Is There Such a Thing as God's Gift to Woman?

Last week, after listening to the Get Fit to Get Laid podcast (as mentioned below), I got in touch with the co-host Ulrich Neujahr, about one of the points he made on the show. He was referring to this compulsive need we seem to have to try and be everything to all women, rather than simply try and find a suitable mate. There is something in our cultural psyche that says we have to go out and "conquer" as many women as we can, in order to prove our masculinity. I have long felt this to be frustrating. Not just because, and I admit this wholeheartedly, I can't do it, but because I DON'T WANT TO. I don't associate sexual satisfaction with a kind of scatter-gun approach to getting laid. It's degrading and it is insulting to my goddam biology.

Here is what Oolie said in reply (and I recommend this as the manifesto for the modern man, by the way):

James, I felt strongly that men needed to hear this. We as men often think that that charismatic guy who has a way with women, has a way with all women. This is simply not factual. Staying true tenaciously to your authentic self is the equivalent of focusing on a niche market. You are representing something of unparalleled value to an ideal group with ideal demands. The lowest common denominator is often exactly that…the very lowest. Be your greatest you for YOUR ideal woman, and that's exactly the woman who will be animally drawn to you. She will literally suffer ignoring you.

We, not only as a society, but also as a male gender, place too much value on the general collective and the illusory comfort in numbers. In attracting women, we should approach this chemistry with the same circumspection as we do friendship: we should be looking for richness over ubiquity. Nobody seriously, daily, goes out seeking as many friends as possible. Yet we treat the world of women like frag trophies in a competitive one-person shooter. Culturally the stereotype rings not far off from a pokémon theme song: "Gotta catch 'em all. Gotta catch 'em all."

I am going to say this and it's going to sound objectifying, but truth is more important than what sounds: High quality, clean, and powerful energy is always going to be expensive. Cheap, low-quality, omnipresent energy will always sport a skimpier price tag. However, as we have seen in the world at large with regard to all types of energy management (economical, caloric, physical, ecological, political, etc.), the price paid for a low price tag is often a self-propelling, bottomless pit of debt. The "more expensive" energy is always more frugal from a global standpoint. This is how we must approach women as modern men. We need to approach the "game" of women from a more global, cosmic perspective. Man's—as in xy-chromosomal species—perennial, perpetual, constant meditation should be "How do I express me, right now and moment to moment, in the presence and absence of woman, in such away that I amplify my nature and never compromise karmically with who and what I am authentically called to uniquely, irreplaceably represent in this universe?" That is, the effort you put in in developing the approximation of a Higher Self, higher intra-personal intelligence, will always appear gargantuan compared to simply submissively following the counsel of Men's Health and GQ. But the sacrifice we make in the name of avoiding psychic complexity by blindly imbibing the current unconscious, male status quo, does not come with a reward of simplicity. Avoiding value complexity and emotional integration simply results in schizophrenia. And schizophrenia is quite the opposite of simplicity.

Women never struggle with ambiguity. They are comfortable with being complex, contradictory, paradoxical, complicated, etc. … no, I need to keep going: irrational, unconscious, ambivalent, indecisive, screwed up. Women have the license to amorphousness. Women have the license to fluidity, the unmanifest, and infinite possibility. There is a reason we are culturally forgiving of heterosexual women who indulge in homosexual experimentation. We are never truly surprised when a lesbian turns straight—even if it's just for a night. The same woman who is offended by what I am saying will use her very femininity as an excuse for her contradictory behavior (so bring on the hate mail; you'll have the opposite opinion next month anyway).

What's important is that we don't look down upon this "license to fluidity". Without it, men may never get laid; men may never take extraordinary risks; men may never feel valued in their extraordinary archetype for decisive leadership. This is a real license because it is an intrinsic, inextricable quintessence of what it means to be woman, and it is so beautiful and so necessary to evolution of man himself, I will even go so far as to say it should further be engendered by the opposite sex.

The problem is that the man has no license whatsoever. Man needs a license, and, perhaps because he is a man, he may simply need to take it, asking for forgiveness rather than permission. Except here, forgiveness would be just etiquette, for who really has a right to blame man for earning his manliness? And here we come to the heart of the issue. Man has always, since man immemorial, ALWAYS, had to earn his manliness. A woman was a woman, even before she was of childbearing age. This western 21st century, however, reduces a man who asserts himself in any way to a so-called "alpha-male". That's quite extraordinary. Think about this. The ALPHA-male has become a reduction! This used to be the highest thing you could be. Now it is derogatory. It means you are neandertalensic, base, primitive. How the hell did this happen? As a man, I can either choose to embody feminine principles and never be criticized—and let's be real, I won't get laid either—or I can be a 'roided, ungraceful, uncreative hulk—at least here I'll get laid, right? But, wait a second…cross-culturally, surveys prove that the number one most attractive quality to women is … intelligence? Yes. But let's remember, that's what women said. Intelligence is probably not who women did. What the women were probably trying to say with that one word answer is that they wanted to fuck the 'roided hulk and then have long, deep conversations with the creative intuitive (and then go back to fucking the creative hulk, I mean, 'roided hulk).

Man has not been given due license to embody the same expansiveness as has woman. Man has not been given license AT ALL in the 21st century and starting today, until I fucking croak, I am going to take it. I can be an athlete and an artist and an alchemist. A man's profound connection to his anima, does not have to be tantamount to a dilution of masculinity. My feminine creativity—and yes, I am saying here that creativity is inherently feminine—can prove that my manhood is on even firmer footing. I can step on toes where appropriate. I can assert myself when necessary. I can conduct the necessary flow of things without asking permission, simply because I know better. I can simply be male, without being alpha-male. I can be more male, simply by being more conscious about what I want for my meaning of man to mean. Perhaps contemporarily the most manly thing to be done is to forge ahead as a self-proclaimed masculinist and decide for other men that consciousness itself is a masculine trait that must penetrate the male conception to retain the very primal prana that manhood must play in a healthy cosmos. Lastly, a man who lives for the evolution of other men is inevitably and, indeed, paradoxically, a man for every woman.

You can track Oolie down by finding the Get Fit to Get Laid podcast, or by friending him on facebook. He also has some great vlogs on YouTube, under the name "nobrackets." There is more where this came from.