she says she wants whatever we are to be "casual"

[Clockwerk50]

If the dating goals don't align then you're wasting your time. Sex is everywhere, so why settle for some that you don't see long term potential in?

At the same time you shouldn't be seeking a relationship to feel secure in yourself, that's codependency. You should be self assured, independent, and then a relationship will be interdependence, which is ideal.

Making this thread comes off like you're worried you won't find what you really want or don't know what you want, or want it out of fear rather than love.

The good news you're aware, so don't BS yourself and don't feel you have to fuuck this girl. If it feels demeaning then simply don't do it and focus on women that show more respect.

A couple years ago I would echo what others are saying here, to just bang and think nothing of it, but over time I've realized that behavior reinforces a mindset I don't find beneficial to my relationship goals. So I say go focus on yourself and a higher caliber woman will appear when you're ready.

People have different unmet needs. Sex might feel meaningless to those who have it easily but meaningful to those who don’t, just like how a woman’s attention and validation matter more to those who rarely get them, the same way money or comfort mean more to those who lack them.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

Practicing dealing with women in various situations, how to transition from states, how to spot and handle sh!t tests, how to maintain frame properly, how to not lose your composure, calling a woman out properly, etc, etc, etc

All of that is stuff that is learned over time thru practice. If it came natural then everyone would be great at it. And don't give me the confidence nonsense, there are plenty of people with lots of confidence who are terrible with women because they have no idea how to navigate nuanced social intricacies.

Would be like saying all I need to do is be confident I can go out and drop 30 points in a pickup basketball game without having played in a year. Much better chance you'll be on the sideline watching after 15 minutes with a pulled hamstring or a busted nose from running into a hard screen from not knowing it was coming.

You seem to be missing my point. It comes naturally when you're self assured, not before. Not everyone is self assured, but focusing on technique is going about things backwards, it's not actually building genuine security. If you're truly confident in all other aspects of life, interacting with attractive women should be no different than interacting with anyone else. You don't need "practice with women" - you already know how to talk to people, read social cues, be engaging, etc.

The fumbling reveals that you DON'T actually have confidence - you have it conditional on the interaction not threatening your sense of worth. Attractive women threaten it because you're seeking their validation. The "practice" excuse is a cope. It's saying "I need exposure to beautiful women to get comfortable around them", which is just exposure therapy to desensitize yourself to the anxiety their validation creates. You're not learning new skills, you're learning to manage the anxiety that comes from needing her approval.

And once the anxiety is concealed and you lay her, the goal is revealed as purely topical and you realize she's someone you don't actually like, it was just for the external validation. My guess is a lot of guys fear relentlessly filtering for what they really want in a partner beyond sex because they doubt they'll ever find it. Or just as worse, they don't really know what they want.

If you had genuine security - where your worth truly doesn't fluctuate based on their response - there would be nothing to fumble. You'd interact with them the same way you interact with anyone else you find interesting. There would be no settling for as$ just because it's sex despite not being everything you want, and thus no point to posting or interacting on a forum like this at all.

You don't need practice with women. You need to build actual internal security so their opinion of you matters exactly as much as anyone else's, which is to say, not at all when it comes to your core worth. Genuine security doesn't require maintenance through female attention. Period. If you think it does, you don't have genuine security, you have a facade that needs regular validation to maintain.

You and I reach similar conclusions (lays), but our approach is what makes all the difference. I sense you don't want to answer the question I've posed to you twice now because you agree that there is no good answer. I appreciate your input, it shows you're engaged.

People have different unmet needs. Sex might feel meaningless to those who have it easily but meaningful to those who don’t, just like how a woman’s attention and validation matter more to those who rarely get them, the same way money or comfort mean more to those who lack them.

Sex isn't a need, it's a want. If sex is all a man wants then he can fly to Germany and have all the legal sex he wants at a sauna club for $60. If your worth is determined by a woman's attention or validation then that is being a hollow shell and driven by external validation. Masculinity and abundance mean being driven internally, acting decisively, letting the chips fall where they may, and never being thrown off center. Not because you've consciously practiced centering yourself, but because you've done all the contextual hard work for the flow state and alignment to manifest naturally.

 

[Clockwerk50]

Sex isn't a need, it's a want. If sex is all a man wants then he can fly to Germany and have all the legal sex he wants at a sauna club for $60. If your worth is determined by a woman's attention or validation then that is being a hollow shell and driven by external validation. Masculinity and abundance mean being driven internally, acting decisively, letting the chips fall where they may, and never being thrown off center. Not because you've consciously practiced centering yourself, but because you've done all the contextual hard work for the flow state and alignment to manifest naturally.

Your whole argument falls apart when sexual intimacy is recognized as a legitimate need in human motivation theory, such as Maslow’s original hierarchy and the ERG theory.

Nonetheless, my main point is that people have different priorities, and what seems unimportant to some can be very meaningful to others. Speaking in absolutes and acting like your view applies to everyone ignores this, and your argument focuses on masculinity while mine is about human behavior in general regardless of gender.

 

[BillyPilgrim]

Your whole argument falls apart when sexual intimacy is recognized as a legitimate need in human motivation theory, such as Maslow’s original hierarchy and the ERG theory.

Nonetheless, my main point is that people have different priorities, and what seems unimportant to some can be very meaningful to others. Speaking in absolutes and acting like your view applies to everyone ignores this, and your argument focuses on masculinity while mine is about human behavior in general regardless of gender.

It would be a shame to do all of the internal work, meet your dream woman and then mumble/bumble/fumble the opportunity away, wouldn't it?

Lolz

Almost like a pro athlete who trains relentlessly and studies schemes endlessly, then sh1ts the bed during the actual game due to rust.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

You seem to be missing my point. It comes naturally when you're self assured, not before. Not everyone is self assured, but focusing on technique is going about things backwards, it's not actually building genuine security. If you're truly confident in all other aspects of life, interacting with attractive women should be no different than interacting with anyone else. You don't need "practice with women" - you already know how to talk to people, read social cues, be engaging, etc.

The fumbling reveals that you DON'T actually have confidence - you have it conditional on the interaction not threatening your sense of worth. Attractive women threaten it because you're seeking their validation. The "practice" excuse is a cope. It's saying "I need exposure to beautiful women to get comfortable around them", which is just exposure therapy to desensitize yourself to the anxiety their validation creates. You're not learning new skills, you're learning to manage the anxiety that comes from needing her approval.

And once the anxiety is concealed and you lay her, the goal is revealed as purely topical and you realize she's someone you don't actually like, it was just for the external validation. My guess is a lot of guys fear relentlessly filtering for what they really want in a partner beyond sex because they doubt they'll ever find it. Or just as worse, they don't really know what they want.

If you had genuine security - where your worth truly doesn't fluctuate based on their response - there would be nothing to fumble. You'd interact with them the same way you interact with anyone else you find interesting. There would be no settling for as$ just because it's sex despite not being everything you want, and thus no point to posting or interacting on a forum like this at all.

You don't need practice with women. You need to build actual internal security so their opinion of you matters exactly as much as anyone else's, which is to say, not at all when it comes to your core worth. Genuine security doesn't require maintenance through female attention. Period. If you think it does, you don't have genuine security, you have a facade that needs regular validation to maintain.

You and I reach similar conclusions (lays), but our approach is what makes all the difference. I sense you don't want to answer the question I've posed to you twice now because you agree that there is no good answer. I appreciate your input, it shows you're engaged.



Sex isn't a need, it's a want. If sex is all a man wants then he can fly to Germany and have all the legal sex he wants at a sauna club for $60. If your worth is determined by a woman's attention or validation then that is being a hollow shell and driven by external validation. Masculinity and abundance mean being driven internally, acting decisively, letting the chips fall where they may, and never being thrown off center. Not because you've consciously practiced centering yourself, but because you've done all the contextual hard work for the flow state and alignment to manifest naturally.

Having confidence and getting results are two different things.

Plenty of MMA fighters are confident and end up receiving smelling salts 30 seconds into the fight after getting knocked out.

OP needs to practice getting results.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

Your whole argument falls apart when sexual intimacy is recognized as a legitimate need in human motivation theory, such as Maslow’s original hierarchy and the ERG theory.

Nonetheless, my main point is that people have different priorities, and what seems unimportant to some can be very meaningful to others. Speaking in absolutes and acting like your view applies to everyone ignores this, and your argument focuses on masculinity while mine is about human behavior in general regardless of gender.

It seems you're shifting the goalposts a bit. The responses in this thread focus on enjoying the sex on a very topical level, practically objectification, with no mention of intimacy. Some propose technique and performance to feign aloofness despite OP's obvious misalignment with this woman's intentions, others shame the OP for seemingly seeking deeper connections, but there's no talk about anything beyond sexual objectification.

Maslow and ERG speak to social connections and intimacy, neither speak to ejaculation for the sake of ejaculation or mechanical sex as a need. Millions of people lead amazing fulfilling lives and die virgins. Is that what I'm advocating? Hell no. I simply said that to frame mechanical sex as a need is to deliberately come from a place of lack. I can completely agree that intimacy and social connection is necessary for a fulfilling life, but that's not what the OP is facing here. Why tell the OP to pretend it's anything more than sex when the woman has clearly stated it's just sex? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm curious what your answer is.

And at no point did I say my view applies to everyone. This forum is a place to put forward reasoning for our own views and challenge others, which should ultimately lead everyone to the truth. If my reasoning is flawed then I'm happy to be corrected.

Having confidence and getting results are two different things.

Plenty of MMA fighters are confident and end up receiving smelling salts 30 seconds into the fight after getting knocked out.

OP needs to practice getting results.

And some fighters are undefeated. You can't seem to understand that by focusing on technique with women you're already cratering to their frame. It's not the technique that's bad, it's that you care too much about it to begin with. If she loses interest for any reason, so what? Why should you have to change the way you do anything? Abundance means you don't adjust your behavior to maintain her interest because you don't care about her validation, you simply move on to someone actually compatible. If you want to rack up lays at all costs, sure, optimize for playboy characteristics. If you want to have a deep fulfilling relationship then the number of woman you sleep with has little to no significance at all.

 

[Plinco]

Your whole argument falls apart when sexual intimacy is recognized as a legitimate need in human motivation theory, such as Maslow’s original hierarchy and the ERG theory.

Sex is not just a physical act alone, it is spiritual. Imagine what having sex with women whom you're not attracted to does to your self-esteem.

You'll know when you're on the right path in life when everything you do faces (metaphorically) in the same direction and none of your goals contradict each other.

 

[Plinco]

Plenty of MMA fighters are confident and end up receiving smelling salts 30 seconds into the fight after getting knocked out.

OP needs to practice getting results.

You're conflating confidence with arrogance. Confidence is earned and doesn't contradict reality.

Having confidence and getting results are two different things.

Dig deeper than that. If you want results, ask 'who' you want to be, not 'what' you want to be.

 

[Clockwerk50]

It seems you're shifting the goalposts a bit. The responses in this thread focus on enjoying the sex on a very topical level, practically objectification, with no mention of intimacy. Some propose technique and performance to feign aloofness despite OP's obvious misalignment with this woman's intentions, others shame the OP for seemingly seeking deeper connections, but there's no talk about anything beyond sexual objectification.

Maslow and ERG speak to social connections and intimacy, neither speak to ejaculation for the sake of ejaculation or mechanical sex as a need. Millions of people lead amazing fulfilling lives and die virgins. Is that what I'm advocating? Hell no. I simply said that to frame mechanical sex as a need is to deliberately come from a place of lack. I can completely agree that intimacy and social connection is necessary for a fulfilling life, but that's not what the OP is facing here. Why tell the OP to pretend it's anything more than sex when the woman has clearly stated it's just sex? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm curious what your answer is.

And at no point did I say my view applies to everyone. This forum is a place to put forward reasoning for our own views and challenge others, which should ultimately lead everyone to the truth. If my reasoning is flawed then I'm happy to be corrected.

I’m not shifting the goalposts. I’m challenging your claim that “sex is meaningless because it’s everywhere,” and the absolute way you’re framing it. You’re also misrepresenting my point (a bit of a strawman) and treating sex as either purely mechanical or deeply intimate, which is a false dichotomy. Again, the meaning of sex isn’t the same for everyone, and what might feel meaningless to someone who has it easily can feel deeply meaningful to someone who rarely experiences it due to a variety of personal and psychological factors.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

It seems you're shifting the goalposts a bit. The responses in this thread focus on enjoying the sex on a very topical level, practically objectification, with no mention of intimacy. Some propose technique and performance to feign aloofness despite OP's obvious misalignment with this woman's intentions, others shame the OP for seemingly seeking deeper connections, but there's no talk about anything beyond sexual objectification.

Maslow and ERG speak to social connections and intimacy, neither speak to ejaculation for the sake of ejaculation or mechanical sex as a need. Millions of people lead amazing fulfilling lives and die virgins. Is that what I'm advocating? Hell no. I simply said that to frame mechanical sex as a need is to deliberately come from a place of lack. I can completely agree that intimacy and social connection is necessary for a fulfilling life, but that's not what the OP is facing here. Why tell the OP to pretend it's anything more than sex when the woman has clearly stated it's just sex? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm curious what your answer is.

And at no point did I say my view applies to everyone. This forum is a place to put forward reasoning for our own views and challenge others, which should ultimately lead everyone to the truth. If my reasoning is flawed then I'm happy to be corrected.




And some fighters are undefeated. You can't seem to understand that by focusing on technique with women you're already cratering to their frame. It's not the technique that's bad, it's that you care too much about it to begin with. If she loses interest for any reason, so what? Why should you have to change the way you do anything? Abundance means you don't adjust your behavior to maintain her interest because you don't care about her validation, you simply move on to someone actually compatible. If you want to rack up lays at all costs, sure, optimize for playboy characteristics. If you want to have a deep fulfilling relationship then the number of woman you sleep with has little to no significance at all.

This would be like saying "I'm terrible at something, but I shouldn't need to actually do what would cause me to be successful at it, I should just do what I want and if I continue to suck at it and fail, then that's OK because at least I am confident in doing it"

In what other area of life would that make any sense at all?

None.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

I’m not shifting the goalposts. I’m challenging your claim that “sex is meaningless because it’s everywhere,” and the absolute way you’re framing it. You’re also misrepresenting my point (a bit of a strawman) and treating sex as either purely mechanical or deeply intimate, which is a false dichotomy. Again, the meaning of sex isn’t the same for everyone, and what might feel meaningless to someone who has it easily can feel deeply meaningful to someone who rarely experiences it due to a variety of personal and psychological factors.

I think we're defining sex differently. To me, sex without emotional connection is mechanical - bodies interacting, which is what I believe the dictionary defines it as. That's different from sex within actual intimacy. Both exist, which is why men can objectify women and prostitution exists. My point is: why project genuine attraction onto someone just to feel better about casual sex?

This would be like saying "I'm terrible at something, but I shouldn't need to actually do what would cause me to be successful at it, I should just do what I want and if I continue to suck at it and fail, then that's OK because at least I am confident in doing it"

In what other area of life would that make any sense at all?

None.

I'm not saying don't develop social skills. I'm saying if your primary goal is getting laid rather than finding genuine compatibility, you're optimizing for the wrong outcome. Practice all you want, but if it's just to maximize body count, that's still operating from scarcity regardless of how skilled you become.

 

[Divorced w 3]

She's telling you she is down to be FWB and that's it

Which likely won't work for you since you seem to become a little lost puppy dog for any woman that lets you stick your d!ck in her.

Not nice

 

[Divorced w 3]

I can see this two ways:

1. She isn't that into you. You will do for a while until she finds something better. Just wants to keep things "surface level" only.

or

2. She has a history of love bombing and gets too serious before she gets to know someone and its caused her problems in the past. So this is her way of dragging the brake so she doesn't get influenced by love chemicals and become blinded. She wants to slowly get to know you. Ask her about past relationships and you could probably get her talking about it.

2 is an interesting take, that she may be trying to grow. At least you’re being glass half full. I like the idea

we do go straight to the negative around here don’t we… not that there isn’t wisdom in that but maybe there’s some gray

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Not nice

The truth isn't always nice, but it's still the truth.

 

[Divorced w 3]

The truth isn't always nice, but it's still the truth.

A step in the right direction would be him 1: determining if that’s something he can do (right off the jump he sounds conflicted which I think implies he wants something committed) and then next, why not just bring this question up to her, something like, ‘where’s the casual coming from, what’s driving that thought process’ …..

you know one of the single biggest personal stressors for me was simply not being able to say how I felt and express what was important to me based largely around the foundation of my not trusting my own instincts. Provided he’s not asking for anything that’s absolutely off the charts he should express his opinion. It’s confident and confidence is a turn on.

Once you can be confident in taking space and being comfortable in being alone with yourself it’s a different ballgame.

 

[Clockwerk50]

I think we're defining sex differently. To me, sex without emotional connection is mechanical - bodies interacting, which is what I believe the dictionary defines it as. That's different from sex within actual intimacy. Both exist, which is why men can objectify women and prostitution exists. My point is: why project genuine attraction onto someone just to feel better about casual sex?

And that’s fine. I’m not arguing what sex is. I’m saying that telling OP “sex is meaningless” while implying you’ve reached some higher level of understanding because you’ve had multiple emotional sexual connections comes off as condescending, since what feels meaningless to someone who has it easily can feel deeply meaningful to someone who rarely experiences it, like OP.

So basically, you’re arguing something I don’t want to be part of since you’re entitled to your opinion about "what sex is", and again, that’s fine.