Andrew

[Andrew]

Further, to answer the question what is “gentle attention”, it is exactly that, and it is a direct expectation of what i want from her. (and myself).

Being gentle in the bedroom. Slowing down to enjoy the subtle sensations. Avoiding acting, avoiding fantasy, avoiding being a characture of a ‘man’ and ‘woman’.

Enjoying this, in my case, has meant breaking through my own fears of losing her. The simple fact is, she is really attracted to me. She wants to please me. It was me not guiding the relationship, which is what a ‘woman’ wants: leadership.

It’s also a test of sincerity. Without her overt intentions to be an actualist, there really is only the option of being a ‘man’.

We used to say as Buddhists “skillful means”. Very much this. (I may have not mentioned that i was a Buddhist, not just a meditator looking for the escape). Funnily, this may be a reason way i haven’t succeeded with actualism. I am an ‘Actualist’.

[Miguel]

Thanks for the explanations.

So, this doubt arises:

@Andrew

Without her overt intentions to be an actualist, there really is only the option of being a ‘man’.

If what you mean is that given the circumstances it’s the only option for her (in her mind, for her self) that you be a “man”, I understand. But if what you mean is that the only option for you is to be a “man” (meaning by this to remain a feeling being with the masculine characteristics of the self, which include that type of leadership, etc.), I cannot understand how even achieving “gentle attention” could be compatible with pursuing actual freedom.

Or maybe I am understanding you correctly and this is what you mean by the internal war you have in this field and the perception of being externally in a permanent transaction?

Alternatively, being alone would not be another option to avoid being a “man”? Or not being accompanied is not an option for you?

[Andrew]

@Miguel

There was an analogy in Buddhist circles, where one builds a raft to cross the river, only to discard it on the other side.

To answer the question; it’s both. One is already possessed. Under control. Leaving behind being a ‘man’ will guarantee ‘she’ is not there any more.

It was Claudiu suggesting “how about intimacy?” when i broke up last time. This was a great point.

I was feeling far better on my own. Which, i later saw was because i could deceive myself better on my own. I could fantasise about being more attractive, a better person etc. It was not going to get me anywhere better.

So, being in relationship, one has to understand that if one wants it to continue, then one has to work with the world as it is.

[Andrew]

Again, all of this has to be circumspect. I can’t write specifically on a public forum.

[Andrew]

I can put it this way through ;

Because i didn’t understand what being a ‘man’ was, i was seeking a cocoon. I believed that i could have “love”.

For context, of the 4 committed adult relationships i have been in, 3 of them were (are now) with highly attractive women. How that happened is another story, but i can say that they ended because (this one is still going, actually better than before) because i didn’t know what being a ‘man’ is.

Perhaps it’s too simplistic to put it in ‘squotes’, which otherwise is the devil of actualism.

There is a forthright, decisive, confident, aspect of being a man which is very useful to enjoying relationships. One could say, that this isn’t exclusive to men. That is true. However, in the world as it is, (at least the world i experience), everything that isn’t in this domain (forthright, decisive, confident) is going to be punished by women.

[claudiu]

@Andrew

For context, of the 4 committed adult relationships i have been in, 3 of them were (are now) with highly attractive women.

it’s funny to see you write that after the much you’ve written about having bad self-body image, “knowing your place” in the sexual marketplace , etc… seems like it isn’t such an issue for you as you made it out to be?

@Andrew

There is a forthright, decisive, confident, aspect of being a man which is very useful to enjoying relationships. One could say, that this isn’t exclusive to men. That is true. However, in the world as it is, (at least the world i experience), everything that isn’t in this domain (forthright, decisive, confident) is going to be punished by women.

Hmm so it looks like you’re placing this in the framework of ‘man’ vs. ‘woman’ - which is understandable - but there is a way to put it into the context of actualism, of mutually beneficial association, of fellowship regard, of intimacy and appreciation, wherein the gendered aspect (with all the battles and wars) is indeed irrelevant.

For the most part, the only reason to ‘hide’ an aspect of yourself is from fear of how the other person will react. Men always remark about how women are ‘perceptive’ and can sniff these things out… I think it simply comes down to being invested and interested in intimacy, which women are more stereotypically prone to do, while men are more stereotypically withdrawn. Be that as it may, when being intimate with someone, part of that is getting to know them intricately, and it becomes easy to spot inconsistencies.

Being evasive (as opposed to forthright) is certainly going to mar and put a stopper on intimacy fully flourishing.

Likewise it is a highly desirable trait when somebody - and this is not exclusive to actualists - knows what they want, do not feel bad about wanting what they want, and do not impose any will or requirements on others to fulfill what they want. This is a self-sustaining person, standing on their own, without sticky dependent binds reaching out and ensnaring people around them. This is a person that it is much easier to be yourself around, and therefore much easier to have fun with.

Some people won’t want this in a partner - they want someone they can control, or they want somebody that ‘needs’ them so they feel needed, etc… this is a person that will not want a relationship with an actualist. And it would be silly for an actualist to pursue a relationship with such a person. But there will be those people that do want this, very much, in a partner… and those people, whether they are actualists or not, will likely enjoy and appreciate being in a relationship with an actualist.

Personally I think this is why looks really don’t matter so much for a relationship… it’s sufficient for both people simply have to like the other person. Possibly attractive women will appreciate this more as perhaps they are used to men wanting to use them for looks or as a status symbol etc., but I don’t want to make generalizations.

In any case, as opposed to being a forthright, decisive, and confident manly-man who is Ug and goes and hunts deer with club and brings home the bacon, etc… it’s possibly to be a sincere, naive, artless, likable and liking male, having fun with being a female who appreciates those qualities.

Perhaps this will help you navigate a way out of being a ‘man’ with all the downsides that entails!

[Andrew]

@claudiu

it’s funny to see you write that after the much you’ve written about having bad self-body image, “knowing your place” in the sexual marketplace , etc… seems like it isn’t such an issue for you as you made it out to be?

Now we are conversing! . Indeed, such a condition makes no sense. How can someone who has such a low estimate of their own looks, possibly have such success? It’s such a weird thing to be “good enough” but not “good enough”. A twilight zone. If you remember (which i am sure you do), Richard existed in this strange space. Or at least another strange iteration of it. He was 6’2", handsome, talented and intelligent; good enough to have children with obviously, but not good enough for an unattractive 4’11" wife to be faithful too. Men, it would seem, are also being used for their bodies. Genetically, i passed on genes which somewhat skipped me. My 3 adult sons are all 6’2" plus, handsome enough to turn heads. Yet, as i laughed about the other day, my middle son, has a somewhat similar experience to me.

It’s not surprising that we would have a similar psychic reality, and treat women in a similar way. As you pointed out.

[Andrew]

@claudiu

Hmm so it looks like you’re placing this in the framework of ‘man’ vs. ‘woman’ - which is understandable - but there is a way to put it into the context of actualism, of mutually beneficial association, of fellowship regard, of intimacy and appreciation, wherein the gendered aspect (with all the battles and wars) is indeed irrelevant

I agree. Moving out of this requires me to have been in it consciously. I was otherwise seeking to bypass it.

[Andrew]

@claudiu

In any case, as opposed to being a forthright, decisive, and confident manly-man who is Ug and goes and hunts deer with club and brings home the bacon, etc… it’s possibly to be a sincere, naive, artless, likable and liking male, having fun with being a female who appreciates those qualities

Indeed, this is great advice. I think that the woman i am with is on the fence with this, and because my default was to please the other (the path of least resistance), learning another way must involve me going through the aspects of manhood i shunned. As Vineeto spotted, i had a lot of “mummy’s boy” about me.

[Andrew]

@claudiu

For the most part, the only reason to ‘hide’ an aspect of yourself is from fear of how the other person will react. Men always remark about how women are ‘perceptive’ and can sniff these things out… I think it simply comes down to being invested and interested in intimacy, which women are more stereotypically prone to do, while men are more stereotypically withdrawn. Be that as it may, when being intimate with someone, part of that is getting to know them intricately, and it becomes easy to spot inconsistencies.

She commented something along these lines on the weekend when her, myself and my sons visited my mother for my birthday. Something about me “hiding”. How that would have completely turned her off when she was younger (which is ‘womanise’ for being turned off now!).

[Andrew]

(and with that post my journal is now one more post than @henryyyyyyyyyy, come on son, have at it!!! )

[Andrew]

I realised that there is a lot of context missing when i used the phrase “pimp or be pimped”.

Ever since i was a child, i was physically unwell at the thought, mention, implication of a woman or girl being sexually abused.

I could never understand why anyone would abuse women. I understood sexual desire, obviously, but to rape someone, or to “pimp” someone was inconceivable to me. It just made me both mad and very upset. It would still take next to no resistance for me to kill a sexual abuser. Like, just give me the chance. I would fill stadiums with abusers and “push the button”. Heck, i would slit their throats, individually, one at a time, for weeks on end without sleep, given the chance.

Yet, after now 46 laps of being alive, i see how it works. How ‘identity’ itself it to blame. How an impulse, an attraction, is nothing to be afraid of, but the hungry ghosts of the ‘real’ are the culprits.

[Andrew]

So, for me, it was realising that in a way i was being “pimped” by the real.

@claudiu gave great advice, in that i can frame it far better than such a crude phrase. Being confident, decisive; being a carefree yet determined being doesn’t mean i have to be more of a ‘man’. I don’t have to be more ‘protective’ or more ‘controlling’, i can be more free.

Cheers @claudiu.

I have been considering this a lot.

[Andrew]

All morning, i have been extra attentive to feeling good. As soon as i get a bit stressed, i slow down and take it easy.

I really appreciate the phone conversations with Arthur and Rick. Makes everything more direct, more human. More important to be attentive.

As Rick said, the best thing i can do for him is get this done!

[Andrew]

@claudiu

I was looking for your post (perhaps it was the DhO) but i think it was here; where you described the feeling good of actualism, as everyday normal feeling good that any one does all the time.

This is an excellent description. Something that certainly would make for an excellent introduction to actualism.

[Andrew]

Ah, here it is…

"I am this flesh and blood body" vs anatta

This is something that is initially very difficult to grasp for someone coming from a spiritual background - and maybe particularly so for someone from a pragmatic dharma background. And I say this from experience . Meditation, in this context, is, how can I put it, a ‘sophisticated’ tool in a sense. The world is divided into “uninstructed, run-of-the-mill” people – and those who know better, those on the spiritual path, that have something special, a technology or tool above what ord…

[Andrew]

Claudiu; "All this is to say that, the enjoyment and appreciation of actualism literally is nothing other than the ordinary and regular enjoying and appreciating of daily life that every man, woman, and child experiences, has experienced, or will experience, on occasion, simply by the normal (i.e. “uninstructed, run-of-the-mill”) course of living out their daily lives!

It is nothing other than, essentially, being in a good mood, as in well-disposed, enjoying oneself, being likable and liking, jovial, etc. It is precisely this ordinary and remarkably plain (compared to the jhanic qualities above) enjoyment."

[Andrew]

@claudiu, your posts linked above have really clicked with me.

Especially the words “ordinary and regular”, and the whole description about it being so normal and everyday.

I have had a good couple of days where this was the way i approached everything. Almost in an unspoken way.

Even now, it’s actually easy to keep this ordinary enjoyable mood going. Just don’t go down all the obviously un-enjoyable distractions.

I cooked again at work. We have a social habit at work where we take turns cooking lunch on alternative Fridays. I waa looking forward to it. Cooked fish in foil on the BBQ with some lovely flavoured olive oil, lemons and lime, with chilli and garlic. Very nice. I enjoyed my week a lot.

[claudiu]

That’s awesome @Andrew , glad my posts were helpful!

[Andrew]

My partner and I have been having more frequent conversations about life and feelings, which i enjoy a lot. I think part of the reason is that i simply don’t back down on talking. That is not something i will compromise on. However, my focus has become more about the quality of what i am saying, the introspection i do before, during, and after conversations.

I mentioned this a few posts back, that i have generally in my life “talked around topics” that actually could be directly talked about.

For example, instead of dealing with many things directly, and personally in the relationship , i will generalise about “men and women” or talk about society, or nature, or something psychological.

I think this has also been a personal “cop out”. Being general may be something useful, but it also let’s me “off the hook”.

Anyway, one recent conversation was very eye opening for me.

I was talking about my mother and father. Specifically, the convo lead to me saying that i think my mother had selected my father mostly because he was handsome.

This really clicked with me in the moment i said it. I could see that the whole emotional reality i was raised in was one where a person’s character was valued way less than how they looked.

Coupled with my mother’s self reported life long loathing of her looks, it made perfect sense how i simultaneously loathed my looks, yet also relied on them for relationships. I have been a hybrid of my parents.

To fill in some blanks here, my personal finances have been a mess my whole life. Exactly like my father. I could feel, and still do feel, that having seen this dynamic, i can actually enjoy fixing them.

I commented maybe 8 years ago on the old yahoo forum that it seemed i was determined to go broke, commit financial suicide. This is exactly what my father did while he was alive. It was my mother who rescued the family via negotiations with banks etc.

Cue Vineetos “mummy’s boy” comment. Very perceptive heh?

I have been enjoying some greater freedom to feel good around these topics of looks and money. Both which have dominated my reality forever.