Today in my inbox I received Zan Perrion's Way of Attraction Newsletter, and I enjoyed it so much that I'm going to reprint it here and then follow up with some commentary. The newsletter this week was written by Hans Comjin, who works as a full-time instructor for Zan. You can learn more about Zan's Ars Amorata program HERE.
It raises that classic vexing dilemma and question: "nice guy" or "bad boy"?
So here is the letter that Hans wrote:
The Source of Attraction and The Paradox of Love
In my quest for beauty, my desire to celebrate and be immersed in female energy, I often wonder what it is in women that I love so much. I travel a lot with Zan, and when asked "What is it you miss the most during your travels?" the answer for me goes along the lines of "a place of rest... with a woman who comforts and nurtures me".
As Zan puts it, "My head on a woman's breast, with her caressing my hair and telling me everything will be all right..."
And I wonder... could it be that this image describes the essence of a woman - she nurturing me, the traveller, taking care of me, providing a place where I can lay my head to rest... is that the core of female energy?
I also wonder if my travelling is the essence of male energy. The adventurer, out there in the wilderness, the warrior on a mission, caught up in something bigger, the man with a purpose.
And if these images are meaningful articulations of male and female energy, then those differences in energy seem like a very viable source for the attraction between men and women, do they not? Going vs nurturing.
She is attracted to, and enamored by, purposeful men, men who go. She wants to nurture the warrior. Everywhere we go, women ask us how they can "land that guy". She wants to bring home the adventurer, domesticate the one that seems 'undomesticable'.
And he, the traveller, the adventurer, misses and is attracted to the nurturing qualities of women. He loves to be taken care of. He loves to come 'home' after he was out there in the wilderness, following his purpose.
If this makes any kind of sense, could it also be then that those differences in energy not only provide a viable source for the attraction between men and women, but that they also lie at the core of the paradox of love and many of the concerns and issues we have in terms of approaching, dating and relationships between men and women?
Is it not true that as soon as she 'lands that guy', as soon as she has brought home the adventurer she longed for, she starts losing her attraction for him?
Is it not true that as soon as he settles and stops going, as soon as he gives up his purpose and she becomes the adventure, he kills the man in him and the possibility to make her feel like a woman?
Why do we settle? Why do we almost invariably choose to instantly get rid of the pang of missing someone by choosing 'forever'? Is what we think we want ignoring our very male and female core? Could it be that what we think we want will not make us happy in the long run?
She thinks that what she really wants is to land that guy. She is convinced that bringing home the adventurer forever will make her happy. And he misses the place to rest she provides so much that he thinks he should settle.
So he does, and they settle for each other. But maybe, in the process of settling, they overlook that the apparent paradox of love is also the very source of their attraction.
Maybe she needs to claim, maybe she needs to try to bring him home, and maybe he needs to go anyway... in the name of attraction, in the name of all women and men.
Maybe you need to give her gift of missing you. Maybe you need to disappear, reappear and celebrate her... each time with newness and excitement, fully recharged with male energy... As Zan says, "Like it is his first love all over again."
Maybe she deserves that...
~ Hans Comijn
Way of Attraction
Ah yes. The age-old paradox. The very riddle that brought me to the seduction community in the first place.
Why is it that women are attracted to bad boys, to adventurers, to players -- the very men who are not oriented toward committing to her -- and yet, she yearns for that commitment and deeper connection? As Hans so beautifully puts it:
"Is it not true that as soon as she 'lands that guy', as soon as she has brought home the adventurer she longed for, she starts losing her attraction for him?
"Is it not true that as soon as he settles and stops going, as soon as he gives up his purpose and she becomes the adventure, he kills the man in him and the possibility to make her feel like a woman?"
Conventional women's dating advice is utterly unhelpful on this point. It simply tells women to "give up" the side of her that wants the adventurer. It tells her to stop dating "that kind" of man and start dating "nice guys." And it counsels her thus with fear -- if you don't let go of the bad boy, it says, you will never experience love.
But she tries it, and ... dating "nice guys" feels utterly wrong, as if she has denied one of the deepest parts of herself ... and it feels to her like the "nice guys" have killed off the deepest part of themselves too. Where is the vitality in them? They seem to be lifeless.
Is this some cruel trick that the powers that be have thrust upon us? Never to be satisfied. Either the guy commits and we are bored, or the guy won't commit and we feel eternally restless and unsatisfied? Challenged, perhaps, but not fulfilled.
Or is there a third path? Is it actually possible to have adventure and commitment, both, at the same time?
I am absolutely, resolutely, devotedly committed to living that third path. I simply cannot accept that somehow we are put to an impossible choice between security and excitement. I want both, and I will not settle for less than both.
I refuse to choose.
And I invite other women -- I know you're out there, and I know you know what I'm talking about -- to join me in insisting on both.
Part of the solution, I'm convinced, is to start finding security IN uncertainty. Rather than "land" the poor guy and tethering him in a dungeon, what if we girls get on the ship with him and sail for distant horizons? What if we (gasp) begin to take pleasure in his attraction to other women? What if instead of judging that attraction, we become one with it? Transforming it into yet another way to forge a deeper connection with our man.
What if we as women create such exciting lives for ourselves that our man can sometimes disappear for adventures of his own, and we're so busy having fun that we barely notice the time and he's back in our arms again?
Why would we choose between depth of connection, longevity, and continuity on the one hand, and that electric thrill of desire and excitement on the other hand ... when if we get creative and play our cards right, we can have both?