesn’t value you, chances are, her feelings changed a long time ago.

This is where most guys fvck up. They delay the inevitable and end up getting dumped anyway.

That’s why I drop women at the first sign. I don’t need 10 more signs. History has taught me that when a woman acts a certain way, it’s because she already felt that way a long time ago.
jesus i'm good at over-complicating this stuff. the ex used crying out of the gate and i gave her the benefit of the doubt. i thought she was opening up and it was new to her to be so vulnerable, that she was adjusting, but she was using crying to get away with misbehavior. a guilt trip/victim card. there's something to be said about kicking a girl to the curb at the first sign, it keeps her on her toes and it has to be completely ruthless.
 

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,996
Reaction score
5,054
I had my ex over last night.

TLDR: we had sex and i felt great for an hour or two after she left but then i felt weird and violated or something and i'm not sure where that feeling is coming from. has anyone had similar and has found out why?

The relationship had ended over a year ago and it was a weird rocky end where we both felt hurt in our own ways. After the break up we both individually did our own soul searching. I struggled with pot for a bit but I've been living the monk life recently and challenging myself as best as I can to stay sober and find healthy outlets. Recently I found out that so has she.

Anyway she was reaching out every month or two with strange mixed signals talking about meeting up that I thought were breadcrumbs. she had backed out of meeting up to talk about the past even though it was her idea so I sent her a somewhat long email explaining what i thought about different events in the relationship and how i would only consider dating her if she's completely sober and meets me in the middle. i figured she could get what she was looking for in a talk out of that email. i also mentioned how i used a lot of our sex as a sort of crutch to not deal with my own issues. after a couple days she responded with an email almost as long with her own explanations and confessions. it provided a lot of clarity to the situation and showed me what i did that really hurt her that i didn't think much of. she also confessed how hard it is for her to openly communicate among other things, but it was all pretty reasonable and rational.

i responded by texting her that i was impressed by the email but felt we should talk more in person to avoid confusion. she ended up coming over within the hour and we talked about casual things before i escalated and we had sex. she was subtly reluctant but i could tell a part of her wanted it and i capitalized. i actually avoided talking about the past too much because i wanted to conquer her so i stayed present and funny. while the sex was satisfying it wasn't as satisfying as when we gave 100% of each other to the other in the best times of our relationship. she mentioned not to leave marks or finish inside her which is understandable but irked me a bit. she also mentioned how she doesn't want this to be 'a thing' and i told her that she's over thinking it. after sex we laid and talked for a bit again about casual things and i mentioned that we should do this pretty much never since it probably only feeds our sex addictions. she agreed. i said that if we do see each other we should do it outside the bedroom to help foster something more healthy, she again agreed. i saw her out as both of us had other things to get done that day.

for an hour or so i felt great and manly for having had some good sex but after a few hours i started feeling quite crappy. it's now the next morning and i'm still internalizing this feeling and trying to figure out what it means. i think it's unrequited love. i think i was expecting a sort of reciprocation of more depth from her but i sensed her hesitation to do that and so i feel a bit used or something. it's almost like i want her to jump in my arms and be 100% mine again, to commit to me completely like she once did, but i've said and done things long ago that have deeply hurt her feelings so her hesitation is absolutely understandable if she still hasn't forgiven me completely.

i know that love is built slowly so why the hell am i expecting her to jump into my arms? am i trying to avoid forgiving myself or working on myself? why am i even thinking about all this? we all read material that says thinking about relationships is feminine, yet i'm getting older and have thoughts of starting a family. am i using these thoughts of family to avoid working on myself? it's almost like i want to start a family to fill a void, but that doesn't sound like a very healthy reason to start a family. we talk about abundance and unconditional love so i should be simply enjoying her company and letting her go when she doesn't want to commit to me completely. unconditional love would mean not feeling so crappy like this, so i must have had sex with her to try and get something more from her. i don't understand why i want her complete commitment so quickly and so badly. am i identifying with her attraction towards me?

i think it boils down to that i could sense her hesitation or that she hasn't forgiven me completely. i honestly don't want to take her out on a date because i could sense that hesitation from her and it's not a good feeling. i don't want to be around a person that doesn't want to be with me or deep down is still upset with me and i'm not going to try and force things or convince her. it's like the pains of our past together haunt her and keep her from forgiving me and living in the moment. when i try to make things present and fun i can see her reflecting on past events and maybe being fearful of going through more of the same.

i'm torn between reaching out again to apologize about how i've hurt her in the past in an attempt to help her forgive me but something tells me it's not that easy. i could ask her what i can do to help her forgive me but the answer will probably be idk. she may also say that she doesn't hate me or dislike me and is simply apathetic. maybe that's it? that i can't accept that this person is now apathetic towards me?

i want to say something and at the same time want to say nothing at all. i think saying something will come from a place of trying to get her to commit, and that instead the right answer is the ballsy answer, to say and do nothing and let her go.

Maybe she's a PBPD and this is what it feels like on the receiving end? she needs me but hates me? so damn confusing. i'm going to see a shrink to get their take but figured i'd post here and see what you all think.
Hey man. There are a lot of moving parts to what you posted. I like to boil things to their essence.

When you lose or are losing a woman, from an evolutionary standpoint you're losing an opportunity to procreate. Those used to be very expensive losses for cavemen. You know logically that you can and will meet other women, but your hind-brain isn't thinking logically. Mix love into that and you can be all over the map emotionally.

It only makes it worse when you re-open the wound, only to find out maybe she's moving on faster, OR in the case that you move on faster, there's a guilt factor that can come into play (and women are great at exploiting that, part of their evolutionary toolbox).

You felt great immediately after sex because that's how man is supposed to feel. But after the high wore off both your conscious and unconscious mind came to terms with the fact that you might be sharing her with another mate, and either losing her to a competitor or to growing indifference.

All of this is totally normal and you're not a "chump" for thinking/feeling it. The best you can do is minimize this kind of sensation by 100% avoiding contact (that's my prescription anyway). The good news is that you are aware of and addressing what you did and how you felt, and not letting your emotions or ego run wild and take over your logical side. That's not to say you can't feel sad - go ahead - but as that comes and goes always be thinking of what you have to do to move on and be healthy.
 

Epic Days

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2019
Messages
1,884
Reaction score
1,650
Age
39
jesus i'm good at over-complicating this stuff. the ex used crying out of the gate and i gave her the benefit of the doubt. i thought she was opening up and it was new to her to be so vulnerable, that she was adjusting, but she was using crying to get away with misbehavior. a guilt trip/victim card. there's something to be said about kicking a girl to the curb at the first sign, it keeps her on her toes and it has to be completely ruthless.
Or have better women be attracted to a higher value you.
You are going to get what vibes with you.
 

EyeOnThePrize

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 9, 2019
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
1,827
Age
33
@Epic Days @stormrider

I think it only seems ruthless to me because I'm still holding the ex on some kind of pedestal, albeit a small one at this point(I think). From a place of higher value the act of dismissing is a no brainer, it doesn't seem ruthless at all, there's just natural aversion. I think as a man comes from higher and higher value he dismisses more and more either directly or indirectly, eventually even sub consciously. This results in the feeling of the universal symmetry as you've all alluded to.

If the symmetry theory is as I've described it then as a man's value increases he'll naturally be single most of the time since he will only feel attraction to a smaller set of women. Women will raise their vibration to be with him but will be dismissed if they don't sustain it, so he may go through many STRs.

An LTR and starting a family will only come about if the woman can sustain a symmetrical vibration. This will naturally filter out frauds.

So the key is to be of high value and giving, since smug entitlement will only attract the same as you've mentioned storm.

So the world is full of mostly dysfunctional families where men compromised on their value to start one, and a minority of healthy families where the man didn't compromise.

I'm guessing this sounds obvious and boring to you guys but I'm writing to help myself understand and let you all correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:

guru1000

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
5,384
Reaction score
4,400
@EyeOnThePrize

The greater your intent serves beyond yourself, the higher your wavelength. The greater your intent aligns to give value to the world, the higher your wavelength. This is the law of the Universe. To those who don't like this law, then continue to live in self-delusion or take it up with Mother Nature. I didn't create these laws. I only experienced them having been on both sides of the spectrum to truly understand them.

This is a very difficult concept for some. Because they get burned (especially here in the forum) and believe if they don't strip value from others as their default operandi, then they will continue being the victim of being stripped from. It then becomes a Me Vs. You world, and every party is out to serve themself alone to the detriment of everyone else. Thus the creation of ego, the "protective" armor and game to the "battlefield" of the world.

The problem with this paradigm is the Universe will fulfill exactly that desire, men and women who are of the mental origin to be stripped from (but also who desire to strip reciprocally); low value, insecure, broken/damaged, undermining, entitled men and women. Then man bemoans that the world is filled with trash or inauthentic people not even aware that his own contrived identity is what drove such a reality.

Do you know what it feels like to have over 100 friends, and not one with good intent for your well being? I do. I met the worst of the worst and willingly embraced them because I was of the same origin. I was the facilitator and creator of that circumstance.

Only when you come forward in the world in full vulnerability, without your armor, a value-giving intent, zero contrivance, and Fearlessness--CAN you meet people who are of the same origin--and then you will find and form REAL bonafide bonds with both men and women.

I've dated all different types of women. The great ones I was unable to see as great in my previous state because our wavelengths diverged. I attracted, as the rappers, say the "hottest bad bltches," because I too was of the same mental origin. It was only when I changed my intent and went into full vulnerability, did my reality change. I no longer was a value stripper nor desired my next hot bad bltch conquest. I simply existed in my vulnerability and surrended my armored self. I felt no need for armor and recognized armor as a self-contrivance, a fear-based self-created protective mechanism, a Weakness to shield my self from the pain others could potentially bring.

It was a paradigm shift. Instead of entertaining relations with low level value-strippers, all trash and inauthentic women evaporated from my awareness. Almost as if they no longer existed. I could meet one, but not even feel her presence, a natural aversion to that which no longer resonated. I remember going on a date with this girl who was a physical 10 to my previous standard a few months back, and can't remember one word she said. My attention and thoughts were directed elsewhere. I can't even remember how the date ended. I hold on to this memory as it was my realization of my own paradigm shift. Otherwise, complete obliviousness in that encounter. Total amnesia to that which is beneath. And that is exactly what happens when you raise your vibrational state, the people of lower wavelengths cease to exist in your awareness. They exist as shadows in the periphery of your consciousness.

There is no need to fear any man or woman. No need for armor. No need for contrivance or game. Come exactly as you are. There is no failure. He or she either exists in your wavelength or they cease to exist. You will naturally avert that which does not resonate. And if they are a good actor or actress and one day try to capitalize on the value that you willingly and so freely give, then you drop them with zero regard. They vanish like a passing dream once experienced but forgotten completely.

Allow the fearful--the spiritual children--embrace their egos with the illusion of strength. When you transcend to higher wavelengths, you view reality with a different lens and almost feel embarrassed that you too once acted that way.
 

BeExcellent

Master Don Juan
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
4,614
Reaction score
6,452
Age
55
To me this is a thread that is diving deep into everything that meaningfulness of existence IS.

It is this type of thinking and self examination & realization that frees us to bring into reality the greater and higher purpose we are created to embody.

But it all starts with a willingness to trust in one’s self. Release ego. Ego cannot serve you as you actualize.

“The first half of life is devoted to forming a healthy ego...the second half is going inward and letting go of it”

- Carl Jung
 

Epic Days

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2019
Messages
1,884
Reaction score
1,650
Age
39
@Epic Days @stormrider

I think it only seems ruthless to me because I'm still holding the ex on some kind of pedestal, albeit a small one at this point(I think). From a place of higher value the act of dismissing is a no brainer, it doesn't seem ruthless at all, there's just natural aversion. I think as a man comes from higher and higher value he dismisses more and more either directly or indirectly, eventually even sub consciously. This results in the feeling of the universal symmetry as you've all alluded to.

If the symmetry theory is as I've described it then as a man's value increases he'll naturally be single most of the time since he will only feel attraction to a smaller set of women. Women will raise their vibration to be with him but will be dismissed if they don't sustain it, so he may go through many STRs.

An LTR and starting a family will only come about if the woman can sustain a symmetrical vibration. This will naturally filter out frauds.

So the key is to be of high value and giving, since smug entitlement will only attract the same as you've mentioned storm.

So the world is full of mostly dysfunctional families where men compromised on their value to start one, and a minority of healthy families where the man didn't compromise.

I'm guessing this sounds obvious and boring to you guys but I'm writing to help myself understand and let you all correct me if I'm wrong.
And you should post your thoughts.
This thread is actually getting some value. The ying yangs quit mucking it up.
 
Last edited:

Spaz

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
8,441
Reaction score
6,932
Been away for a few days and you guys r playing truant?

@guru1000 seems that u r very brave to answers those bottom feeders but somehow manages to come up with a hundred and one excuses not to debate with me?

Anyhow @BeExcellent, according to Carl Jung what is Ego?

Let's see if a female has more balls then you.
 

guru1000

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
5,384
Reaction score
4,400
Been away for a few days and you guys r playing truant?

@guru1000 seems that u r very brave to answers those bottom feeders but somehow manages to come up with a hundred and one excuses not to debate with me?

Anyhow @BeExcellent, according to Carl Jung what is Ego?

Let's see if a female has more balls then you.
You already lost the argument on ego in the ego thread by your inability to rebut any Actual positions made. You dont get a Round Two. But you are welcome to challenge any post I wrote on ego (its meaning, its application, and its weakness) in this thread, which by the appearance of you, you can't.
 

Spaz

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
8,441
Reaction score
6,932
You already lost the argument on ego in the ego thread by your inability to rebut any Actual positions made. You dont get a Round Two. But you are welcome to challenge any post I wrote on ego in this thread, which by the appearance of you, you can't.
A Bridgestone tire salesman wants to pitch the benefits of using tubeless tires but yet doesn't want to talk abt tires that uses tubes.

Sounds like he doesn't know tires at all.

I think I'll use @BeExcellent to spur the debate on egoless since u r too cowardly.
 

guru1000

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
5,384
Reaction score
4,400
A Bridgestone tire salesman wants to pitch the benefits of using tubeless tires but yet doesn't want to talk abt tires that uses tubes.

Sounds like he doesn't know tires at all.

I think I'll use @BeExcellent to spur the debate on egoless since u r too cowardly.
You assume you have a position TO debate. You don't. You just want attention. Instead you should pay attention.
 

Spaz

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
8,441
Reaction score
6,932
You assume you have a position TO debate. You don't. You just want attention. Instead you should pay attention.
Seem u r devoid of shame or perhaps so shamed that u keep using the same excuses rather then just state once and for all what is Ego.

Either way it doesn't matter now.

You're proved beyond reasonable doubt that u r indeed a coward who despite being given multiple opportunities by me to state what is Ego, is still refusing to do so.

Let's see how BeExcellent responds, this should be fun.

See, guru, I'm already giving you face, be grateful and say thank you to Spaz now.
 

guru1000

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
5,384
Reaction score
4,400
@ Spaz your words only demonstrate the fragility of your ego. They don't even originate from YOU, your vulnerable self. They instead are operative words intended to make you appear tough, but does a truly tough man need tough words?

Think about that for moment.

Does the Universe walk around saying, "Hey I am the Universe, and I'm giving you face so be grateful for my presence and you are all cowards because you can't do what I say?" LOL.

Those words demonstrate the fragility of the speaker, not his power. Power is silent as it requires no affirmation outside of itself. << Read that again. Powerful if you understand the essence of that statement.

When you reach a state of true vulnerability, of true power, all the words in your quote appear faux and contrived, a vehicle of protection, of frailty, a man with a chip on his shoulder as he STILL has something to prove to everyone, and to himself. So if you wish to truly understand the detriment of an overreactive ego, start by reading your own words and study the fear motivations prompting the faux persona you project to the forum.

I come to you straight. You come to me in armor. But do you need armor if you were not threatened?

You can only be triumphant once you stop trying to be. Thanks for the contributions here though. They have served as the perfect vehicle to demonstrate the frailty of the ego armor which has always been my position.
 

Epic Days

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2019
Messages
1,884
Reaction score
1,650
Age
39
There are dead monks who had no “ego”. In the context of what is being spoken, it is being the effect and little to do with cause. A man must be cause. Or he doesn’t accept the truth that all that happens to him, is his cause. Until he masters this thought, he is relegated to base impulses.

if a man have no “ego” as it is being called, His drive towards optimum survival is relegated to an opposing opposite polarity. Dead monk. Dead monks serve no one. Only hisself.

a hard charge at life requires the correct impetus. Now if one says, be the one who serves, then this is more correct. Jung (pronounced “young”), is combining many things with “ego” (Id), he misrepresents identity.

Try again.
 

Spaz

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
8,441
Reaction score
6,932
@ Spaz your words only demonstrate the fragility of your ego. They don't even originate from YOU, your vulnerable self. They instead are operative words intended to make you appear tough, but does a truly tough man need tough words?

Think about that for moment.

Does the Universe walk around saying, "Hey I am the Universe, and I'm giving you face so be grateful for my presence and you are all cowards because you can't do what I say?" LOL.

Those words demonstrate the fragility of the speaker, not his power. Power is silent as it requires no affirmation outside of itself. << Read that again. Powerful if you understand the essence of that statement.

When you reach a state of true vulnerability, of true power, all the words in your quote appear faux and contrived, a vehicle of protection, of frailty, a man with a chip on his shoulder as he STILL has something to prove to everyone, and to himself. So if you wish to truly understand the detriment of an overreactive ego, start by reading your own words and study the fear motivations prompting the faux persona you project to the forum.

I come to you straight. You come to me in armor. But do you need armor if you were not threatened?

You can only be triumphant once you stop trying to be. Thanks for the contributions here though. They have served as the perfect vehicle to demonstrate the frailty of the ego armor which has always been my position.
So u r still desperately trying to worm ur way out debating ur egolessness by refusing to state what Ego is.

Right now, in my eyes, u r just a nonentity that's even managed to lower himself even further.

Stop embarrassing urself, I'll wait for BE response.

At least for now you can hide behind her skirt.
 

guru1000

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
5,384
Reaction score
4,400
There are dead monks who had no “ego”. In the context of what is being spoken, it is being the effect and little to do with cause. A man must be cause. Or he doesn’t accept the truth that all that happens to him, is his cause. Until he masters this thought, he is relegated to base impulses.

if a man have no “ego” as it is being called, His drive towards optimum survival is relegated to an opposing opposite polarity. Dead monk. Dead monks serve no one. Only hisself.

a hard charge at life requires the correct impetus. Now if one says, be the one who serves, then this is more correct. Jung (pronounced “young”), is combining many things with “ego” (Id), he misrepresents identity.

Try again.
In this thread, I bifurcated identity into two distinct I's: the ego covering and the vulnerable self.

You state or infer that without ego, a person's drive toward optimal survival is not present. So by default then, your diametric claim is the vulnerable self has no drive toward optimal survival? This is false. The vulnerable self has a greater drive toward optimum corporeal survival than the ego, but also possesses a much grander purpose with its roots in spiritual growth, not limited ONLY by self-serving corporeal needs but perpetuating its wholeness upon all including itself and its own corporeal survival to continue to do that. The vulnerable self operates by love with self-love as its drive toward excellence, not for personal relevance, but rather to be of relevant use to all IT connects with.

TLTR: I cannot lift you if I am not lifted.
 

BeExcellent

Master Don Juan
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
4,614
Reaction score
6,452
Age
55
On way out for drinks with the man. I will respond in the morning.

Cheers
 
U

user43770

Guest
In this thread, I bifurcated identity into two distinct I's: the ego covering and the vulnerable self.

You state or infer that without ego, a person's drive toward optimal survival is not present. So by default then, your diametric claim is the vulnerable self has no drive toward optimal survival? This is false. The vulnerable self has a greater drive toward optimum corporeal survival than the ego, but also possesses a much grander purpose with its roots in spiritual growth, not limited ONLY by self-serving corporeal needs but perpetuating its wholeness upon all including itself and its own corporeal survival to continue to do that. The vulnerable self operates by love with self-love as its drive toward excellence, not for personal relevance, but rather to be of relevant use to all IT connects with.

TLTR: I cannot lift you if I am not lifted.
Perfect example of????

What the fvck are you even talking about?
 
Top