Monday, June 1, 2009

More on How Much We Want Men to Be Men: Revisiting Chivalry

This is the second article in a series about Hristiyan's workshop that I participated in this past weekend.

I have written about chivalry before, and its importance to a feminine woman, and have been on the receiving end of much skepticism.

After Hristiyan's workshop, I am even more in touch with my feelings about this, and even more aware of the fact that I am only sexually attracted to men who are chivalrous. Let me tell you why.

We did an exercise during the workshop where the intention was for the man to find the place within himself to say a clear "yes" to his woman.

So each man in the workshop would approach me or Lisa (the other woman) and say "How may I serve you, my lady?" Hristiyan had already taught them that a man who is deeply connected with his masculinity wants to serve his woman. This is not about being submissive. This is about being the giving, protecting, masculine energy in a relationship.

So Lisa and I were allowed to ask for anything we wanted, and the man was to check in with himself and find the place inside where he could say a clear "yes" to what we were asking. Then Lisa and I were instructed to tell him how much we believed that he really meant what he said. This is something we could sense and feel in his vibe, in his voice, in his body language, etc.

One of the men had already deeply connected with me earlier in the workshop. He approached me, and I felt in his whole being, before he ever opened his mouth, how much he wanted to give to me as his woman. This felt so comforting. It opened up a space where I could feel relaxed about asking for what I truly wanted. There was no urge to hide myself.

So I said, "oh, I'm really hungry. And I'd love to go to that beautiful little romantic Italian restaurant that we both loved. Remember that one? Can we go there honey?"

And he took my hand and looked into my eyes and said, with his whole being, YES.

Now Hristiyan interjected and explained to the guys something along these lines:

"Now, after you've said yes to this, you go and make the restaurant reservation. You take care of the parking and all the logistics. That way, she can go run up to her room, get dressed up, put on her makeup, and feel feminine. She doesn't want to worry about that stuff. If you take care of it, she can surrender into her feminine energy and into the relationship with you."

Amen, Hristiyan. On an earlier post, someone commented that it wasn't the chivalry that matters to me as much as it is the guy's willingness to do something that I've said is important to me. And that is true. It's also true that it absolutely is not about the money. Even if I were married, and all of our money was in the same pot, I would still want my man to pay for everything on dates. I would still want him to take care of logistics.

What I realized at Hristiyan's workshop is that the chivalry thing really goes much deeper than many guys realize. We are not talking about a man being chilvrous in a needy, approval-seeking way (believe me, Hristiyan has no tolerance for men being needy and approval seeking). We are talking about a man being so in touch with his masculinity that he WANTS TO GIVE to his woman. It makes him feel like a man. It allows her to be a woman. He is in touch with the part of himself that realizes there is no loss in giving, only gain. He is in touch with the part of himself that realizes that a woman can only surrender to him completely if he is willing to take care of those aspects of the relationship. And at some deep subconscious level that most people have lost touch with, he realizes that she will be FAR MORE SEXUALLY RESPONSIVE with him because she trusts him. Without trust, there can be no full surrender.

What was really fascinating in the workshop was to see what happened when "bigger" requests were made. For example, Lisa asked this:

"John, I know you're only 22, but I'm ready to have a baby, and I really want to have a baby with you. Can we do that?"

The guy paused, checked in deep within himself, and ultimately said YES. And the entire room believed him. Later, he told us he had felt an initial hesitation but that when he was in touch with that masculine core, he was able to say an authentic yes.

And isn't that the kind of world we want to live in? A world where a man is so confident and centered and in touch with their masculine, giving energy, that he wants to give his woman everything. As Hristiyan asks them, over and over again in the workshop, "Would you die for her?"

So this is what I look for in men. Is he giving in bed? Is he willing to be chivalrous? Do I believe him when he says yes? Do I understand him when he says no? (Lisa and I found, as women, that we were able to hear a man say "no" to our requests if we could sense that he really wanted to give us what we had asked for but that in that moment his desire to serve us was being trumped by his need to be on his path.) Does this man care about my happiness? Can I trust him? Can I surrender to his masculine energy? Does he have what it takes to lead me?

At a subconscious level, these are the questions that a woman is always asking herself. For me to feel safe in a relationship, the man needs to lead consistently. He needs to hold space for my feelings rather than arguing with them. He needs to be developed enough as a man that he is giving to me for the sheer pleasure of giving, and not with the worry of what he is going to get in return.

Of course, he will receive plenty in return. He will be with a woman who feels liberated to be her most feminine, radiant self. She will inevitably give back in many other ways (most men, for example, would be financially better off with me as their partner than without me -- money is not and never has been the point of all this). And she will be turned on by him, and she will trust him and feel safe with him.

It's so challenging to describe all of this in a blog post. I wish every one of my blog readers could have participated in this workshop. Then it would be easy to see that asking for chivalry is not about "taking advantage" of men. It's about creating and living in a world where the divine masculine and feminine energies have space to play.

36 comments:

Erika said...

Ah, metalhaze, what I would give for you to have participated in this workshop.

Anonymous said...

I would love to hear feedback on your post from other known so called puas:

-Zan
-entropy
-sinn

i.e. endorsement of this post from other guys you endorse.

let's be real for once and drop this mambo jambo new age thing.

Best,
Metalhaze

Rup said...

Sounds like an amazing Workshop...and much needed type of workshop as well...cuts through all the bull..
I wouldn't call this stuff mumbo jumbo...
I have a new respect for Hristyan - thanks for telling us about him.

Anonymous said...

I have no problem asking a women to a fancy restaurent and taking care of all arragements and treating her like a queen IF she is worthy of it and earns it (not just by sleeping with me but by proving that she is worthy of being treated like my gf)

what I object is these two statements

"Then it would be easy to see that asking for chivalry is not about "taking advantage" of men."

Hello, we live in the real world, no once is 100% nice and no one is 100% evil. people WILL take advantange of you if you are naive and give unconditionally.

"We are not talking about a man being chilvrous in a needy, approval-seeking way (believe me, Hristiyan has no tolerance for men being needy and approval seeking). We are talking about a man being so in touch with his masculinity that he WANTS TO GIVE to his woman."

easier said than done, this is too vague and can be very easily misinterpreted.


"Even if I were married, and all of our money was in the same pot, I would still want my man to pay for everything on dates. I would still want him to take care of logistics."

again, from time to time yeh, but all the time I say this is blatant exploitation! lol

"Hristiyan had already taught them that a man who is deeply connected with his masculinity wants to serve his woman. " and what about the women returning the service and servicing men as well ?


"She will inevitably give back in many other ways "
such as ? sex doesnt count


"He needs to be developed enough as a man that he is giving to me for the sheer pleasure of giving, and not with the worry of what he is going to get in return."

for how long? everything has limits, there has to be boundaries...nothing is unconditional, as milton freedman said, "there aint no free lunch".

let's start a realistic discussion here.
metalhaze

Matt C said...

Interesting post. I find though that no matter what my intention (giving without expecting anything back) people assume I'm kissing their asses. But I bet this perfectly fits for some.

Hristiyan Atanasov said...

Hi man, I was just curious to know how do you know "IF she is worthy of it and earns it (not just by sleeping with me but by proving that she is worthy of being treated like my gf)" and how do you know if she is not?

Terrance Thames said...

Hi Metalhaze. I am also curious as to if you feel you are able to sift through a woman's request of chivalry to see if she is authenically asking you or testing your authenticity? Or is all chivalry considered blatant exploitation?

Anonymous said...

The ability to lead makes sense, and the ability to say no and yes and be firm sounds like solid advice for either gender, but there has to be an allowance for indecisiveness as long as it's not at every turn. If someone says, "this is important, let me think about it." That's got to be cool with a woman.

The Baby request sounds like a request most men should say no to and not yes. It's unrealistic, if they are a true couple then the female would want to discuss it with the man, pose it that way, and she would be open to giving him time to reflect before she asks.

Benedict Smith said...

it takes time to learn how to be giving without being needy about it. another great post. your blog always proves very insightful, esp. coming from a woman.

Anonymous said...

cool post, just curious - how is this different from the authentic man program?

Anonymous said...

"Hi man, I was just curious to know how do you know "IF she is worthy of it and earns it (not just by sleeping with me but by proving that she is worthy of being treated like my gf)" and how do you know if she is not?"

Well hrystian (you sound turkish by your last name), since you are a master seducer so you should know ;-)...but of course you do, I guess you want to hear my take well here it is:

a)just because she is hot and attractive does not mean that she is entitled to VIP treatment from me, this has to be earned the same way respect has to be earned.

b)a women cannot earn it on the first date, unless I knew her from a long time. up to the first date, she is still a stranger to me.
I'm not talking about being cheap, I'm talking about not spilling everything and lavishing everything on a women we are just getting to know, giving too much is a turn off.
things that are given freely have low value in the perception of people.

c) spending too much money on a first date or two in an attempt to impress her might make her think that:

1)that I m a subordinate because I have to serve her and prove myself to her as if she is the only walking pussy on earth (why shouldn't she prove her self to me for ex)

2) that she owes me something. which is why women in french canada and europe usually like to go dutch on the first date IF it is expensive.

I have no objection to paying on first date as long as it is reasonable. I tend to wait for a women to become my gf before I start spoiling her.


please respond to my other objections highlighted above.

best.

Dan said...

Perhaps this is because ultimately, women need to have validation from the man they've chosen.

Sometimes I'm in such a great mood that ideas like "giving value" and "confidence" seem moot - granted, this doesn't happen all the time but when it does, I can feel the liquid gold coming out of my mouth and my eyes, to her eyes and ears, straight to her heart. A man of abundance sees that everything is awesome and if it's not, it is soon to be made awesome.

For example.

Woman: "Can you [reasonable request?"

Man: [internal monologue: Man, this chick is awesome. Look at her. What's that? She's asking me to do something reasonable? Haha, she doesn't know WHAT I'd do to be with her.] I got it!

Woman: [reads that internal monologue in his eyes, instant love]

But it could also go this way:


Woman: "Can you [reasonable request?"


Man: [internal monologue: Man, this chick is awesome. Look at her. What's that? She's asking me to do something? Ahhhh she likes me, but I don't want to do that right now.] Nah.

In both cases, the man is the source of validation because he's validating himself and the girl despite what he says.

However, if the internal monologue is different, and there's some conflict there, BOTH answers can not work.

Erika said...

Anonymous 11:04 am,

Yes, I agree with you about some indecisive situations. Sometimes being honest means saying we are torn and expressing both sides of what's going on. The more internal clarity we get though, the more we'll have clear yeses and nos.

As to your baby comment, I would like to invite you to open your heart a little more to the possibilities. If you love a woman with all your heart, and she wants a baby with all her heart, and you could find a way to give that to her, why wouldn't you say yes?

Erika said...

I'm going to let Hristiyan answer your questions if he would like to do that.

Meanwhile, I wanted to let you know that all three of the "PUAs" you mentioned bought me drinks and/or dinner the first time they met me. Their chivalry went a long way in my book. It was not taken for granted. It was noticed and deeply appreciated. It was received as a sign of their sincerity and openness and generosity of spirit.

Anonymous said...

I'm not talking about being a cheap tightwad I'm talking about not being exploited.

women are like us, mere humans , a mix of good and evil.
metal.

Poetry of Flesh said...

The first time I read this, I was a bit derisive. Chivalry in men... it isn't a draw for me.

And then I thought about it for a few hours.

To me, chivalry is a learned behavior. In my opinion, men do not naturally behave in a chivalrous fashion (even though some are raised in households where it is an expected behavior and, in my logic, more understandable), which means they've had to take the time and the energy to learn how to behave in this generically pleasing way.

I don't trust this. I did, when I was younger, I know.

But I don't anymore. That's life.

If you're purposefully learning a behavior, a behavior you were not raised with, then there is a goal in mind. It might be with the noblest of intentions, or it might just be another guy thinking that if he opens a door for a woman or buys her dinner, he's that much closer to getting her in bed.

The sex I don't mind.

It's the lac of honesty, the naturalness. I have a hard time believing that chivalry is learned for chivalry's sake. And reading over the comments on this post, can you blame me?

I look at intent. I would much rather have a man come up to me while I'm out and about, tell me I'm beautiful and he thinks I'd look wonderful bent over the back of his couch than a man who would open a door for me, buy me flowers, and wine and dine me. The former is easy to understand, easy and enjoyable to play with. The latter ends up so often being this confusing tangle of communication and desire.

And I realize, writing this, that in the past, when men wanted to get me into a committed relationship, they would have to start with the direct, aggressive, and sexual, then, as I began to trust them and their intent, they would flip to chivalrous and giving, drawing me in that way. Odd.

If a man paid for every meal, I'd become uncomfortable. I dated a man for two years who insisted on always opening the car door for me and I should've trusted my instincts on that one and gotten out sooner.

But it would be nice to have that masculine presence in my life that I can rely on, that's steady and wild. That serves, but understands that my particular nature requires a bit of a different bent.

Maybe by the time I'm done with my own blog, I'll get to the point where I can relax with men who act in a chivalrous manner. It's going to take some doing.

Thanks for the post, it's obviously going to continue to cause me to think for the next few days.

Erika said...

hi Poetry of Flesh,

Thanks for chiming in and ... I'm going on pure intuition here ... and the image that comes to me is what you described before ... of you driving to see all these different men. Always your energy going out to them, rather than receiving.

And I wonder how that feels to you, deep down, and if you've been following Rori Raye's blog (she's linked to me here).

So at the risk of saying something potentially triggering, that's what my intuition says to say right now ...

Poetry of Flesh said...

Hey Erika,

Please don't worry about saying anything potentially triggering. If something gets me upset, that's a good thing because I know I need to examine the cause of the upset and figure out exactly what's going on within me.

I do put out a lot of effort and energy to please. I always have. Much like your masculine chivalry and the idea of service, of giving, I have a constant and intense need to be serving and pleasing men.

Writing that, I think I was brainwashed as a small child. Please send help.

It's odd to say in a place that I've yet to see mention anything about a D/s dynamic, but I'm incredibly submissive. It makes me happy to be driving as much as I do, it makes me happy to learn what I can about my lovers' bodies so I can please them to the extent of my physical capabilities.

That is never going to change.

I have to work within it, which means going against my own instincts. It's like rubbing a cat's fur backwards- very uncomfortable. But I'm doing it.

I've gone ahead and added Rori Raye's blog to my blogroll. I like her ideas, but I have to rotate everything slightly in order to fit my lifestyle, and that can get a bit complicated. It's good stimulation, another perspective that is so very different than my own.

But your instinct was on. I do hate putting out so much energy and then having so little returned. It becomes more frustrating to me when I realize how little I ask for in the first place.

GoneSavage said...

"Chivalry is only a name for that general spirit or state of mind which disposes men to heroic actions, and keeps them conversant with all that is beautiful and sublime in the intellectual and moral world." -- Kenelm Henry Digby

I'm all for that. And this is pretty close to what Erika is talking about whether you realizes it or not.

What I can't get behind...

Men that use "chivalry" as a condescending means to an end. As PoF says, "another guy thinking that if he opens a door for a woman or buys her dinner, he's that much closer to getting her in bed."

And women that use "chivalry" as a unilateral demand or unreciprocated sense of entitlement.

This is not what Erika is about. From what I read, I distinctly get the feeling that she is big on reciprocity and treating each other with mutual respect and honor. Now that is heroic.

GS

Anonymous said...

This is Anonymous 11:04 am - You make good points Erika, I just think things aren't black and white.

If I love someone and she asks for a baby but we can't afford the baby, either financially, emotionally, or availability-wise, I'm not going to pretend that's not true.

I would want the best devotion and love I could offer the child regardless of my love for her or myself.

In my opinion, it's always down to context. What's the context of that couple? Can they devote themselves to a child? Is he or she where they want to be in their careers?

Anonymous said...

in the "olden" days of just a few decades ago, men called on women at their parent's parlors, and attracted them with wit and charm. wining and dining is a relatively recent dating innovation that is in fact not chivalrous at all, since it turns a date into a material transaction, with an exchange of monetary equivalents such as food and wine for at a minimum pleasant company. this has effectively made women value themselves based on how much people spend on them... the first question used to be "was he charming?" and now it is "where did he take you?" sad.

Tim said...

WTF? I don't have time to read thru all of your comments, but I hope all of you realize, the exercise came in the context of this being YOUR woman. She has already proven herself. I was at this workshop, and what it is really about has to do with learning to achieve the balance between doing what is best for ALL THREE: you, her, and the relationship.

Even better, how could you communicate that completely through your nonverbals?

This, along with many other points is absolutely critical us resolving forty years and counting of the battle of the sexes.

Really, this isn't about supplication, this isn't neediness, and it isn't giving something with any return in mind. This is giving because you want to and because it makes everyone feel good. How is that not a score?

Any one who feels resistance to this has never experienced feeling so much pleasure and "value" out of taking care of someone who deserves it. And knowing that I am sorry. But when it happens, you will want to. For the sake of argument, it's about learning to do it for the right reason.

This is real man shit that we need to know as men, which wasn't passed down to us. And it hurts me to see you turn it into rocket science.

Erika said...

Hey GS,

This is what Hristiyan wrote on my Facebook wall after the workshop:

"Erika I am deeply moved by your devotion and dedication to serve each man in my workshop from the depths of your heart.

"I am also very glad to know that you felt save enough to share your pain, you laughter, your tears, your happiness and everything in between with us."

So, yes, you are right. My intention is to serve with all my heart every man in my life.

Anonymous 11:04 am,
Certainly I don't believe in doing to please. At the same time, I think many of us say "no" to requests in a kind of knee jerk way rather than looking within to see what needs are in play and whether there may be a way to meet all of them simultaneously.

Poetry of Flesh, you say:

"That is never going to change."

Bullshit. Changing this may very well be why you found this blog. People-pleasing drains our energy and is a pattern that can be changed quickly.

Erika said...

Poetry of Flesh,

How would it feel if you just stopped driving?

And if a man asked you why, you said, "you know, it just doesn't feel right anymore. I feel a little tired of making so much effort." It's not about him, it's about you. And to throw a little humor in there -- "I've decided that I no longer make house calls."

How would it feel to stop, and sit back, and rest for a bit?

Erika said...

Metalhaze,

You keep talking about "exploitation," which seems to imply "loss."

What I'm talking about is giving from the heart, like I did last weekend at the workshop, with no expectation of anything in return. Giving because there is a human being sitting in front of you who is equally valuable to every other human being walking the face of this planet. The kind of giving that energizes us rather than depleting us.

A girl doesn't need to "prove herself" to you. Her worth is equal to yours and to everyone else.

What would happen in your life if, instead of waiting for people to prove themselves to you, you instead looked for things to appreciate about every single human being who crosses your path?

Hristiyan Atanasov said...

Wow I am kind of getting who is saying what. But guys if what you are doing is working for you, if you are happy with what you are creating your world, if you are happy with the relationships in your life, then who the fuck care what I or Erika, or anyone has to say?

And if you are not then try out what we are saying if it doesn't work for you trow it out and go learn something else.

If I spent money on a woman is because it makes me feel good to do so. I do not do it because I want something from her. I do not care what she things. If she things I am trying to impress her or buy her that is her problem not mine. It makes me feel good to take care of my women, I like it. It makes me feel like a man.

I know that man's nature is extremely generous and giving. There is no bigger pleasure for a man to give his life for something. To die for his country, for his woman, for an idea. Well if I am to take that in bring it into every moment of my life, then there is no bigger pleasure for me then to die in each moment for something bigger then me and if in that moment that happen to be her then I will die for her.

Michael said...

Dear Poetry of Flesh,

I must say, that is a very memorable internet handle. Unforgettable.

Allow me to suggest to you that if you are sub, then perhaps your Doms are not reading you as carefully as they could. I understand that exhausting you may be a result of reading you … though, it sounds to me that they could be exhilarating you much more than they are. If they are exhausting you to liberate you, that could work, I imagine, under certain circumstances. However, something suggests to me they could be more sensitive to energizing you with the submissiveness you crave. Don’t forget the power of the safety word to bring things to a stop. Especially in a broad context.

Justin said...

I feel like the point of it wasn't actually about chivalry, though that's part of it. It's also not about how to pick up a woman.

The point of it is learning how to surrender yourself to someone else. (your partner, whatever you call her) It was actually very difficult for me, because she was asking me to do something that I didn't want to do. I didn't want to do it not because of something serious, like financial issues, but because I didn't want to submit. I couldn't bring myself to surrender to her. Surrendering is NOT submission, submission is giving up. Surrendering, in this case, is about giving yourself to the other person totally, in order to create something more beautiful. It's almost something that has to be experienced to be understood. (Erika mentions that Hristiyan doesn't lecture, and this is part of the reason.)

When I did this exercise, I was saying yes, but it was in defiance, not because of my connection to her. When a guy allows himself to be walked all over, there is no connection, just as there is no connection when a guy tried to manipulate her into bed by being an asshole. This exercise is neither, as the expectation is that both people are connected enough to surrender into each other.

I'm really trying to verbalize something that there aren't words for.

"The Tao that can be named is not the Tao."

Poetry of Flesh said...

Erika,

I think I miscommunicated there. My desire to please is never going to change. I like to serve, I almost need to serve. It makes me happy, makes me content.

However, I do want to change. Not my needs, but how I allow my partners to not put in as much energy and effort as I do. I'm sick of being with men who, yes, fulfill that dominant requirement, but don't quite understand what the dynamic it takes to have a healthy D/s relationship. I want so badly to find someone worthwhile, and I want so badly to have someone (or several someones) to please on a sexual level, that I settle for guys who really don't deserve it. But they take the edge off that need.

I totally sound like a testosterone junkie. Whoo!

I like to drive to them because... I love to drive. The highway is a second home to me, and very few things make me as content as blasting down a clear stretch of road with my windows down and music blaring. I look for excuses to drive long distances. If they end up being sexual, it's just another perk at the end of the road.

But I did turn someone down last weekend. I did not do the drive, even though I wanted him like crazy and I knew the sex would be spectacularly intense. And, you know, I felt better for it.

I'm probably going to be using your "house calls" line somewhere in the near future. I'll let you know how it goes.

Michael, thanks for the compliment.

I never thought about using the safe word in a broad context.

I'm not sure if it's a matter of not reading me, as much as not understanding what submission entails outside of the bedroom. They could be more sensitive, they could be more aware. I communicate as best I can, but until I truly understand all of it myself, there's still going to be some gaps.

But I could talk about this stuff for hours. I'm not going to flood Erika's comment section with it, hehe.

Hristiyan Atanasov said...

Words and all the confusion that they cause us and all the joy that they bring us...

http://hristiyan.blogspot.com/2009/06/words-he-said-she-said.html

Jonathan said...

Hi girlie

Looks like a heated discussion here. Wish I was interested enough to take a look

Chivalry might not be the best choice of words for what you're describing. Some theories say "chivalry" was fabricated during the time of the crusades as a way of keeping women chaste while their husbands were away fighting. The knights came up with the idea of the code; where men "served" women and doted on them for their favor.

This way, they hid their true masculine power, tucked their balls between their legs, and clucked for feminine approval. A woman could NOT feel attraction for a male who sought her approval and did not follow his own path.

That being said.. there is nothing wrong with a deep connection between a guy and a girl. ANY guy who is good with women makes strong emotional connections with them as they’re interacting. A lot of guys think this is chode, think forming an emotional connection with a girl is weak.

The truth of the matter is this: forming an emotional connection isn’t what’s weak, it’s the guy's emotions themselves that are weak. Guys are scared to form a connection because then their weak emotional immaturity gets exposed. However instead of facing this real issue, they circumvent it by saying connecting with a girl is unmanly. Bullshit. Connecting with a girl is super hot and makes penetrating her much more sexy.

We're all on a journey. Your blog won’t make sense to some as they're at a different place. But nothing here is new. You've always been at odds with your "physical" or biological paradigm. i.e. your abstinence and denial of bodily drives; we've talked about this before. However they cannot be denied. Your strong desire to form spiritual connections are simply your biological drives ascended to a different level. Women are biologically hardwired to create connections. So they can raise children. A woman's path is to form a connection with a man so he'll stay with her and support his child with her. Some say in fact a woman's purpose is to subvert him from HIS path, lol. There is nothing wrong with this. However a man’s purpose is not to connect with a woman. It is to achieve and conquer the world. He can temporarily bond with a woman and entertain his softer side, but if she is actually able to subvert him from his path, he is weak, and she will not be satisfied with him in the end.

Anyways hon- take care.

Cheers,
Manwhore

Erika said...

Justin,

Thank you so much for that beautiful description of the difference between submission and surrender. It is really difficult to explain to people, which is why I'm thrilled that Hristiyan is creating these workshops so that we can all experience the difference for ourselves.

xoxo,
Erika

Erika said...

hi Jonathan,

Thanks for commenting hon. I can't wait to meet you in person soon.

"Connecting with a girl is super hot and makes penetrating her much more sexy."

Nice.

Taking a man off his path? What about a shared path for a man and a woman?

And ... I don't deny my desire to explore the physical as well. I'm especially intrigued with tantra. For me, though, the sexual and the emotional and the spiritual need to go together. Sexual without all the rest feels empty to me.

Sex before commitment is putting the proverbial cart before the proverbial horse.

Love ya,

Erika

Daria said...

Aaah I'm starting to feel really triggered by all the "biological crap."

I fell for it before but no longer. Btw women don't need men to stick around any longer to help them raise children, if That Were Ever a Biological Imperative. Which I'm starting to think it was not. I think these things are made up to provide evidence for the beliefs we choose. They get turned all kinds of ways... men need to be with more than one woman, women need one man, etc when we see even in nature that this doesn't hold across the board and we may be wildly misinterpreting.

Just like the former centuries "women are just not as intelligent... women can't be leaders... etc"

I bet there were matriarchal societies where women did not need men to stick around even back in our "biological days" to use a slightly senseless phrase. What about like um... cultures where they had that big fire dance where women had sex with a STRANGER and got pregnant and did not expect him to stick around... etc.

Right.

For example, if DNA diversity is so great that men want to impregnate lots of women "biologically" then why wouldn't women want to be impregnated by many men "biologically." Because they want the man to stick around? Why? So their kid can survive? Why wouldn't the man want to stick around so his kid could survive... etc...


Let's unblind ourselves. We don't need men to stick around. We choose to be in a relationship with someone... the "shared path." When a man falls in love with a woman, I bet he is really really really wanting to share paths with her at that point...

Men fall harder than women sometimes and women (who by the way mysteriously have purposes other than connection to a man... haha... lets not get into feminine mysteries here) can feel attracted even to a man that is in love with her.


What causes obstacles is the fear of intimacy... which can be overcome by being real...


Still feeling a little mad. Good thing we don't have to understand everything to feel everything.

WonderousWomanRetreat said...

Dear friend,

Consider to join us for A Wonderous Woman Retreat
on August 13,14,and 15

The Wonderous Woman retreat program leads and encourages every woman to connect to all facets of her purpose and value. Our approach is to create experiential retreats in beautiful venues where you can connect to your mind, body and spirit.

It's easy to take care of everyone else in our lives, but we tend to forget about ourselves.

Anonymous said...

Chivalry has nothing to do with it. Leadership has everything to do with it.
Relationships are like a dance. When the man is unable to be a strong lead for a woman, they will trip and step on each others feet.