Expectations What kind of woman/situation are you looking for?

[D. Gately]

I was reading an article on Immanuel Kant, and it made me think about how many people don't actually know what they want. We complain about women like this often but it's often true for men also.
We judge women not only when we meet them, but throughout our relationship with them, and Kant had 3 types of judgements - don't worry, this won't be a long treatise on philosophy, so stay with me:

1) The pleasing: this is sensation-based, good food, good sex, all the things we call 'pleasant.' A nice massage, etc.

2) Aesthetically beautiful: Since aesthetic judgments are not about the object, they are not objective. Rather, they are about the subject, and thus subjective judgments. However, this does not mean that aesthetic judgments are relative to the individual...Another way Kant speaks of the beautiful is as “subjectively universal.”
Versus that which is pleasant is easily claimed as pleasant for me and only me (I ate the delicious food). We appreciate looking at beautiful women even if we're not interacting with them, even if they're not 'good' people.

3) The 'good.'

• Pleasure through reason: The good is what pleases us through the mere concept of it, as determined by reason.
• Requires a concept: To judge something as "good," you must know what kind of object it ought to be, meaning you need a concept of its purpose or function.
• "Good for" vs. "good in itself": Goodness can be either useful (good for a purpose) or good in itself (an end in itself).
• Involves interest: Because it is tied to a concept and purpose, judging something as "good" involves having an interest in it.

The tl/dr; on that last one is that I'm calling a 'good' woman someone who loves you, who cares about you, whom you care for, & may wish to marry and have children with. She's got a purpose and you want to be with her. We've probably all said at one time, "Oh XYZ's wife is a *good* woman."

Why did I write all this? Because I think it can help us think through what kind of woman we're looking for. If you're chasing after woman #1 - hot sex ONS, but you really wanted woman #3, you're not going to be happy. Some call this 'The Player's Journey.'

Or you greatly desired the most gorgeous woman in your school....and you got her, a stunning bikini model! But you're not happy with her, and it drives you [and her] crazy. Maybe because the sex is bad, she has low libido, cuts you down to 1x a month, etc.

To be happier, we actually have to match up our physical desires and our goals. Kant was pointing out [among many other things] that we confuse the pleasant with the good. The right answer is the one that's right for you, but you have to be honest with yourself. If you say, 'Oh, I just want that good woman in #3 who bears my children,' but she gets overweight and doesn't do what you want in bed, will you really be happy for the rest of your life? Only you can answer that.

I started out thinking I wanted women #2, then #3, then back to #2, before realizing I needed #1 [great sex she don't need to cook] and #2, and didn't want to settle down and have kids. New PUAs are all about hoping they get #1, maybe don't care a bit if she's only a 5 [or lower.]

Final tl/dr; everyone's Venn diagram of 1-2-3 is going to be different. If you're not happy with your life/women figure out where you want those intersections to be, because none of us will end up with the hottest woman on earth, who is the best bang ever, who is also the best mom and wife. And if you're banging girls who you thought wanted #1 from you, but they really are seeking #3, you'll be mystified why you can't keep a girlfriend.


I promise not to write anything in the future about Kant.

 

[POB]

ThInk about it using the boxes' concept:

https://imgur.com/a/6wI1aCh

- Love: usually we can only love one girl at a time, so you have one box for that.
Once you find that one, that box is locked for other chicks.

- Companionship: you can have more than one, but usually not more than three at the same time (or else you won't find enough time to be with them all). Also if you have the love box filled, you shouldn't be able to have any companionship box opened because you need to be focused on making the love connection deeper (and it will cause jealousy and drama between them if you love one chick and focus emotions on another one).

- Sex: as many boxes as you like. No need to worry about other boxes, the sex boxes are always open.

Of course you can move women between boxes as much as you like, depending on your lifestyle, goals, how they behave and how the relationships evolve.

 

[D. Gately]

That's also a good concept!

For my post, I was partly wondering how many guys would choose great, pulse-pounding sex with a partner over average sex with a beautiful woman vs falling in love -today- with the right partner for you.

 

[topcat]

For me its great sex, a strong personality + interesting mind, and beautiful yet unique looks. Also a high tolerance for my own autonomy. I'm after stimulation and inspiration.

Don't care much for love, companionship or comfort.

 

[Will_V]

Interesting post. I think the main issue is when you look for everything from one woman. The world provides us with many people around us of different sorts, with whom we experience different things, exercise different parts of ourselves and express different sides of our personality. Trying to find one person forces us to pigeon hole our own desires, which is usually done in a way that satisfies our ego (leading to eventual dissatisfaction) rather than our actual spontaneous wants and needs.

The main thing that sticks out to me is that I like everything that girls have to offer:

- I like wild passionate sex, dominance, etc
- I like aesthetically beautiful women
- (As someone who likes to lead) I like diligent, reliable women of good character
- I like companionship, comfort, cuddling, etc

Can I get all this from one woman? If she exists I certainly haven't found her yet. And I doubt I ever will. But that's fine. Does every fish have to fly as well?

I am suspicious of the notion that nature created us to have one sexual partner for life, or even one at a time. Biologically and practically the arithmetic doesn't work out.

Yet I can't really say what the arithmetic does say about what is natural or optimal. Perhaps we are an organism in constant flux, destined to never be fully satisfied, never quite finding our niche.

 

[REM050]

I think in the end it is about how she makes me feel.

Of course she needs to be beautiful to me, as well as a bit universally, so I don't feel ashamed to take her out to a nice restaurant. The former of the two comes first, though. I've been with girls that were very beautiful to lots of guys, but just normal to me, whereas some of the ones that I found were absolutely gorgeous didn't get that much public attention. Her beauty makes me feel good as a man. It makes me admire her and it gives me a sense of achievement.
Now, one of those really gorgeous women, both to me and universally, was a notorious underachiever in the bedroom. So great intimacy is another thing that's important. This can take many forms: passionate and loving, fiery and steaming, playful and sensual... I love it all.
Falling in love is overestimated. In my personal experience, if it's really strong, it's usually a bad sign. Also, it has very little to do with her and much more with me. Loving someone, on the other hand, is essential. The thing @Chase calls old love. I would say I need that long term. In the end the steaming sex will die down, at least partially, one way or another.
I also need someone capable. If she keeps doing very stupid things consistently I lose all sense of attraction. So yes, she needs to be both physically and mentally skilled. Preferably in a well balanced way.
Then in the end, yes companionship is essential. It's going to be us against the world after all. A physically distant women (been there) gives me the proverbial ick faster than uncle Donald can change his mind.

If I had to sacrifice something? I could yield some on the universal beauty department and live with someone vanilla with a decent libido. If she keeps on causing herself to be needing to go to the hospital, losing large sums of money unnecessarily or just messes up things that cost half a day's time I'm out.

As a counter question to this thread: has anyone of you avid lovers ever found a woman that met all your criteria more or less perfectly?

 

[POB]

People still confuse Love with NRE (New Relationship Euphoria).

NRE is transitory, basically it's your brain chemistry playing tricks on you.
Nothing more than a biological trigger to help you make babies.
But it's fucking fun and exciting!

Love goes way beyond the physical, and can be a bit boring to be honest.
Especially if you are still on the younger side and experimenting with women.

Real love is for older more mature men.
I wouldn't even pursue it if I was under 35.

 

[D. Gately]

In europe you'll hear some people talk about love-struck vs cunt-struck. You're in love with her body and new sex, not with her.

 

[KJ Francis]

Love goes way beyond the physical, and can be a bit boring to be honest.
Especially if you are still on the younger side and experimenting with women.

Real love is for older more mature men.
I wouldn't even pursue it if I was under 35.

What is love, POB?

Is it more than an expression of care for own own selfish gene?

 

[POB]

What is love, POB?

Is it more than an expression of care for own own selfish gene?

Can't see your video (maybe it's region restricted).
To me love is what you offer without any expectations, at least one of it's core features.

IMO we just can't define it.
Best poets, musicians, lovers, scientists, etc tried and still came up short.
Gotta live through it to know what it is.

 

[KJ Francis]

Can't see your video (maybe it's region restricted).
To me love is what you offer without any expectations, at least one of it's core features.

IMO we just can't define it.
Best poets, musicians, lovers, scientists, etc tried and still came up short.
Gotta live through it to know what it is.

It's the song "What is Love" with a montage from the movie "Night at the Roxbury" lol

Couple days ago I was smoking a j and this guy yelled from down below let me hit that! He said he just got out of jail. I threw him a whole joint down and he showed me his prison bag with his wallet and stuff like I've only seen in the movies. Won't ever see him again. Guess I found love. Lol

I guess if you meditate enough or do psychedelics (I don't) you reach a point of ego death, realizing everything is one. There's the concept of metta in Buddhism that is extending loving kindness to all creatures etc. The Jains will sweep the ground in front of them as to not step on any bugs.

Ultimately a monk goes celibate and tries to reincarnate at a level beyond sexuality.

But until then here on the physical plane, if you reach the age of 80 with a woman, I thought it's still all built on the past and the fact that even if she was barren, your subconscious wanted to pass on and care for its genes.

Maybe that's why the Greeks have various words for it.

@Karea Ricardus D. Did you reach enlightenment yet?

So yeah to tie it to the thread, I think @Will_V has a great explanation and I am still a little jaded. Seems old couples aren't really in love. They stay together maybe out of financial benefit, no sex drive to pull them elsewhere, a warped sense of duty and obligation when they're really just annoyed, etc. Maybe the perfect older couple does exist, but even two way oneitis sounds like an illusion based on low abundance.

 

[REM050]

I like the mentioning of poets and artists by @POB . Borges famously did a good Job, Moraes as well (love is forever for as long as it lasts) but I think it's one of those things that is hard to describe as a concept, yet easy to spot. In other words: you know it when you see it.

PS. I'm also curious about Ricardus' enlightenment

 

[Daedalus]

Great discussion!

I had love, even old love, with someone, but it ultimately didn't work out, partly because I realized too late I wanted other things in life than she did (hot, passionate sex for one).

One piece of advice about building a business that stuck with me is that you need to decide what outcome you want, then which game you need to play to get it, and finally, whether the outcome is worth the cost of playing the game to you. I think it applies no less to love.

All frustrations arise when we want a specific outcome (I want to be a best-selling author! I want sex with hot babes!), but then we try to get it by playing a game designed for a different outcome (No, I won't research the market and write what people want to read, I'll write out my soul! No, I won't become what hot women deem to be an attractive chad, I'll just be my nice guy, reliable self!).

The mismatch between the expected result and the means to get there is the issue. It's perfectly okay to want to be a best-selling author. It's also perfectly okay to want to write out your soul. It's not reasonable, however, to expect that the latter will lead to the former. And the same is true in love (caveat: once you have money as a successful author, you also have time and a captive audience to write what you want. Likewise, once you're a skilled seducer, you also have a far greater pick of women, including for purposes other than sex).

This has been an issue I noticed for myself, at least; I realize the more advanced gentlemen here are mostly pondering "should I have the tarts, the creme, or the bree? Can I get all three in one? Should I even, or should I just have each one separately? Hmmm..."

About not finding it all in the same woman. What is the "game to play", then? Arrange a lifestyle where you get different things from different women, without the women leaving due to a lack of commitment? I have no experience with this, but I do hear it's rather common among advanced players. I don't get how to deal with the churn's aftermath, or extend the relationships' lifetime, but it's pointless to solve for a problem I don't have yet.

To me, the thought of doing this at some point creates a strange feeling, like losing a bit of the world's magic (or of Disney-style social indoctrination)...but my experience so far confirms that love alone is not enough to be happy in a relationship forever. Perhaps I can learn to find magic in the freedom this understanding brings instead.

Even if there were a person who embodied all of our wishes, they would still likely not embody them to the extremes that three different people did. And even then, there would be a limitation in the personalities we get to interact with, know, and grow through at an intimate level.

I'm looking for traits and desires similar to my own in a woman, only to realize what contradictory traits and desires I myself embody, and how boring it might be to have an impossible clone as a partner:

• A high sex drive, a strong desire, a deep passion.
• Having and being driven to master artistic talent of any kind: painting, music, writing, dance, etc.
• Being or working to become physically fit and healthy.
• Having or searching for a personal mission to help make the world a better place in some way.
• Loving the natural world and life in all its varied expressions.
• Having a passion for travel and adventure, and being enthusiastic about adopting a lifestyle of near constant variety and novel experience.
• Having an entrepreneurial drive, never being satisfied with a 9-5 job, and seeking to create or further grow a business to support a better lifestyle and a more impactful contribution to the world.
• Being interested in turning a strong fantasy or kink into a lifestyle.
• Being intelligent and yearning for long, deep, flowing conversations on a variety of topics from philosophy to art to world affairs to spirituality.
• An inner kindness and generosity, ability to love and be loved, freedom from trauma and resentment (or willingness to heal them).
• Physical beauty and attractiveness, and caring to further enhance and maintain that appearance via grooming, dressing, perfumes, and fine things.

And so on.

I imagine many women have lists ten times the size, only to fall for bad boys that trigger their primal attraction, and settle for good providers who won't run away when the kids start crying five times per night. Just as a man might fall for the first sexy woman who knows how to use her inner muscles, and put the ring on for the one who'll call him "her hero" and cook for him.

Do you think it's reasonable, or even of benefit, to expect to find a woman who ticks off such a list? Or perhaps, it's both easier and brings greater satisfaction to collect different women for each one of those points, a bonus if they tick multiple at once? It does sound like many here lean towards the latter.