self respect/high standards vs abundance mindset

[MacAvoy]

First off, I didn't want to hijack the intimacy thread but LovelyLady made some points that hit home & got me thinking along with a recent discussion I had with guru about abundance mindset. To start off I've had women that I was in an LTR with tell me that I was disrespecting myself & my body because of the way I'll sleep with women that I'm not involved with.

I don't come across this often but its usually with women of high character & morals.

So here are a few things that lovely said:

Often I see the same men who say they want a quality, intimate relationship/woman put time and energy into women/relationships without this. I know there is the philosophy here of just sleeping with the woman in front of you until the "bigger, better deal" woman comes along. But if you truly value a relationship of quality - how is it you are willing to lower your self in giving your self to a person that is less than what you say you believe you are worthy of?

If you truly require a woman who can truly meet you as an equal mature quality feminine counterpart - then I do not understand why there is all this settling going on.

If a person truly is comfortable "being alone" than he/she is not giving/wasting his time in relationships that do not satisfy his entire frame.

Is that high quality Woman you want going to be attracted to your low quality woman frame? No. She is going to be repulsed by it. She won't settle for second best in her Man - and she is not going to want a man who doesn't command respect for his wants and needs being met either.

The part that got me at first was the lowering of the standards jab. My first thought was that this is what makes women different from men, how men are able to separate sex from intimacy and relationships.

However she makes a good point in bold. However my only rebuttle would be for the joy of sex and again that instictual difference.

As for her last statement about a high quality women being repulsed by it, I think its just the opposite, it goes to the A women would rather share a successful man than be straddled to a faithful loser. These high quality women obviously got into relationships with me, now mind you, they had no idea how many women I've been with but they certainly know I've been around the block more than once. However its only become an issue when things get ugly between us.

Then on the other side of the fence is guru's abundance mentality.

For one with an Abundance Mentality to settle down, he must meet an exceptional women that is many leagues ahead of his harem. In other words, I must associate an enormous amount of pleasure to find ONE to surrender the pleasure I recieve from dating many.

Awareness of this fact is what separates the Naive AFC from the Genuine DJ.

I think your better off keeping your harem around until that one that is leagues ahead of everyone else appears.

This is the GOAL.

How many AFC"S do we know that have settled down due to their scarcity mentality. They have settled down only because ANY woman who accepted them brought them more pleasure than being SCARCE.

The best time to settle down is when one is in ABUNDANCE. This will GUARANTEE the one you CHOOSE to be leagues ahead of the harem. This is the correct pretense for true compatibility. Remember one with true abundance will usually continue that mindset into an LTR. He recognizes his ability to attain with ease.

In the end, I think I answered my own question but would still like your thoughts. I guess what makes me question it is

however believe that if you want to create an intimate bond with a quality woman (or as a woman want a relationship with a high quality man)- then you have to be one yourself.

The true foundation of being one is because you respect your self. You genuinely recognize your real value. The byproduct is that you do attract higher quality people because the entire energy of your life resonates at that frequency.

If you lower the bar and choose to settle for less, you will attract less. A woman of high character with a great capacity for love and intimacy is not going to give herself to a man who does not guard his own value - and therefore cannot recognize and appreciate her complimentary value.

If a man compromises in the key area of his primary romantic relationship - who he chooses to be intimate with - what other areas is there lack of strength and integrity in?

ps sorry for the super long post but I wanted to get their quotes in there.

 

[Interceptor]

Mac,
I think some of these women just cannot see anything from a man's perspective.
Some women feel very vulnerable with sex, most men feel very powerful.

So it stands to reason that many women feel they have something to lose if they have sex, but most men feel they always have something to gain.

It appears they may be using 'woman rules' for a Man, and they dont always apply.

(with regards to Lovely Lady in particular, she has her own standards of what SHE wants in a romantic relationship, and it is mostly within the context of a fulfilling, monogamous romantic relationship. If a man is used to only FB/ONS situations, yet desires a woman who doesnt have those same values, then she will not be accomodating to that man. No matter how much he desires her. I believe that is what LL is trying to get across. We attract that which we are. )

Sure, many women can disassociate themselves from being initmate with a sexual partner, and simply enjoy 'disconnected' sex.
Most men CAN easily disconnect any feelings and have sex anyway.
And no time should these men feel they are 'disrespecting' themselves by doing something that is natural for them. (assuming the context, age, consent, etc)

There is nothing wrong or dirty about sex, nothing to be ashamed about.
But the circumstances surrounding the event may be worth questioning IF you have a certain set of Values.



If a man is single, he can do whatever the hell he pleases. As long as he doesnt hurt anyone.
Sure, we can start to look at character and moral judgements.
But if he's not violating social norms, putting anyone in danger or in extremely compromising positions, then no harm done...
he's not disrespecting himself, and not the consensual partner either.

If a woman NEEDs to have an intimate bond with a man to have sex with him, thats her perogative, and she is entitled to feel that way.
But to dictate HER position and condemn another for not following her 'rules' is not proper.


A man can have a great deal with Self Respect and have sex with a woman.
What matters is the circumstances surrounding the event.
For example, having sex with a married woman, some people feel is improper.
A man can have high standards and meet a good woman and have sex with her too.
If the attracton is mutual, and the emotional maturity is elevated, both can still enjoy it.

If a man has abundance mindset, he feels he will always have an option available. Thus, not making him operate out of fear and scarcity.
He's not hurting anyone.
He respects himself. He may not have high standards though.
But thats ok, hes not disresepcting himself or anyone else.
If both partners are single, consensual, and of legal age , I dont see how they are 'disrespecting' themselves.
One can enjoy sex with someone and not want to marry them and spend their life together forever.



There's a difference between just wanting to have sex, and be sexually satisfied, and wanting an exclusive , monogamous LTR, and be fulfilled intimately , emotionally, and with a steady companion.
The difference is the length of time.
And whether or not there is genuine love and affection.

 

[Tekniq]

Great post both of you guys, repped.

 

[Luthor Rex]

If a person truly is comfortable "being alone" than he/she is not giving/wasting his time in relationships that do not satisfy his entire frame.

This is where I really have issue with LL's comments.

Regarding myself, I would say I can be rather hermit-like so not only am I comfortable with myself but sometimes I actively seek time alone. That's what makes me an 'introvert' by psychological standards.

But I realize that most people are not like that. Most people would rather have so-so friends than no friends at all. Most people would lose their minds or have an existential crisis if placed in solitary confinement for too long. Most people will accept mediocrity rather than a life alone.

Basically, the kind of mental fortitude LL thinks is required is outside of the abilities of most human beings. Maybe that's the way she meant it, but I doubt a stoic sage lover is what LL is looking for.

 

[Interceptor]

Most people aren't truly comfortable being alone.
In fact, most people are never alone, and waste their valueable time with unsatisfying relationships.
I think that's what LL is trying to address here.

If youre really fine with being alone, you're just not going to let some loser waste your time, thats all.
And even if the person is 'nice' , deep down inside youre just not going to feel fulfilled. Sometimes the loneliest place in the world is being in an unsatisfying relationship

 

[squirrels]

I've had sex with many women, but have never truly been "intimate" with any of them. You're right that it has a lot to do with men's ability to separate sexuality from intimacy.

What LovelyLady said was right...at least in my experience. I can't allow myself to be "boyfriended" by a girl who doesn't satisfy my "entire frame", who doesn't click with me on all levels. Which is a real shame, because I would really LIKE to try the boyfriend/girlfriend thing. I just have NOT found a woman I could stand being with that much, that often.

But what LL doesn't realize is, as you said, men can have sex without feeling any "romantic" connection.

It got to a point, for a long time, where I just couldn't get sexual with women. I came off a string of experiences where I was getting sexual with women and they AUTOMATICALLY assumed intimacy from that. I ended up breaking a handful of hearts, and I'm just not ruthless enough to knowingly make women cry like that.

I can't stand women who don't enjoy sex for its own sake. Hard-to-get games are one thing...women using sex to try to leverage intimacy out of a man, women withholding sex to try to leverage intimacy out of a man, women using sex to guilt-trip men...that's gotta be the closest thing to RAPE/taking advantage that a woman can do to a man. I cannot STAND a woman who tries to force intimacy on me.

Anyway, back to my POINT...Guru1000 is also very much correct...and if women thought about it, they would APPRECIATE a man who chooses to spend time with them when women are abundant in his life. Think about it...which is more flattering? The guy who only has YOU in his life and no options who's with you because you were the first girl that came along and he was too lazy/insecure to explore any other options? Or the guy who has ten beautiful women in his life, begging for his attention, and STILL takes time away from all of them because he would rather be with YOU? Think about how "The Game" ends, when Neil Strauss confesses his PUA lifestyle and how one girl still occupied his mind more than any of them.

That's where LL's logic breaks down...she assumes sex = commitment. This is the 21st century. With the advent of the latex condom, there's no longer a severe risk of pregnancy or even serious STD transmission. Sexual contact is no longer a commitment to intimacy. Why can't women just get over themselves and enjoy a good sport-f*ck?

We're going through a backlash now from the "sexual revolution". I dunno if it was Paris Hilton's sex tape, or Britney flashing her hoo-hoo getting out cars, or maybe I'm just getting older, but the ladies are tightening up again, in the name of "self-respect". And the funny thing is...so are the men!

Why?? Ego-pressure like LL's statement above, pretty much calling men out who sleep with multiple women as "slvts" who by sleeping around, admit that they aren't confident enough in themselves to settle down with that ONE girl they REALLY want. It's the same thing Gunwitch talks about with beta-males, only in reverse. The sexual revolution of the early 00s separated out the alpha-females (the sexually desirable ones) from the beta-females, and the beta-females are trying their damnedest to knock the alphas down a notch socially by turning their sexuality into a negative.

There's a difference between guys who sleep around because they're "settling" and guys who sleep around because they just like p***y.

The guys who just like p***y, they're not settling for ANYTHING, because they're not giving up their boyfriend-cherry to some random girl...it's just sex. And it DOES take a superb specimen of the female gender to get THAT kind of man to settle down.

 

[Interceptor]

Actually, I dont think LL 's 'logic' has broken down, IF you have read her post and understood that it is based on the context of a Man seeking an intimate, exclusive LTR with a 'quality' woman.


She wonders if a Man is SERIOUS and making an Effort to connect and partner with a quality woman, with intimacy and deep bonding, why is he sharing those things with other women who wont appreciate them?

While I dont know her beliefs on men who just like p***y, and sleep around with multiple partners, I dont believe she was addressing that issue.

I think what she's really talking about is guys who are treating the 'quality' woman as a 'sport fvck' and guys who are forcing the relationship with a woman who doesnt really know HOW to be affectionate, loving and caring to a Man.

I do believe that as a Woman, LL does place more emotional emphasis on the physical intimacy part, in that she may believe that sexual intimacy is sacred, and not to be just given out to anyone.

But she is a lady, and not a man, so that may be just her point of view.

Men can emotionally detach to a much greater degree in order to satisfy sexual desire. This may be alien to some women, whom place so much more of a meaning on sexual intimacy.

Basically, a guy may not necessarily 'settle' when it comes down to sexual desires. If, he can keep his emotions in control, and not become attached to every one of his 'conquests'.

I also believe that part of LL's curiosity is about what she calls 'the high quality Man's frame', and she has wondered why a man of supposed 'high quality' will either 1) try to force a relationship with an obviously incompatible woman or 2) treat a 'quality' woman as just another conquest, and 3 ) if the supposed high quality man actually believes , as she may, that physical intimacy should not be freely given to just any one.

Re reading her quote, I think she's thinking aloud on the subject on why would a supposed 'quality' man of high character, NOT place such value on that kind of deep intimacy, and if HE doesn't then SHE will wonder what other areas does this man also have these same sets of (seemingly Inconguent) values.

i e Man: (very suavely) "I place HIGH value on intimacy, emotional AND physical.I dont just give it away to anybody. Only to a 'special' lady...."

Woman: "Ok...but, the other day your friends told me about this romp with a threesome you picked up at Cancun during spring break. He told me how you said how great it was and that you would never see them again and yada yada. They shared all the details. So...umm...those were ALL 'special' ladies to you?"

Man: "Uh..ummmm....well...let me explain...":nervous:

(If she values it highly (and it is perfectly within her right to do so, whether we actually agree or not) then it makes sense for her to want a man who also shares the same Values as her.)




So , doesnt that woman have at least some reason to believe that the guy may not really be sincere? He may not have strong integrity if he SAYS one thing, but in actuality DOES another.
Women have every right to not give themselves to a guy whom doesnt meet their standards regarding 'character', we have no right to take that away from them. It's their choice, and their values.


She may believe, that the quality man is looking for something higher and deeper, and much more meaningful, so she may be wondering aloud, why waste one's precious resources on someone not at the same level as that quality high character man.

Which when you think about it really makes you think.

DOES a high quality man of high character REALLY value physical intimacy to the degree that he isnt just going to give it to some random chick?

And really, have we as Men here, REALLY DEFINED the Quality man of High Character?

Or perhaps, as a lot of guys do, just say "Fvck it, Im doing what I want!!! Fvck this 'character' sh*t!!!"


I think most men are down for sex without commitment, in general.
But does that mean that we're slaves to our desires?
I mean, when DO we 'turn down' some hot sex, or easy sex?

Have we really defined those values for ourselves?

Im not going to blame some guy who turns down some sex if the REASON is really VALID
and Im not going to lie, having gotten a woman into your bed, and then not pulling the trigger does raise suspicion in me. Sorry...

I mean, a Man is A MAN at the end of the day...
not an animal.


But isnt the man of quality and character going to value his resources?
I certainly believe so.

Is having easy sex, pursuing 'easy' women (LOL! God Bless them!!!! ) is that 'low character'???

Or is that just being a Man?

I mean, I doubt the guys on here , in this forum, are going to pull some stupid sh*t just to get some, but in what areas would we demonstrate a LACK of Integrity? Which is what I think LL was referring to.


I believe that she feels that the quality man of character is NOT going to give away his resources, and does place high value on physical intimacy.
In that, he will not pursure the 'easy lay' (not that there's anything wrong with that at all), but is wanting MORE, and IF , as LL was stating the context, the quality man is Sincere in his desire to really find and connect with the high quality Woman.

Hell, I think we have even more questions to look at than before...

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear MacAvoy,
Love your posts,but really as a DJ conceeding the moral high ground to Ladies with traditional values is a bit defeatist...We have just as much right to our own standards as they to theirs...All to often the garb of moral righteousness clothes and disguises a flagging libido....

 

[Maxtro]

Very interesting thread and lots of very good posts.

The abundance mindset is very important in becoming a quality man. It doesn't matter that a guy can get as many women as he desires into bed. What really matters is that he truly believes that he can. I think that is what Lovely Lady is talking. A guy who can have sex with whomever he wants but chooses not to.

I completely agree with what guru said

For one with an Abundance Mentality to settle down, he must meet an exceptional women that is many leagues ahead of his harem. In other words, I must associate an enormous amount of pleasure to find ONE to surrender the pleasure I recieve from dating many.

Awareness of this fact is what separates the Naive AFC from the Genuine DJ.

Once he finds the great girl then he can focus on her and forget about the other women.

Think about it...which is more flattering? The guy who only has YOU in his life and no options who's with you because you were the first girl that came along and he was too lazy/insecure to explore any other options? Or the guy who has ten beautiful women in his life, begging for his attention, and STILL takes time away from all of them because he would rather be with YOU?

Very good point. It's all about scarcity versus abundance. I know I would want to date somebody who has options and choses me instead of only going out with me because I'm her only option.

As for having high standards. I don't think a person with low standards is truly living in abundance. If you have sex with a lot of fat girls, like getting laid everyday but want to have sex with hot girls but can't, they are not living in abundance. You are only in abundance if you are truly satisfied.

 

[LovelyLady]

Interceptor is spot-on with what he has said.

I think it would behoove some of you who are making assumptions about what I meant, to visit http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=144038 . I address the frames of intimacy (with the focus of the physical manifestation of sex as being the most relevant for discussion due to the nature of Sosuave in post #32). (And a note to Squirrels: I also address the commitment for sex as trade/barter in that thread too).

And this thread http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=144189 which is where the quote MacAvoy sites above. Where I addressed the issue of the men desiring intimacy in LTR and the perceived lack of quality women.

As I understood it, some of the men were saying they want genuinely intimate relationships built on mutual trust, but do not have that.

My response is you would not want to invest your time (which is in essence your life) with, say a woman who hates oral, anal - or whatever else pleasures you. You say you set a frame that the woman you are with knows you will drop her like a hot potato if she doesn't meet those needs of yours - respects those needs of yours - makes an effort to meet those physical needs - (and of course, being the hotblooded men we girls love you for :flowers: also want and know how to meet our sexual desires as well).

Where I draw a question mark is why are you Don Juans (who are the top echelon of men - the "quality men")- not also requiring that your wants and needs for genuine intimacy also be fulfilled by the women in your lives?

I am encouraging you to consider that the woman capable of meeting your needs will not want to partner with you if you do not value your self enough to require this from her/the relationship.

It is like working out at the gym. If you are capable of lifting 50 pounds, but the gym you're at only goes to 40 - you won't want to go to that gym, right? (How am I doing trying to translate this into Manspeak? ) Well, a woman with a great capacity for truly loving you and meeting you fully conscious with intimacy - physically, emotionally, intellectually spiritually - that "quality woman' - The one that is your equal of being in the top echelon of women - is not going to be drawn to your frame that does not expect the best in all areas from her. If you do not make a requirement of full performance in all areas - you are like the 40 pound gym... why bother when you know you can find a 50 - 60 and even 70 pound gym to challenge you to grow.

So, I urge you to consider - what challenges the woman who is quality? What frame are you offering her?

While I agree that the man sets the frame, the frame must be something that is designed to produce what you want for yourself as a man: and if that honestly is a fulfilling intimate realtionship with a "quality" woman, then are your life/frame/expectations in alignment/congruent with it?

See, quality women have a variety of options just like you do.

And it isn't limited to just more quantity of the "low quality/beta males"- it is also more opportunities to connect with other 'Alpha Males' in addition to you. She most likely only dates men who have options - this phenomena is not new to her - she assumes you have options just as she does. The issue is not that you are motivated to be with the man out of fear of losing him to other options - but rather you are motivated to be with him because you genuinely care for/love him. the motive is love, respect/establishing/creating intimacy. The motive is lovebased - not fearbased.

What that top notch lady you are hoping to connect with wants is the Alpha Man who sets himself apart even amongst his "brothers" - his fellow Alphas, so to speak. She isn't just looking for [I]A[/I] Alpha Male - She is looking for Her Alpha Male.


A woman who is capable of giving and receiving love at the level of intimacy desired by many of you - wants a man who has this as part of his frame - requires it. That is the extra edge.

Will he express this requirement in the same way a woman does - of course not. He will create that frame in his marvelously masculine way - but he will require it because he values a romantic relationship that adresses all his - and his partner's - needs.



...

FYI my moral beliefs regarding ONS, f-buddy, FWB relationships I feel the same in all four areas of relating with people:

To me it is immoral to share your intellectual self in a way that does not honor your true self.

To me it is immoral to share your emotional self in a way that does not honor your true self.

To me it is immoral to share your spiritual self in a way that does not honor your true self.

To me it is immoral to share your physical self in a way that does not honor your true self.

If ONS, F-buddy, and FWB are in alignment with your true self then I would say you are acting in a moral way - providing there is no exploitation of the other person.

 

[Luthor Rex]

Where I draw a question mark is why are you Don Juans (who are the top echelon of men - the "quality men")- not also requiring that your wants and needs for genuine intimacy also be fulfilled by the women in your lives?

Because women, as a group, either cannot offer such a thing, or do not care to. I think this is why most men settle for less: if they don't then they will end up alone, and that's a fact. Most men aren't hermits, but most modern women are soulless husks; thus the conundrum arises of either making the best of a bad situation or ending up with nothing at all.

How is any of this such a shock that the question "why" even need be asked?

Sorry, LL, but you're singing a song of pirate ships and faerie tails. This **** just ain't real, I am very sure that both of the women who could offer "genuine intimacy" are off the market.

 

[LovelyLady]

Quote LL: Where I draw a question mark is why are you Don Juans (who are the top echelon of men - the "quality men")- not also requiring that your wants and needs for genuine intimacy also be fulfilled by the women in your lives?

Quote Luthor Rex: Because women, as a group, either cannot offer such a thing, or do not care to. I think this is why most men settle for less: if they don't then they will end up alone, and that's a fact. Most men aren't hermits, but most modern women are soulless husks; thus the conundrum arises of either making the best of a bad situation or ending up with nothing at all.

So am I to understand that because there are women like this ("low quality" just to define the phenomena) you have these "low quality" women, in essence, determine your frame and your expectations for your romantic encounters /relationships?

Additionally, do you think that your belief system about women is a belief system a quality woman could thrive under?

Do you think she would be attracted to a man who does not actually like or respect women - but as a class ("group") holds them in contempt? Do you think she would want to be vulnerable and co-create an intimate relationship with a man who sees women as incapable of intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and physical depth/growth/performance?

Do you think that belief about women and that expectation of a woman would appeal to the quality woman?

Do you think she would be comfortable trusting the sharing of her self with a man who has this as his belief system/frame in relating to women?

Are you attracted to women who subscribe to the belief that men are a**h**** void of any feelings and are completely incapable of doing anything more than mindlessly f***** any hole they can find?


****

... And who says anything is wrong with liking pirates? I happen to be attracted to a rogue and a scoundrel (and those are only a few of his fine qualities LOL) - I find no flaw in that!

 

[squirrels]

Sometimes you just have to lift the 40s until you find a gym that has 50s. And when you can't make it to the gym, you do push-ups. But it doesn't mean you just STOP working out until you can find a weight suitable to you, or your muscles will atrophy and you'll be back down at those little 5-lb weights they use in the step-aerobics classes.

 

[Luthor Rex]

So am I to understand that because there are women like this ("low quality" just to define the phenomena) you have these "low quality" women, in essence, determine your frame and your expectations for your romantic encounters /relationships?

Reality exists independant of our wishes and desires. I may wish all day that our culture would encourage women to grow intellecutally and spiritually, but I have no control over that actually happening. I have exactly zero control over the fact that 90%+ of women are soulless husks, because human 'normal' is broken. Most people embrace mediocraty, and again I have no power over it.

Additionally, do you think that your belief system about women is a belief system a quality woman could thrive under?

I don't think there is any way I could *know* unless I had relations with many 'quality' women.

Do you think she would be attracted to a man who does not actually like or respect women - but as a class ("group") holds them in contempt?

You missunderstand, I'm not a misogynist, I'm a misanthrope. If she loves Dr. House, then she'd love me.

Do you think she would want to be vulnerable and co-create an intimate relationship with a man who sees women as incapable of intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and physical depth/growth/performance?

I believe Dominique Francon did...

Are you attracted to women who subscribe to the belief that men are a**h**** void of any feelings and are completely incapable of doing anything more than mindlessly f***** any hole they can find?

That seems to be a pretty fair estimate of the general male population. There are a good number of posters on this forum who not only express this view of men, but also promote it as a good thing. If you read enough posts I'm sure you'll notice them.

... And who says anything is wrong with liking pirates? I happen to be attracted to a rogue and a scoundrel (and those are only a few of his fine qualities LOL) - I find no flaw in that!

I prefer faeries, with their wings and dust and hot little outfits...

 

[guru1000]

I have a lot of respect for what LovelyLady states. If more women thought like her, there would be a larger pool of quality women to choose from.

However, Men and Women are wired completely different. As Interceptor pointed out, what a Woman suggests is not necessarily what she is attracted to nor is it the same standard to hold a Man to.

There are differences in Quality between a Man and Woman. As Men, we are wired to be the Hunter, Provider, Provisioner, Supporter and Rock. Women are wired to be caretakers, show warmth, commitment, innocence and purity. After all who wears a WHITE dress in the wedding. What does White really symbolize ??

Throughout history, wars have been fought for the luxuries we have today. Just because we are not primitive beings with blood on our hands today does not change the fact of the wars we fought to get here. Let us not forget that. For this reason and this reason alone, there is quite a difference of what is expected from a Man and Woman.

The double standard that is placed in society is there for a reason. If a woman sleeps around, she is a "SL*T". If a Man does, he is a Stallion. Men are not held to the standards of innocence and purity. We are held to quite the opposite; to get our hands dirty and provide.

A good Quality Man constitutes a good provider, provisioner and hunter. A Good Quality woman constitutes warmth, innocence and purity.

We as Men, have to be very selective of who we CHOOSE to HUNT for. After all, if we are willing to risk our lives for our family's future and well being, we want to be 100% certain this is a Woman to provide for.

The Abundance Mentality is a MUST for men. Without options, we settle. With options, we CHOOSE. That is the only difference that matters.

Yes, a Quality Woman will be attracted to the traits of a Quality Man. These traits do not include innocence or purity but rather providing and supporting the future well being of the household.

 

[MacAvoy]

i e Man: (very suavely) "I place HIGH value on intimacy, emotional AND physical.I dont just give it away to anybody. Only to a 'special' lady...."

Woman: "Ok...but, the other day your friends told me about this romp with a threesome you picked up at Cancun during spring break. He told me how you said how great it was and that you would never see them again and yada yada. They shared all the details. So...umm...those were ALL 'special' ladies to you?"

Man: "Uh..ummmm....well...let me explain...":nervous:

This is where I think the wise man will know not to listen to this women but go by her actions. As I stated above, these 'high quality women' may have said something about self respect blah blah blah but at the end of the day, they still opened their legs and hearts to me.

This goes back to being the prize. It shows you are desirable and women will naturally compete with other women for something that is desirable. Guaranteed they will say something about it but at the end of the day, they are still giving out the pvssy.

DOES a high quality man of high character REALLY value physical intimacy to the degree that he isnt just going to give it to some random chick?

Exactly, just because I like to blow my load, doesn't mean I don't value intimacy, I save the intimacy for women that I care about. I think that is the underlying difference. Its the way we perceive things, women perceive it one as its their body but for men its the emotional aspect that we value. Kinda ironic how its opposite there. To be fair, women tie the two together and value both.

I've got a question for LL and all the women out there because I can't honestly think of a single man that fits your mold of a high quality man. Every desirable man that I know of, doesn't save himself for the right women, in fact the only people that do that end up being 40 yr old virgins that women are not attracted to.

This goes to the whole women will say one thing but do something entirely different.



On a totally different note:

Im not going to blame some guy who turns down some sex if the REASON is really VALID and Im not going to lie, having gotten a woman into your bed, and then not pulling the trigger does raise suspicion in me. Sorry...

I don't understand this and maybe this is where I'm a bit more about quality. This past week, I went over for a steak dinner at one of my long standing FB's house and I spent the night. However I didn't do the deed, I actually had no interest. So why does that raise suspicion if I sleep in her bed but don't pull the trigger?

edit1 for LL:My point was I don't know any high quality men that don't sleep around. Do you?

edit2

Yes I do know quality men. Of course they have sex, but they do not sleep around indiscriminately.

Thats because they sleep around descretely.

 

[LovelyLady]

Originally Posted by LovelyLady: Do you think she would want to be vulnerable and co-create an intimate relationship with a man who sees women as incapable of intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and physical depth/growth/performance?

Luthor Rex said: I believe Dominique Francon did...

Luthor Rex, I assume you are referring to Peter Keating?

I think Peter Keating represents everything in the world that is not worthy of the best of Dominique. She believes noone can measure up to her ideals and decides to immerse herself in the "truth" of that belief by pairing herself with an unworthy man.

Roark symobolizes "the best self" but she thinks he will be ruined by the mediocrity of the World.

Roark holds his frame of excellence and eventually Dominique grows to own her self-value and not allow other's actions to determine her beliefs and values.

It is then she is able to trust her self, trust his strength, and give herself to his "frame" so to speak. But note: Roark did not alter his frame to suit her.

Luthor in post 19 you say "I think Roark was pretty contemtpuous of most people, and didn't beleive they could grow..."

Actually, Roark didn't think of people that much at all. He had his own life mission/vision and either the people he associated with resonated at his level or he had little to do with them. He remained relatively unaffected by the "low quality" people around him. Rand makes it clear to remain steadfast in your belief in your self does not mean you are void of passion - but rather that it frees up enormous energy and passion within you to produce the life and relationships that are truly worthy of you.


*********
MacAvoy writes: "I've got a question for LL and all the women out there because I can't honestly think of a single man that fits your mold of a high quality man. Every desirable man that I know of, doesn't save himself for the right women, in fact the only people that do that end up being 40 yr old virgins that women are not attracted to."

I'm sorry, MacAvoy, but I am not understanding what the question is?

Oh okay...re: "edit1 for LL:My point was I don't know any high quality men that don't sleep around. Do you?"

Yes I do know quality men. Of course they have sex, but they do not sleep around indiscriminately. - and additionally - quality men who have a desire to have intimacy in their relationships with the women they are with.

...

Guru, I really don't know how to address you any more clearly than I have regarding the context of what I have written. I am not talking about a virginal status; a status of purity. I am not promoting abstinence - this is not the content of my sharing. Also,I do not mean to minimize the gift of "providing and supporting the future well being of the household"
but that does not automatically equate to a man putting importance on the presence of genuine intimacy.


I am talking about actions being in congruence with stated desires. If you DESIRE a genuine intimate relationship with a woman that is, if you will, an "Alpha Female" in the best sense of the word, then you must supply her with a framework she is willing to yield to.

I do believe many of you Don Juans are encountering high quality women - but they will not trust and reveal themselves to you if you do not set a frame that they feel their best self will be safe and honored in.

Perhaps you do not understand that high quality women are not always appreciated for the gifts they bring to a relationship - so they will not always let a man know upfront how deeply they are able to give love until they know what kind of a man they are dealing with. Many, many men cannot handle an intelligent woman. Many, many men cannot handle the spiritually awake woman. Many, many men cannot handle the full sexual energy of a passionate woman.

If you want a good woman, you must be at least her equal - if not her better. And that means not being apologetic, embarressed, or compromising in your frame that you set as the man in your relationships/your lives. If you have truly decided you really want a genuinely intimate relationship - then it takes decisions and actions to produce that frame.

To say there are no quality women is incorrect. To fault the woman for not being attracted to a frame that clearly exhibits that you are actually attracted to, give your self to women that are clearly unworthy does not build attraction. It does not inspire a sense of competition in us. It may repulse us, it may annoy us, It may disappoint us, it may bewilder us, it may even inspire pity for you in some women, but it does not inspire respect and love; it does not inspire us to want to give our best selves to you.

 

[Luthor Rex]

Luthor Rex, I assume you are referring to Peter Keating?

I think Roark was pretty contemtpuous of most people, and didn't beleive they could grow...

MacAvoy writes: "I've got a question for LL and all the women out there because I can't honestly think of a single man that fits your mold of a high quality man. Every desirable man that I know of, doesn't save himself for the right women, in fact the only people that do that end up being 40 yr old virgins that women are not attracted to."

I'm sorry, MacAvoy, but I am not understanding what the question is?

I think MacAvoy's point was that, by and large, men don't meet the kind of woman you describe in anything resembling a regular occurrence. A few times a decade perhaps. Which means if a quality man were to wait for a quality woman who is available and compatible, he may well be 35 or 40 before he finds anyone... which leads me to...

See, quality women have a variety of options just like you do.

Actually you have things backwards. The closer someone comes to self-actualization / nirvana / excellence / whatever you want to call it, the fewer mating options they will have. That is due to lack of peers.

Let's take two extreme cases: Mother Teresa and Issac Newton. When it comes to what she accomplished, what man was the peer of Mother Teresa? What man was her equal? Newton was in a similar boat. How many people who have ever lived could really 'connect' with the minds of either of these people?

Genius or humanitarian, when you pop yourself too far outside the 'norm' then you have no peers to mate with.

Quality people are not the 'norm' of today. Because of that, they have very few options when it comes to mating because they have no one who could 'share their frame' or even understand it.

 

[LovelyLady]

I think MacAvoy's point was that, by and large, men don't meet the kind of woman you describe in anything resembling a regular occurrence. A few times a decade perhaps. Which means if a quality man were to wait for a quality woman who is available and compatible, he may well be 35 or 40 before he finds anyone... which leads me to...


Actually you have things backwards. The closer someone comes to self-actualization / nirvana / excellence / whatever you want to call it, the fewer mating options they will have. That is due to lack of peers.

Let's take two extreme cases: Mother Teresa and Sir Isaac Newton. When it comes to what she accomplished, what man was the peer of Mother Teresa? What man was her equal? Newton was in a similar boat. How many people who have ever lived could really 'connect' with the minds of either of these people?
Genius or humanitarian, when you pop yourself too far outside the 'norm' then you have no peers to mate with.

Quality people are not the 'norm' of today. Because of that, they have very few options when it comes to mating because they have no one who could 'share their frame' or even understand it.

Luthor Rex,


I agree, that as we reach various stages of growth we do seemingly "resonate at a different frequency " than others - but I do not agree that the frequency has to result in isolation.

What is your frame for your ideal intimate/romantic relationship? What are your qualifications for the woman you want to share your self/your life with? When you envision "the ideal partner for your self" what does she "look" like? What is it that you want? What is it that you need? How do you envision those desires being met manifested in your LTR you create with her? What is the true nature of the quality of the woman - and the relationship - you are wanting? - Perhaps share just in terms of the Spiritual (Humanitarian as far as MT goes) or Intellectual (represented by you in Sir Isaac Newton) facet of the relationship as to share the entirity on this board may be a bit much.

See, I believe self-actualization is knowing who we are (in essence where we are individually in our life journey), understanding who we are compatible with/qualifying our partners (who we allow to share our journey with ), defining what you value in the relating process (what motivates or fuelsthe journey), and the defining of the ultimate purpose of the relationship/what kind of a relationship you want to create (what is the final destination you want to journey towards).

(How is my Manspeak for Relationship as a Road Trip? ) There is a method to my madness in asking you these particular questions, BTW...

 

[LeftyLoosey]

Sometimes you just have to lift the 40s until you find a gym that has 50s. And when you can't make it to the gym, you do push-ups. But it doesn't mean you just STOP working out until you can find a weight suitable to you, or your muscles will atrophy and you'll be back down at those little 5-lb weights they use in the step-aerobics classes.

I think what LL is trying to say is that the gym with the 50s is an exclusive club that is "invite-only." It won't even be available to you because the manager will see you working out with 40s, figure you're satisfied with that, and not even bother to invite you to his facility. Not only that, but you won't even realize the gym with the 50s exists because you've been satisfying yourself with the 40s for so long that you don't realize there are heavier weights to lift.