Sexuality in spirituality

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Well, I suppose there isn't much else one can say... some people simply always choose the more difficult path. 😁

And if you happen to believe that the condescension was tucked away in that bolded section—the part about "...for people who prefer those other methods"... I simply cannot... To apply this to oneself...

Now, I have come to realize that one certainly encounters many individuals who dedicate themselves to practicing tantra and Magik, and it seems quite certain that the underlying motivation for such pursuits is simply an inability to maintain a life of celibacy...
It is essentially the same as me suggesting that anyone practicing celibacy is fundamentally incapable of engaging in tantra or Magik—implying, of course, that they must be suffering from some sort of sexual dysfunction...

It is quite simply because they are superior, in principle. After all, this is a point upon which all successful followers of spiritual paths—and indeed, even the most serious spiritual teachings themselves—can reach a consensus. Celibacy isn't merely a rule confined to theology or organized religion; it is deeply embedded within mysticism as well (perhaps even more emphatically there than in theology), and extends into philosophy, and to some extent, even into purely physical disciplines... such as in elite professional sports, where it is often recommended...

Is it actually better? I mean, did you really give this one a fair shake and run a side-by-side comparison before deciding...
When it comes to matters of authority, there are always those who contradict one another at every turn. It leaves one wondering... why is it that we tend to believe the ones we choose to follow are the most correct?
It’s a classic logical fallacy, really... the idea that just because I follow someone, it automatically means they’re right. It's certainly not how sound reasoning works... 😁

To be perfectly honest, I have never had much use for authority figures. It isn't quite in my nature to simply bow down to whoever happens to be in charge; I certainly wasn't born to spend my days following orders or adhering to someone else's rulebook. Rather, my intention has always been to live my life on my own terms...

It could certainly be categorized as dogma—if we define dogma as a truth revealed by the Divine—but at its core, it remains a simple, undeniable fact...

That particular dogma is fundamentally opposed to both humanity and the very essence of love. It stands in direct opposition to our nature; for instance, it seeks to deny homosexual individuals the right to experience true love... 😲 So, we are talking about fundamental human rights...

Technically speaking, one could consume excrement. One could even consume human flesh; the human digestive system is perfectly capable of processing it without any physiological complications, and who knows what other biological possibilities exist... All of these things "can" be done if one doesn't find them repulsive or perceive anything inherently wrong with them. In fact, pigs actually enjoy consuming waste—especially when it is warm. They particularly favor it when it is fresh and warm, though they certainly don't reject it when it's cold; on the contrary, they quite enjoy that as well... so, strictly speaking, it "can" be done...

e, I think he's overdoing it a bit here 😳
I honestly can't fathom where these associations regarding the consumption of bodily fluids come from...
Of course, there are certain psychoanalytic theories regarding such things, but since psychoanalyzing fellow forum members is strictly against the rules—I shall restrain myself accordingly.

As for sperm and vaginal fluids, that enters the realm of black magic and carries very dire consequences for one's fate; besides that, 🤮

that isn't black magic at all 🤣

It seems to me that you won't be able to grasp how much any of what we are discussing actually benefits someone, and it really would be wise to understand that if you feel it's "okay" for you. I certainly wouldn't recommend it to you, though I don't wish for you to interpret that as an attempt to repress your own free will. 😉 (I am consciously risking judgment by addressing you somewhat personally in this final paragraph...)

your issue is that you are operating under prejudices and judging something about which you possess absolutely no knowledge, let alone any actual experience.

It isn't wise, but it falls within the realm of free will. Some people choose to wander off the beaten path. That isn't wise either, but it still falls within the realm of free will.

You know plenty of people who practice tantra and Magik, and you can say with absolute certainty that they only do it because they lack the discipline for celibacy.
It’s like me claiming that anyone practicing celibacy is incapable of practicing tantra or Magik—essentially suggesting they suffer from sexual dysfunction.

I haven't made any specific claim that could be met with such an objection. I was speaking in terms of principle—referring to those individuals who lack the capacity. As for those who have the ability but simply choose not to act, that is a matter of free will and doesn't alter the underlying principle.

Is it better? Have you actually tried this one yet to make a proper comparison?
When it comes to authority figures, there are plenty of people out there giving conflicting advice. Why do you assume that the ones you follow are necessarily the most accurate?
That’s a logical fallacy. Just because I follow him doesn't mean he's right. 😁
Honestly, I couldn't care less about authority figures. I wasn't born just to follow orders; I was born to live my life on my own terms.

Direct sensory experience isn't your only way to learn, nor is it necessarily the most reliable. There are countless ways to acquire knowledge. Think about your education: you didn't personally verify every single fact taught in school; you relied on the expertise of your teachers because verifying everything yourself is simply impossible. If you act based on that acquired knowledge, the outcome is effectively the same as if you had experienced it firsthand. While having direct, personal experience is ideal, it isn't always feasible to witness everything personally, nor is it strictly necessary to benefit from certain types of information.

I never claimed that following him made his position correct. Beyond that, you can never reach a definitive conclusion on any fundamentally significant or existential question through logic alone. Logic certainly has its place and its function, but it is incredibly limited.

If you ask anyone versed in legitimate spiritual and mystical traditions, they’ll all point you toward the same fundamental truth. It’s a universal constant. The only people offering a different perspective are either the uninformed or those self-proclaimed "experts" who think they have it figured out—even though they don't actually grasp the depth of what they claim to know.

There are two paths you can take: the path of chaos or the path of following proven wisdom. Choosing chaos leads only to disaster and ignorance. If you don't believe me, feel free to find out for yourself.

Someone might possess the physical ability to speak, yet lack the capacity to articulate what they actually mean. If that’s the case, how much weight can we truly give to their words?

That dogma is fundamentally against humanity and love itself. It actively works to deny homosexual people the right to experience love. 😲 Basically, it's a fundamental human right.

What kind of "dogma" is supposed to be protecting love? What spirituality could possibly forbid or limit such a noble, sublime desire of the human heart? Does anyone try to ban "love" for zoophiles or necrophiles too?

Wow, okay, now they're overdoing it. 😳
I honestly have no idea where these associations regarding the consumption of bodily fluids come from.
Of course, there are certain psychoanalytic theories on the subject, but since analyzing forum members is strictly off-limits—I'll refrain.

Seriously though, where do these kinds of associations even originate? 😬 It's just wild...

this isn't black magic 🤣

"Consuming" sperm and vaginal discharge? Please, that's supposedly something "sublime"...

your problem is that you have prejudices and you're judging something you know nothing about, let alone having any experience with.

It’s good to finally know what my problem is, given how finely and professionally explained it was, backed by such authoritative sources of knowledge.

As for having experience with such things? No thanks. I don't need that kind of experience; I don't need to break an egg to know it's an egg.

Do you know the story of when a sea captain arrived in Australia and encountered a cannibalistic tribe? There was a woman on her deathbed whose final wish was to eat a child's arm. When the captain expressed his horror at the act, she remarked:

"You have no idea how delicious a child's arm is; you've never tried it yourselves!" 😬

Good grief, this isn't actually a discussion 😳—it’s just you preaching your own set of dogmas. It’s much like how a devout Christian might turn to you and label you a Satanist or some dark sorcerer, using the exact same "logic" you're using now.

My own life experiences and spiritual journey have taught me one vital thing: I don't judge people by what they claim to know, but rather by what they have actually lived through. Anyone can boast about someone else's achievements or recite a recipe they found in a book, but when things get real and a person is left entirely alone to figure out their own path... well, that's a different story altogether. In those moments, such individuals (though, of course, there are rare exceptions...) might even turn into cannibals if it meant they could 🙄

So, while everything you're saying is likely documented somewhere in a textbook, I simply don't see you as someone capable of passing that knowledge on to another soul... because you refuse to acknowledge anything as possible, true, or beautiful unless it fits perfectly within your specific dogma.

Anyway, I do appreciate your contribution to the topic; at least you have the guts to stand behind your views (even if you aren't standing there yourself, but rather hiding behind your "authorities") 👍

One more thing, though... the easiest path is still just attending Sunday Mass 🙂

Personally, I don't see how celibacy functions as a spiritual category or a foundation for spiritual growth, and my reasoning is pretty straightforward: it’s a conscious choice to impose restrictions, not an intuitive way of being. In other words, celibacy as a lifestyle choice is an ideological component. The reality is that sexuality, in a spiritual sense, isn't rooted in one's worldview, but rather in intuitive energy and states of consciousness. What I mean by this is that there are definitely people out there who simply don't find sexuality significant or even feel it; they are neutral toward it. Such a person might not engage in sexual relationships or express sexuality at all, but they wouldn't call themselves "celibate" because the concept doesn't even cross their mind. Someone who declares themselves celibate has made a deliberate decision to abstain in order to achieve something specific or prove a point based on their own personal beliefs.

Sexuality is both literally and figuratively creative—it’s inspiring. I don't see why it would automatically drag down a person's spiritual level; if anything, it can elevate them when approached through a constructive lens.

It’s also a bit ridiculous to constantly frame sexuality within the context of "unhealthy addiction," deviancy, or reckless behavior. 😕
Viewing sexuality through those kinds of biased lenses is actually counter-spiritual. Sexuality is an unquestionable part of human nature, carrying immense energetic and creative potential that varies wildly from person to person. Ultimately, we can't make blanket statements about what constitutes "healthy" or "unhealthy" sexuality because how that potential is experienced and utilized is entirely individual.

Furthermore, sexuality doesn't inherently imply promiscuity, especially if certain comments regarding being "trapped" or "out of control" under its influence are targeting that idea. People experience and trigger sexuality in vastly different ways: for some, it's just a basic need; for others, recreation; for some, an obsession; for some, a non-factor; and for others, a transcendental experience. Because of this, it isn't really a suitable subject for such prejudices when we are discussing sexuality generally as a facet of a spiritual person.
To use a caricature as an example, intelligence can be used to research mathematical formulas, new energy sources, or life-saving medicines... blah, blah, blah... it can be used for contemplating spirituality or creative expression, but it can also be used to devise untraceable serial murder methods or develop poisons to wipe out as many people as possible through food supplies. While sexuality isn't quite as broadly defined a trait as intelligence, its perception, application, and capacity for inspiration fall deeply within the individual domain. When it comes to spirituality, I don't think there should be any room for these kinds of prejudices or dogmatic interpretations. 🤷

If you ask me, celibacy is just a strategic move in male politics and honestly has absolutely nothing to do with actual spirituality. It feels like men just couldn't quite wrap their heads around how women experience the spiritual side of love, so they went ahead and invented abstinence as a workaround. I mean, any woman will tell you that intimacy is a profound spiritual journey in itself, but men decided that staying away from it was the only way to reach enlightenment. It’s such an absurdity when you think about it! Forgive us, really—we're just working with one less chromosome...

Rebecca Sanders2, thank you so much for that wonderful post; you’ve perfectly captured everything I think and feel... 👍

Brian Lopez6, I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say women inherently view sexuality through a "spiritual" lens by default, though it is quite likely they remain more receptive to its subtler dimensions—that seems accurate enough.
I also have the impression that this entire resistance toward sexuality stems from a singular patriarchal, philosophical, and religious construct, which tends to demonize,污污dirty, and condemn everything feminine and everything a man associates with womanhood.

Unfortunately, this matrix remains deeply embedded within our American social attitudes and relationships, and even within our collective psyche; therefore, I truly value those who are attempting to challenge it and work toward meaningful change...

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Brian Lopez6, I wouldn't necessarily say women experience sexuality as something "spiritual" by default, though they might be more receptive to its subtler nuances—that part is probably true.

Honestly, I kind of feel like it *is* the default setting (or maybe I just have way too much respect for women, haha!), and if that doesn't happen, it’s usually because of patriarchal conditioning or just being with the wrong partner rather than anything inherent to how women are actually wired.
But it makes you wonder, right? How did we even get to this point where men feel this constant need to dominate or even bash sexuality itself? Let's face it, sex can be a super frustrating area of life. It’s one of those things where you go in hoping and expecting one thing, but then reality hits differently. Personally, I really think the answer lies deep in those hormone shifts that kick in during the act. You start out with all these incredible sensations—that rush of falling in love, pure ecstasy, and a massive sense of connection with your partner—all driven by these huge spikes in oxytocin, dopamine, and endorphins. But then, right after ejaculation, everything shifts. Those "feel-good" levels plummet, and prolactin starts climbing, which basically kills the desire and that warm feeling of being bonded. And that high prolactin level can hang around for a few days! On top of that, testosterone starts rising within about 24 hours. So, when you combine that prolactin spike with the testosterone surge and the lack of oxytocin, you end up with a guy who feels irritable, reckless, aggressive, or just incredibly competitive. Since the average person is having sex about twice a week, most men are essentially stuck in this prolonged "prolactin phase" where they struggle to feel deep affection or empathy, and they definitely aren't feeling particularly tolerant. I truly believe this physiological roller coaster is at the very root of why there's such negativity toward sexuality, why we see a patriarchal culture obsessed with competition, and even why there's this whole idea that people need to practice abstinence to stay productive and focused.

Brian Lopez6 said:I really think this whole physiological setup is at the core of why there’s such negative baggage surrounding sexuality, and it basically feeds right into that old-school patriarchal culture built on competition—it also seems to underpin this whole idea that we need to practice abstinence if we want to actually be productive members of society.

I suppose what it boils down to is that biological drive where a man feels this urge to spread his genes, you know, that primal instinct to fertilize as many females as possible. Once he’s been intimate with one woman a few times, that biological clock in his head tells him his job is done and it's time to move on.

Since there's this fundamental gap between the sexes—which, like you pointed out, is rooted in our very biology—it makes me wonder: should a woman just accept that compromise and settle for a guy who's going to roll over and fall asleep the second he's finished, or should she hold out for something more substantial? Honestly, I don't know; I just feel like men and women are wired so differently that these gaps might just be impossible to smooth over. I mean, at the end of the day, you can't really fight against nature.

Elizabeth Bishop4 said:I suppose what it boils down to is that biological drive where a man feels this urge to spread his genes, you know, that primal instinct to fertilize as many females as possible. Once he’s been intimate with one woman a few times, that biological clock in his head tells him his job is done and it's time to move on.

Since there's this fundamental gap between the sexes—which, like you pointed out, is rooted in our very biology—it makes me wonder: should a woman just accept that compromise and settle for a guy who's going to roll over and fall asleep the second he's finished, or should she hold out for something more substantial? Honestly, I don't know; I just feel like men and women are wired so differently that these gaps might just be impossible to smooth over. I mean, at the end of the day, you can't really fight against nature.

Well, I wouldn't say it's an impossible battle, though I definitely see where they're coming from! Personally, I really believe we have this amazing capacity to refine ourselves and actually rise above our basic biological programming. It’s not like we're making things up out of thin air, either; there’s plenty of precedent for this kind of behavior in the wild. If you look at certain animals—like bonobos or even dolphins—they often engage in sexual behavior for purely social bonding or to smooth over tensions within the group rather than just for reproduction. So, if they can find ways to transcend simple instinct for the sake of their community, why couldn't we?

Oh boy, I simply cannot agree with 😲

Regarding this whole issue of patriarchal indoctrination, I don't believe it has anything to do with hormones or biological drivers at all. Rather, I would argue that these supposed hormonal issues—this specific type of behavior seen in men—are merely the byproduct of patriarchal conditioning. It’s a system that has historically stigmatized women as nothing more than wombs and men solely as providers of seed 🙄
which reduces sex to a mere tool for reproduction, rather than what it should be: a profound spiritual and emotional experience.

That being said, based on my own life experiences thus far, I have to say I haven't actually encountered many such emotionless men. In fact, I find that most men are quite exhausted by the roles forced upon them... in about 90% of the men I know (not to mention those I have personally dated), I observe sincere, deep emotions and a genuine need for connection.
I have only ever noticed true lack of feeling in people—both men and women—who have actively suppressed their own sexual and emotional needs, or even embraced celibacy as a shield.

The example Brian Lopez6 brought up, where a woman becomes "uninteresting" to her male partner immediately after sex, perhaps speaks more to how much he was attracted to her in the first place. I suspect that if he were truly interested in her as a person, beyond just the physical aspect, the situation wouldn't feel nearly as frustrating for either party. However, that is precisely the point. In a culture like this, women aren't given the opportunity, nor are they encouraged, to develop their own unique personalities and character; meanwhile, men are indoctrinated to view women as nothing more than reproductive vessels. Women are dehumanized, while men are deliberately prevented from achieving any real, deep connection with their partners.

If Brian Lopez6's argument were actually correct, men would be entirely incapable of any kind of emotional relationship whatsoever. Yet, we see that men—especially those types—understand each other quite well and are perfectly capable of fulfilling those emotional, spiritual, and intellectual needs among themselves.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Oh boy, I simply cannot agree with 😲

Regarding this whole issue of patriarchal indoctrination, I don't believe it has anything to do with hormones or biological drivers at all. Rather, I would argue that these supposed hormonal issues—this specific type of behavior seen in men—are merely the byproduct of patriarchal conditioning. It’s a system that has historically stigmatized women as nothing more than wombs and men solely as providers of seed 🙄
which reduces sex to a mere tool for reproduction, rather than what it should be: a profound spiritual and emotional experience.

That being said, based on my own life experiences thus far, I have to say I haven't actually encountered many such emotionless men. In fact, I find that most men are quite exhausted by the roles forced upon them... in about 90% of the men I know (not to mention those I have personally dated), I observe sincere, deep emotions and a genuine need for connection.
I have only ever noticed true lack of feeling in people—both men and women—who have actively suppressed their own sexual and emotional needs, or even embraced celibacy as a shield.

The example Brian Lopez6 brought up, where a woman becomes "uninteresting" to her male partner immediately after sex, perhaps speaks more to how much he was attracted to her in the first place. I suspect that if he were truly interested in her as a person, beyond just the physical aspect, the situation wouldn't feel nearly as frustrating for either party. However, that is precisely the point. In a culture like this, women aren't given the opportunity, nor are they encouraged, to develop their own unique personalities and character; meanwhile, men are indoctrinated to view women as nothing more than reproductive vessels. Women are dehumanized, while men are deliberately prevented from achieving any real, deep connection with their partners.

If Brian Lopez6's argument were actually correct, men would be entirely incapable of any kind of emotional relationship whatsoever. Yet, we see that men—especially those types—understand each other quite well and are perfectly capable of fulfilling those emotional, spiritual, and intellectual needs among themselves.

But you have to admit, men like that are pretty rare, aren't they? It’s not that they lack the capacity for emotional intimacy entirely, but there are so many women out there who just can't seem to build a real, deep bond with a man, let alone tap into that whole spiritual side of sexuality we're discussing here. And honestly, I think women carry a good chunk of the responsibility for that, too. Sometimes, it feels incredibly draining just trying to have a basic conversation with a guy without getting that nagging, unsettling feeling that you're just never going to be on the same wavelength.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Oh boy, I simply cannot agree with 😲

Regarding this whole issue of patriarchal indoctrination, I don't believe it has anything to do with hormones or biological drivers at all. Rather, I would argue that these supposed hormonal issues—this specific type of behavior seen in men—are merely the byproduct of patriarchal conditioning. It’s a system that has historically stigmatized women as nothing more than wombs and men solely as providers of seed 🙄
which reduces sex to a mere tool for reproduction, rather than what it should be: a profound spiritual and emotional experience.

That being said, based on my own life experiences thus far, I have to say I haven't actually encountered many such emotionless men. In fact, I find that most men are quite exhausted by the roles forced upon them... in about 90% of the men I know (not to mention those I have personally dated), I observe sincere, deep emotions and a genuine need for connection.
I have only ever noticed true lack of feeling in people—both men and women—who have actively suppressed their own sexual and emotional needs, or even embraced celibacy as a shield.

The example Brian Lopez6 brought up, where a woman becomes "uninteresting" to her male partner immediately after sex, perhaps speaks more to how much he was attracted to her in the first place. I suspect that if he were truly interested in her as a person, beyond just the physical aspect, the situation wouldn't feel nearly as frustrating for either party. However, that is precisely the point. In a culture like this, women aren't given the opportunity, nor are they encouraged, to develop their own unique personalities and character; meanwhile, men are indoctrinated to view women as nothing more than reproductive vessels. Women are dehumanized, while men are deliberately prevented from achieving any real, deep connection with their partners.

If Brian Lopez6's argument were actually correct, men would be entirely incapable of any kind of emotional relationship whatsoever. Yet, we see that men—especially those types—understand each other quite well and are perfectly capable of fulfilling those emotional, spiritual, and intellectual needs among themselves.

But if you ask me, our physical biology and those pesky hormones actually influence how we think and act way more than we’d ever want to admit or even realize.

Elizabeth Bishop4 said:But you have to admit, men like that are pretty rare, aren't they? It’s not that they lack the capacity for emotional intimacy entirely, but there are so many women out there who just can't seem to build a real, deep bond with a man, let alone tap into that whole spiritual side of sexuality we're discussing here. And honestly, I think women carry a good chunk of the responsibility for that, too. Sometimes, it feels incredibly draining just trying to have a basic conversation with a guy without getting that nagging, unsettling feeling that you're just never going to be on the same wavelength.

It appears our life experiences are quite divergent, Elizabeth 🙂
throughout my entire life, I have found myself maintaining much more substantial and profound emotional connections with men than I have with women, which is an observation that seems to grow stronger as I age. I am referring strictly to platonic friendships, devoid of any sexual element...
Women tend to orient themselves toward a man, and they do so decisively. When we are younger, this isn't nearly as apparent, particularly if one is immersed in intellectual circles where we focus on personal growth, but once the "game of life" begins—meaning marriage, children, and such—women often neglect almost every other facet of their existence to focus exclusively on their spouse and family. Men, conversely, almost always maintain their own circle of friends and a career, or at least some hobby that provides an escape from those purely biological imperatives...
In most instances, women completely abandon their pursuit of self-development the moment they marry, or at least once the prospect of marriage becomes imminent...

To be perfectly candid, I have very few female friends with whom I can discuss the same range of topics that I can with my male friends, of whom I have no shortage...😛

Brian Lopez6 said:But if you ask me, our physical biology and those pesky hormones actually influence how we think and act way more than we’d ever want to admit or even realize.

Which is precisely why spirituality and self-discipline exist...😛

Andrew Sanchez572 said:It appears our life experiences are quite divergent, Elizabeth 🙂
throughout my entire life, I have found myself maintaining much more substantial and profound emotional connections with men than I have with women, which is an observation that seems to grow stronger as I age. I am referring strictly to platonic friendships, devoid of any sexual element...
Women tend to orient themselves toward a man, and they do so decisively. When we are younger, this isn't nearly as apparent, particularly if one is immersed in intellectual circles where we focus on personal growth, but once the "game of life" begins—meaning marriage, children, and such—women often neglect almost every other facet of their existence to focus exclusively on their spouse and family. Men, conversely, almost always maintain their own circle of friends and a career, or at least some hobby that provides an escape from those purely biological imperatives...
In most instances, women completely abandon their pursuit of self-development the moment they marry, or at least once the prospect of marriage becomes imminent...

To be perfectly candid, I have very few female friends with whom I can discuss the same range of topics that I can with my male friends, of whom I have no shortage...😛

Which is precisely why spirituality and self-discipline exist...😛

I can't say I agree with you at all. You're generalizing—which is exactly what you claim to avoid 🙂. Speaking from my own experience and observing the women in my life—friends, acquaintances, colleagues—very few actually lose themselves to their families the way you describe. The reality is that while these women certainly have more on their plates, those truly committed to self-growth won't let a husband or a child derail them. I don't mean that literally, of course, but if you're with a decent man who actually respects and understands you, you can balance it all. That’s a different story for women marrying traditionalist types who think they know "a woman's place," or for those who never had ambitions beyond marriage and kids to begin with. But in my circle, there are plenty of women you can have a real conversation with. There is, however, a flip side: there's often a subtle jealousy among women when one becomes more successful than the others. That's actually why I tend to have more male friends. 😛

Andrew Sanchez572 said:I’ve honestly found that I have much more meaningful and emotionally deep connections with men than I ever have with women, and that feeling just seems to get stronger as I get older—and I’m talking purely about friendships here, totally platonic.

That’s definitely true, though I feel like once you throw sex into the mix, that emotional depth just kind of evaporates, right? It’s like the whole dynamic shifts completely. I really think you can build these solid, lasting friendships with guys as long as they’re certain there isn't any romantic tension involved, because then they don't go looking for it; instead, they actually see you as an intelligent person they can just sit down and have a real conversation with. But, honestly, I suppose that’s just another byproduct of our patriarchal culture and the way we were all raised, which is something none of us are really immune to, regardless of how hard we try.

I don't know, my own life experience isn't exactly a massive data set or anything, so I'm probably just throwing out theories here.

Sean Cruz said:...every woman is more or less jealous of another if she happens to be more successful in any given area.

It's funny because you're calling out that kind of generalization, even though you're doing the exact same thing yourself.

Elizabeth Bishop4 said:That’s definitely true, though I feel like once you throw sex into the mix, that emotional depth just kind of evaporates, right? It’s like the whole dynamic shifts completely. I really think you can build these solid, lasting friendships with guys as long as they’re certain there isn't any romantic tension involved, because then they don't go looking for it; instead, they actually see you as an intelligent person they can just sit down and have a real conversation with. But, honestly, I suppose that’s just another byproduct of our patriarchal culture and the way we were all raised, which is something none of us are really immune to, regardless of how hard we try.

I don't know, my own life experience isn't exactly a massive data set or anything, so I'm probably just throwing out theories here.

It's funny because you're calling out that kind of generalization, even though you're doing the exact same thing yourself.

I find myself in agreement with this perspective, although I maintain that sex is the only arena where giving and receiving occur simultaneously; an emotional bond without physical intimacy can still be elevated through other forms of mutual support and exchange.

An idea keeps circling in my mind, drawn from my own life experiences, suggesting that relationships actually require much more frequent sexual intimacy at the beginning than they do later on... it is almost as if sex serves as the primary medium through which two people truly begin to coalesce.

Well, Sean Cruz, I believe you are actually generalizing quite a bit in a post specifically dedicated to condemning generalizations 😁

However, I think you may have misread my intentions entirely. While you correctly observed that women within a family structure often shoulder an overwhelming number of responsibilities—leaving them very little room to cultivate a life outside of domestic duties (and I include their careers in that, as those jobs often serve merely as a means to fund the household rather than a path for professional growth)
I am certainly not suggesting that every single woman fits this mold, though the vast majority does indeed fall into this pattern.
One might find slightly more breathing room in academic circles where education is prioritized and freedom is more accessible, yet those highly educated demographics represent a very small slice of our society.

So, we aren't really discussing the outliers here; we are talking about the statistical norm.

Furthermore, while these patterns might be less pronounced outside of America, I don't see much point in pivoting the conversation toward international comparisons right now, given that we are living here in the States and I would prefer not to derail the topic unnecessarily.

Elizabeth Bishop4, regarding the matter of sexual relationships, I don't have any particular grievances with men either 😁
Of course, there are certain behaviors that I find objectionable, but once they cross my threshold of tolerance, I simply end the relationship.
That being said, my current partner and I have been together for six years now, and I am truly satisfied with how our connection has evolved; the relationship has become progressively better and more meaningful on every level as the years pass.

Sean Cruz said:I can't say I agree with you at all. You're generalizing—which is exactly what you claim to avoid 🙂. Speaking from my own experience and observing the women in my life—friends, acquaintances, colleagues—very few actually lose themselves to their families the way you describe. The reality is that while these women certainly have more on their plates, those truly committed to self-growth won't let a husband or a child derail them. I don't mean that literally, of course, but if you're with a decent man who actually respects and understands you, you can balance it all. That’s a different story for women marrying traditionalist types who think they know "a woman's place," or for those who never had ambitions beyond marriage and kids to begin with. But in my circle, there are plenty of women you can have a real conversation with. There is, however, a flip side: there's often a subtle jealousy among women when one becomes more successful than the others. That's actually why I tend to have more male friends. 😛

Ah, that relentless competitive spirit—faster, stronger, more—it truly is quite monstrous, though I find myself wondering if you believe such an impulse is entirely absent among men? 🤣

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Well, Sean Cruz, I believe you are actually generalizing quite a bit in a post specifically dedicated to condemning generalizations 😁

However, I think you may have misread my intentions entirely. While you correctly observed that women within a family structure often shoulder an overwhelming number of responsibilities—leaving them very little room to cultivate a life outside of domestic duties (and I include their careers in that, as those jobs often serve merely as a means to fund the household rather than a path for professional growth)
I am certainly not suggesting that every single woman fits this mold, though the vast majority does indeed fall into this pattern.
One might find slightly more breathing room in academic circles where education is prioritized and freedom is more accessible, yet those highly educated demographics represent a very small slice of our society.

So, we aren't really discussing the outliers here; we are talking about the statistical norm.

Furthermore, while these patterns might be less pronounced outside of America, I don't see much point in pivoting the conversation toward international comparisons right now, given that we are living here in the States and I would prefer not to derail the topic unnecessarily.

Elizabeth Bishop4, regarding the matter of sexual relationships, I don't have any particular grievances with men either 😁
Of course, there are certain behaviors that I find objectionable, but once they cross my threshold of tolerance, I simply end the relationship.
That being said, my current partner and I have been together for six years now, and I am truly satisfied with how our connection has evolved; the relationship has become progressively better and more meaningful on every level as the years pass.

I am not generalizing; I am simply describing the women in my own circle and social life.

No, you misunderstood me. While you correctly noted that women in a family setting carry an overwhelming load of responsibilities—leaving them little room for a life outside those duties (which includes jobs that often serve merely as family income rather than paths for career growth)—that was my point.

That implies ambition, but honestly, how many people today—men or women—work solely for a paycheck rather than out of passion for their craft? I’d argue it’s much rarer to find someone who truly loves what they do while also earning a high salary.

I’m not saying absolutely every woman is like this, but the vast majority are.
It’s slightly better to be in academic or intellectual circles, since education takes longer, which theoretically grants more freedom, but highly educated people make up a very small percentage of the population.

What were you getting at with the bolded text? Are you suggesting people stay single longer, or something else? Also, having a degree doesn't automatically make someone more "aware." I know plenty of pseudo-intellectuals I wouldn't want to talk to if I could help it because they are incredibly narrow-minded, just as I know people with less formal education whom I could talk to for years without ever being bored.

So, we aren't discussing exceptions right now, but the majority.

A college degree isn't the benchmark.

hiddenhound3 said:Ah, that relentless competitive spirit—faster, stronger, more—it truly is quite monstrous, though I find myself wondering if you believe such an impulse is entirely absent among men? 🤣

Of course we do. We just tend to be a bit more subtle about it... and a lot more cutthroat. 😁
When it comes to friendships or dating between men and women, that edge almost entirely disappears. Unless, of course, you're dealing with certain types of high-strung, ego-driven competitors. 🙄 But let's be honest: that isn't a friendship, it's a business transaction. And in that arena, it doesn't matter—except that men are usually much easier to beat. 🤣

Sean Cruz said:I am not generalizing; I am simply describing the women in my own circle and social life.

No, you misunderstood me. While you correctly noted that women in a family setting carry an overwhelming load of responsibilities—leaving them little room for a life outside those duties (which includes jobs that often serve merely as family income rather than paths for career growth)—that was my point.

That implies ambition, but honestly, how many people today—men or women—work solely for a paycheck rather than out of passion for their craft? I’d argue it’s much rarer to find someone who truly loves what they do while also earning a high salary.

I’m not saying absolutely every woman is like this, but the vast majority are.
It’s slightly better to be in academic or intellectual circles, since education takes longer, which theoretically grants more freedom, but highly educated people make up a very small percentage of the population.

What were you getting at with the bolded text? Are you suggesting people stay single longer, or something else? Also, having a degree doesn't automatically make someone more "aware." I know plenty of pseudo-intellectuals I wouldn't want to talk to if I could help it because they are incredibly narrow-minded, just as I know people with less formal education whom I could talk to for years without ever being bored.

So, we aren't discussing exceptions right now, but the majority.

A college degree isn't the benchmark.

That is precisely what I was getting at in my previous post, yet you went ahead and accused me of making sweeping generalizations. But, if I may, let's please try to steer the conversation back to the actual topic at hand...

That is certainly an ambitious goal, but one has to wonder how many people in America today—men and women alike—are actually working solely for the paycheck rather than out of a genuine passion for their profession. I would venture to say that those who truly find themselves doing what they love while simultaneously earning a substantial income are becoming quite a rare breed...

That is certainly true, though I would argue that a significantly larger number of men tend to view their professional careers as deeply fulfilling; and even in those instances where work falls short of providing purpose, they almost always have a dedicated hobby to fall back on...

What exactly were you getting at with those bolded parts? Are you suggesting that people end up staying single longer, or is there some other angle you're playing at? And honestly, just because someone has a fancy degree doesn't mean they're more "self-aware." I know plenty of pseudo-intellectuals out there who are so incredibly narrow-minded that I wouldn't even bother exchanging a single word with them if I didn't absolutely have to... on the flip side, I’ve met people without any higher education at all whom I could talk to for years on end without ever feeling bored for a single second.
One might be tempted to believe that a degree from an Ivy League university serves as the ultimate benchmark for capability, but I firmly believe that higher education is not the definitive measure of a person's true worth or potential... While academic credentials certainly hold weight in certain circles, they often fail to capture the nuanced reality of practical wisdom and genuine character. It is quite possible for someone to possess an extensive pedigree yet lack the fundamental intuition required for real-world success... Therefore, we should look beyond the diploma to find the true essence of ability.

You are once again deviating from the primary subject at hand...
I didn't mean any of those things you concluded... It’s quite simple, really. People complete their studies and then, naturally, they get married and start families. That is all there is to it...

In any given relationship, there’s always going to be a sense of competitiveness, and honestly, I don't see that as a negative at all. In fact, if you ask me, it can actually be quite motivating...
When it comes to women, that competitive streak almost always boils down to who can be the most attractive or catch a man's eye, whereas the competition between men tends to take on much more interesting—and frankly, more entertaining—dimensions. That is, unless you’re dealing with a group of total Neanderthals for male friends; in those cases, the rivalry just turns into an endless showdown over who has the bigger bank account or the flashier truck... 🙄 Those types of guys, honestly, rarely ever have women as close friends...