Hi, i have seen a member make a thread, after reading the thread on dating by our high priestess, i decided to make a thread expanding on affirmations he suggested, with love❤️❤️
I want to address several of these affirmations because I think some of them can be problematic , and I believe the subject goes considerably deeper than dating itself.
In particular, I disagree with affirmations #1, #2, #5, #9, #12, #13 and #15.
Before explaining why, there are two observations from my personal experiences that influenced how I look at relationships, female sexuality, desire and ethics.
1. The discrepancy between what people express and what they desire.
I have encountered women who would tell me things along the lines of "My presence in your life should be enough." This reminded me of a particular attitude of entitlement, as though one's mere presence should be sufficient, without considering what one actually brings into another person's life.
I have also noticed something rather interesting: sometimes, women who express certain strong opinions about relationships, gender dynamics or their independence can behave very differently in private.
For example, I have encountered women who publicly presented themselves as strongly feminist, including women who deliberately rejected certain conventional feminine expectations, yet privately expressed very different preferences and fantasies with me.
Some of these experiences involved dynamics that I would previously have considered degrading, such as being called names, barking on command and other forms of submission.
Initially, this confused me. How can someone have such a particular attitude in one context and express almost the complete opposite in another?
I became curious and started exploring these dynamics further, gradually discovering that there were fantasies and desires that some women were willing to explore despite not identifying with them beforehand.
Sometimes, there would be a small discussion before introducing something new, but eventually they would agree.
This also created an internal conflict in me.
On one hand, there was a part of me that experienced pleasure and curiosity. On the other, there was something deeper that rejected certain dynamics. I would find myself thinking: Why should I treat another human being like a slave? Why should I encourage someone to affirm something degrading about herself, even if she willingly participates?
And this is where I started questioning the nature of fantasies.
I continued exploring these desires to understand where they would lead. Eventually, I noticed that even my own body started developing preferences for certain fantasies. Sometimes, when aroused, I would find myself desiring things that, outside that state, I would find repulsive.
This made me question the relationship between our immediate desires and our deeper values.
Are all desires worth satisfying simply because they exist?
Are fantasies necessarily representative of what someone genuinely wants from life?
And more importantly, does someone's willingness to participate mean that I should automatically encourage it?
My answer to the last question became increasingly clear: no.
I believe there is a difference between consent and ethical judgment. Someone can agree to something, and I can still decide that it isn't something I should pursue with them.
I remember one particular experience with a woman who wasn't particularly interested in these dynamics beforehand. We explored something relatively extreme, and afterwards she told me she regretted it. Interestingly, I experienced a similar feeling.
It was almost as though, once the excitement had passed, we both became conscious of what had happened and questioned why we had enjoyed it in the first place.
Yet, two days later, we repeated the experience. She enjoyed it again, only to experience similar reservations afterwards. I found myself experiencing the same contradiction.
This was particularly confusing because it demonstrated that immediate enjoyment and deeper personal acceptance aren't necessarily the same thing.
I also remember an occasion when I requested something from a woman and she initially refused. I then asked her whether she would reconsider if I specifically asked her to do it for me. She thought about it for a few seconds and eventually agreed.
Experiences like these made me question how much of what people express represents their actual preferences, how much is situational, and how much is influenced by their desire to please someone.
I even found myself wondering whether my own influence over these situations was becoming excessive. At times, I felt as though I could direct a thought towards someone and make them more receptive to a particular suggestion. I cannot establish what was happening or attribute it to spiritual influence, but the subjective experience was interesting enough to make me question how I was using my influence.
I became increasingly uncomfortable with the possibility of pushing someone beyond what they would independently choose.
This brings me to two conclusions.
First, what people promote publicly doesn't necessarily represent the entirety of their private desires.
People are complicated. Their public identities, personal philosophies, fantasies and behaviour in intimate situations can differ considerably.
I would therefore be careful about treating everything promoted online as a universal description of human nature.
Second, consent and ethics deserve separate consideration.
Obtaining someone's agreement is not necessarily the end of an ethical discussion.
This distinction became particularly important to me, and I'll return to it below.
---
2. Self-development is part of being a man, independently of relationships.
I disagree with the following affirmation:
"I don't need to possess any particular qualities to find a compatible partner."
I actually find this problematic.
It reminds me of certain women who communicate something along the lines of "My presence in your life is enough." In some circumstances, perhaps someone's presence genuinely provides something another person needs. However, as a general philosophy, I find this attitude potentially entitled.
The male equivalent would be a man believing that his mere existence should be sufficient for a woman to consider him a suitable partner.
I don't agree with this.
Being a man, in my understanding, involves developing qualities and continuously improving oneself. This has nothing to do with whether one has a girlfriend or is currently interested in relationships.
If someone is a musician, he should improve his musical abilities. If someone is a poet, he should develop his writing. If someone is an entrepreneur, he should improve his business capabilities.
The same principle applies to other areas of life: knowledge, discipline, appearance, communication, reputation, lifestyle and personal capabilities.
There are men who live modestly and are nevertheless wonderful individuals. I am not suggesting that everyone needs a private jet, extraordinary wealth or an extravagant lifestyle.
The point is that one should continuously develop whatever qualities are relevant to becoming a better version of oneself.
This should happen before we even start discussing obtaining a girlfriend.
Therefore, I disagree with the affirmation because it creates the impression that personal qualities are somehow irrelevant to romantic compatibility.
They aren't.
3. Having children introduces responsibilities that cannot be ignored.
Now, moving beyond personal development, let's consider what happens when someone actually wants to establish a family.
Our fellow animals compete for reproductive opportunities. While human society operates differently, biological competition and mate selection remain relevant aspects of nature.
There is a reason organisms have preferences when selecting reproductive partners. Certain characteristics can be advantageous for survival, reproduction and the development of offspring.
In human society, we have additional considerations, particularly responsibility, emotional maturity and the ability to provide a suitable environment for children.
A bare minimum of qualities is therefore necessary.
If someone brings a child into this world without considering whether they are capable of raising and supporting that child, who ultimately bears the consequences?
The child.
YOU NEED QUALITIES TO BE IN A RELATIONSHIP, particularly when that relationship can lead to parenthood.
I also think people sometimes forget that choosing a partner isn't exclusively about choosing someone to spend romantic moments with. You might eventually be choosing the mother or father of your children.
Personally, I have physical preferences too. For example, I appreciate certain feminine physical characteristics, including wider hips and larger breasts. These are preferences I have, and some physical characteristics can also have biological considerations, although attraction and reproductive health should not be confused or reduced to body measurements.
Similarly, a woman might prefer a strong, financially stable man. She might not necessarily be looking for someone extraordinarily wealthy. She might simply want someone capable of providing stability.
And honestly, thank God people have standards.
Otherwise, we could end up with children facing unnecessarily difficult circumstances simply because their parents never considered the responsibilities associated with bringing another human being into existence.
This is why I find the original affirmation misleading.
Of course, nobody needs to be perfect before entering a relationship. But there is a difference between accepting human imperfection and promoting the idea that personal development is unnecessary.
---
4. Consent, vulnerability and the responsibility that comes with having an advantage.
Now, returning to the question of consent, I want to explain why I consider it insufficient as the sole measure of ethical behaviour.
Imagine someone meets a woman whose family is experiencing financial difficulties.
He arrives with a nice car, demonstrates financial stability, offers gifts and indirectly presents himself as someone who could provide the security she desperately needs.
Naturally, she might become considerably more inclined to accept certain proposals, including proposals she wouldn't necessarily have considered under different circumstances.
Does her agreement automatically make everything ethical?
I don't think so.
There is a difference between someone freely choosing something and someone being particularly susceptible to an offer because of their circumstances.
This is where I started questioning the usual mentality surrounding relationships.
Part of me understands the pragmatic perspective: if I enter a relationship with someone and she discovers a better opportunity elsewhere, she might leave. People make decisions based on their interests, circumstances and available opportunities.
One could therefore argue that I should simply play the same game.
But I don't necessarily want to approach life that way.
I consider myself someone who should exercise a degree of compassion towards others, even when they might not necessarily extend the same consideration to me.
When I look at another person, I try to see beyond their immediate behaviour.
I see a living being who might be experiencing distress, insecurity, ignorance or circumstances that influence their decisions.
Someone might make choices that I consider inferior, not necessarily because they are malicious, but because they haven't developed the same perspective or understanding.
Having a broader perspective should make me more considerate, not less.
In a way, this reminds me of how I understand the Gods' relationship with mortals. They possess a perspective and understanding that we might not yet have. Rather than judging everything exclusively through our immediate limitations, they can account for our circumstances and development.
I find that principle worth applying to my own interactions with others.
For example, even if a woman might eventually betray me, choose someone financially safer or abandon the relationship when circumstances change, that doesn't mean I should deliberately exploit her vulnerabilities while I have the opportunity.
I could use someone's financial desperation, emotional insecurity or desire to feel loved and protected to obtain things from them.
I could justify it by saying that this is simply how relationships work.
But I don't want to operate that way.
I have my own principles, and I don't want temporary pleasure, an orgasm or the satisfaction of having a relationship to become more important than another person's well-being.
I don't want to walk around breaking people's hearts simply because I have the ability to do so.
And this brings me to affirmation #15.
5. Power doesn't eliminate moral obligations.
"There are no moral codes of conduct I must follow when dealing with a rival."
I strongly disagree.
This isn't exclusively about romantic relationships. It applies to life generally.
I believe there are principles and codes of conduct that extend beyond whatever moral conventions happen to be popular among ordinary people.
Some of these principles might not even be understood by everyone, but they are understood by highly developed souls, heroes, Daemons and Gods.
Even when dealing with a rival, I wouldn't necessarily cross every available line.
I would still exercise restraint and consider the consequences of my actions.
In fact, I believe that the more powerful someone becomes, the greater their capacity for restraint should become.
There is a fundamental difference between someone who cannot retaliate and someone who possesses the ability to retaliate but deliberately chooses not to exercise unnecessary cruelty.
The latter demonstrates mastery over himself.
I also believe that such principles have spiritual significance. Someone who consistently exercises restraint, respects others and refuses to exploit every advantage available to them is cultivating qualities that I associate with spiritual development.
I believe spiritual beings appreciate such qualities.
Of course, restraint doesn't mean allowing people to abuse you or refusing to defend yourself. It means understanding that having the power to do something doesn't automatically mean you should do it.
This is precisely why I reject the idea that dealing with a rival somehow suspends every moral obligation.
---
6. Affirmation #2: Wealth isn't necessary, but financial responsibility is.
"I don't need wealth to impress women and to find a compatible partner."
I agree that extraordinary wealth isn't a prerequisite for finding someone.
However, I think people confuse not needing to be wealthy with not needing financial resources.
Money becomes particularly important when we start discussing family responsibilities.
Imagine having a daughter who wants something, needs something or wants to pursue a particular opportunity, and you simply cannot afford to provide it.
I don't understand why discussions about relationships frequently stop at the two individuals involved.
What about the children?
What about their education, opportunities, health, security and quality of life?
If someone decides to bring another human being into this world, they should at least consider whether they possess the necessary resources and capabilities to provide for them.
Otherwise, there is an element of irresponsibility in that decision.
And let's consider another example.
Imagine I have a daughter, and she enters a relationship with someone who believes he doesn't need to develop any particular qualities, doesn't need to present himself properly, doesn't need to take care of his appearance and simply needs to be himself.
I would naturally have concerns about their future.
Not because he needs to be rich, but because this mentality suggests that he hasn't seriously considered what being a partner and potentially a father entails.
I wouldn't want them to make irresponsible decisions and subsequently expect me to resolve every problem.
Financial responsibility is therefore a legitimate consideration, even if wealth itself isn't a requirement for romantic compatibility.
---
7. Affirmation #5: The environments in which you meet people matter.
"I don't need to go to specific places to meet a compatible woman."
I disagree with the way this is formulated.
Consider a bar, a church, a coffee shop, a museum or even a forest where people regularly gather to exercise.
You simply won't encounter the same types of people in all these environments.
Each location attracts individuals with different interests, lifestyles, priorities and sometimes different values.
Someone who regularly attends religious gatherings might have a different lifestyle from someone who spends most of their free time in nightclubs.
Someone who attends professional networking events might have different ambitions from someone whose social life revolves around entirely different environments.
This doesn't mean that everyone in a particular location shares identical characteristics.
However, environments influence the probability of encountering particular types of people.
Women understand this too. Many deliberately choose specific places and activities because they want to meet people who fit certain preferences.
Therefore, I don't understand why we would pretend that the environment is irrelevant.
You don't have to restrict yourself to one particular location, but choosing where you spend your time is an important part of meeting compatible people.
---
8. Affirmation #9: Clothing and presentation matter.
"I don't need to wear specific clothes to impress and meet a compatible woman."
I find this affirmation particularly strange.
Of course, you don't need expensive designer clothing to attract someone.
But presentation matters.
You cannot reasonably expect to attend a date wearing underwear or clothing completely inappropriate for the occasion and then argue that you should simply be yourself.
There are countless options at different price ranges. You don't need to spend a fortune, but you should take the matter into consideration.
Different styles communicate different things, and certain ways of dressing will naturally appeal to some women while being repulsive to others.
This isn't exclusive to dating.
Even a CEO, regardless of his wealth or professional achievements, might have to follow a particular dress code when attending certain events or conducting business.
Why?
Because presentation is part of social interaction.
Being authentic doesn't mean disregarding the context in which you present yourself.
You can remain completely yourself while still understanding that different situations require different standards of presentation.
---
9. Affirmation #12: Time is an important factor.
"I can have a compatible partner at any age, according to my own timeline."
I disagree with the implication that age is an insignificant consideration.
Time is harsh, and opportunities change.
Someone in their thirties won't necessarily encounter the same dating environment or the same potential partners as someone in their fifties.
The priorities, circumstances and available choices of people change as they age.
This is particularly important when discussing having children.
A woman might decide to postpone motherhood until later in life, and that is her personal decision. However, biological fertility changes with age, and pregnancy risks can increase.
These are biological realities, not political opinions.
Similarly, a man in his fifties who wants to have several children might find it more complicated to find a partner who shares that objective, particularly if he has specific preferences regarding age and family planning.
Therefore, the subject deserves more seriousness than simply saying that everyone can find a compatible partner whenever they want.
You can certainly find love at different ages, but that doesn't mean every opportunity remains identical throughout life.
Time matters.
One day, everyone will be eighty years old.
---
10. Affirmation #13: Women's attention can provide valuable feedback.
"Women's attention does not define my worth or success."
I understand the intention behind this affirmation, but I think it goes too far in the opposite direction.
Women's attention doesn't determine someone's inherent worth as a human being.
However, romantic feedback can be a useful indicator of certain qualities.
For example, if a man consistently struggles to attract women he considers compatible, perhaps there are areas of his life that deserve improvement.
It could be his appearance, communication, social awareness, confidence, lifestyle or simply his ability to recognise and respond to signals of attraction.
This doesn't automatically mean that something is fundamentally wrong with him.
I know this from personal experience.
I have encountered men living relatively modest lives who nevertheless attracted women I considered particularly desirable.
At first, I genuinely wondered what was happening.
I had assumed that certain things were necessary to achieve that kind of attraction, yet I was seeing people with considerably fewer resources obtaining results that I wasn't obtaining myself.
Eventually, I realised that some women were attracted to me too. The problem wasn't necessarily that I lacked the qualities to attract them. In certain situations, I simply wasn't taking the subject seriously enough.
I wasn't always taking initiative, and sometimes I misinterpreted their behaviour.
There were occasions when women would behave strangely around me, and I would wonder what their problem was.
Later, I realised that some of those behaviours were actually expressions of attraction.
This taught me something important: social awareness is a skill, and understanding how people communicate attraction requires experience and observation.
Therefore, I believe men should take this subject seriously and learn how to recognise signals, understand social dynamics and improve their ability to interact with women.
However, I would distinguish between two things:
A man's inherent worth and the feedback he receives from romantic interactions.
The first shouldn't depend on women's attention. The second can absolutely provide useful information about his current abilities and areas for improvement.
Conclusion
Ultimately, my disagreement with these affirmations comes down to a broader principle.
I don't believe that removing psychological limitations should mean removing legitimate responsibilities, standards or incentives for personal development.
You don't need to be perfect, wealthy or extraordinary to find someone compatible. But you should continuously develop your qualities, take responsibility for your decisions, understand the consequences of having children, and recognise that relationships involve more than satisfying immediate desires.
Likewise, having someone's consent doesn't mean every action is necessarily ethical, just as having power over a rival doesn't mean every possible action is justified.
I believe there is a particular kind of strength in being capable of doing something and deliberately choosing restraint because your principles matter more than the immediate satisfaction you could obtain.
To me, this is an important distinction between merely having power and having mastery over oneself.