Socio-Sexual Hierarchy

[Alpha_F]

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Regarding realism when dealing with the multiple layers of human neurosis, I believe I take your point. Telling someone with some serious anxiety disorder or another to just stop worrying so much and try being awesome instead is really not very helpful.[/quote]

Sometimes it works though.

Sometimes it is as simple as “Imagine if you were the person you wanted to be. What would that person do in this same situation? Got it? Now do that.”.[/quote]

Doing is not being.

That is still an attempt to manipulate reality; one’s own reality.

It does not translate into real “game” and the end result may still be the self experiencing another rejection.
Then wondering what went wrong because the ego was so invested in “doing” what was natural rather then being natural.

A force of nature just is. It doesn’t have to “do” any “doing”.

[Fletch1986]

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Regarding realism when dealing with the multiple layers of human neurosis, I believe I take your point. Telling someone with some serious anxiety disorder or another to just stop worrying so much and try being awesome instead is really not very helpful.[/quote]

Sometimes it works though.

Sometimes it is as simple as “Imagine if you were the person you wanted to be. What would that person do in this same situation? Got it? Now do that.” Instead of relying on a culturally predefined role model, you rely on your imagination to construct your own personalized model, and then you try to live that life. You do it enough, it starts to feel natural, and you slowly transform into that person.

Definitely not something with a guaranteed success rate, but that approach seems to work far more often than not.[/quote]

So basically… ‘fake it till you make it’ is what you’re saying?

[orion]

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Regarding realism when dealing with the multiple layers of human neurosis, I believe I take your point. Telling someone with some serious anxiety disorder or another to just stop worrying so much and try being awesome instead is really not very helpful.[/quote]

Sometimes it works though.

Sometimes it is as simple as “Imagine if you were the person you wanted to be. What would that person do in this same situation? Got it? Now do that.” Instead of relying on a culturally predefined role model, you rely on your imagination to construct your own personalized model, and then you try to live that life. You do it enough, it starts to feel natural, and you slowly transform into that person.

Definitely not something with a guaranteed success rate, but that approach seems to work far more often than not.[/quote]

Positive reinforcement is the key.

Whether people believe in it or not, once they experience the reactions they get, which, depending on where they started out are better or much, much better than them “just” being themselves they never go back.

They cannot go back.

Also, they really change, not just at the surface.

[batman730]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Regarding realism when dealing with the multiple layers of human neurosis, I believe I take your point. Telling someone with some serious anxiety disorder or another to just stop worrying so much and try being awesome instead is really not very helpful.[/quote]

Sometimes it works though.

Sometimes it is as simple as “Imagine if you were the person you wanted to be. What would that person do in this same situation? Got it? Now do that.” Instead of relying on a culturally predefined role model, you rely on your imagination to construct your own personalized model, and then you try to live that life. You do it enough, it starts to feel natural, and you slowly transform into that person.

Definitely not something with a guaranteed success rate, but that approach seems to work far more often than not.[/quote]

Positive reinforcement is the key.

Whether people believe in it or not, once they experience the reactions they get, which, depending on where they started out are better or much, much better than them “just” being themselves they never go back.

They cannot go back.

Also, they really change, not just at the surface. [/quote]

I think I understand where you’re going with this. It doesn’t seem too much different from the Tony Robbins/NLP stuff from the 80’s, with a different focus and sense of style. I can even see how it may work for some guys up to a point. The self reinforcing feedback loop of our actions is a powerful force.

It just seems to lack substance and depth to me as a starting point. It seems to me that to be real, personal change must begin with hitting our own, personal rock bottom. A boy must utterly break before he can hope to become a man. Some fundamental, irreversible organic shift must take place at the core of his psyche, way down in the dark, where no one (including him) can see it happening. We used to have cultural rituals to try to induce this shift, but now we’re each on our own. Only from the rubble and ashes of the dead boy who has finally been crushed under the weight of his own inadequacy can the unique, individual character of the man begin to emerge. I firmly believe that we are each endowed with our own immutable inner nature which is infinitely more potent and valuable than any artificial construct we could seek to imagine ourselves or adopt from outside ourselves after reading about it or watching a video.

If the boy seeks to adopt this or that system before this shift takes place, I believe it is unlikely he will find real, lasting success. You don’t give a boy a man’s tools and send him to do a man’s job and expect him to succeed. Worse, if he does happen to succeed at some level his life may become agreeable enough, outwardly at least, that he may never hit bottom and break. Then he will go through life as a pale shadow of the man he could be, regardless of his apparent success. Conversely, if he has the courage to watch unflinchingly as he goes all the way down and finally breaks, the man who emerges from the ashes will be able to pick up various tools from this or that system and use them according to their purpose with a sure, strong hand. He will be real to his core.

If that is “just” being yourself, I guess I’m alright with that.

[LoRez]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Regarding realism when dealing with the multiple layers of human neurosis, I believe I take your point. Telling someone with some serious anxiety disorder or another to just stop worrying so much and try being awesome instead is really not very helpful.[/quote]

Sometimes it works though.

Sometimes it is as simple as “Imagine if you were the person you wanted to be. What would that person do in this same situation? Got it? Now do that.”.[/quote]

Doing is not being.

That is still an attempt to manipulate reality; one’s own reality.

It does not translate into real “game” and the end result may still be the self experiencing another rejection.
Then wondering what went wrong because the ego was so invested in “doing” what was natural rather then being natural.

A force of nature just is. It doesn’t have to “do” any “doing”.[/quote]

You seem to have missed the most important sentence: “You do it enough, it starts to feel natural, and you slowly transform into that person.”

Because once that happens, that IS you. It’s no longer an act. It takes time, it takes reinforcement, but it can and does happen. Just not always.

And I will say that when dealing with genuine depression, this approach doesn’t seem to work at all. With anxiety, it works better. With many other aspects – socializing in a crowd, behavior at the office, the way you relate to friends/family – this approach seems to work fairly well.

[Elegua360]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Regarding realism when dealing with the multiple layers of human neurosis, I believe I take your point. Telling someone with some serious anxiety disorder or another to just stop worrying so much and try being awesome instead is really not very helpful.[/quote]

Sometimes it works though.

Sometimes it is as simple as “Imagine if you were the person you wanted to be. What would that person do in this same situation? Got it? Now do that.”.[/quote]

Doing is not being.

That is still an attempt to manipulate reality; one’s own reality.

It does not translate into real “game” and the end result may still be the self experiencing another rejection.
Then wondering what went wrong because the ego was so invested in “doing” what was natural rather then being natural.

A force of nature just is. It doesn’t have to “do” any “doing”.[/quote]

This kind of assumes that there is a ‘true self’ inside, that’s unchangeable, like some kind of magical soul that’s a beautiful and unique snowflake.

I think that in many cases, there is a bit of mythology that develops around people we admire. If a person rises from mediocrity into success, we see the success as being their ‘true self’ that was hidden by circumstance. Sometimes this mythology allows us to assume a submissive posture to the dominant person – they ‘innately’ deserve such respect, and we can’t hope to be like them because they have something magical inside.

It’s a lot easier than actually analyzing a lifetime of personal choices, failures, and learning experiences.

Or to put it another way…if we really, truly believed that there was a true, inner self, a magical alpha-ness that can’t be learned and can’t be changed, then why would we ever lift weights?

Edited add-on – It’s also worth noting that forces of nature are themselves made up of innumerable tiny events that build up into one big occurrence. It’s just a lot easier to see a hurricaine or a tsunami as an act of Crom than actually think about all the atmospheric and geological micro-events that occur over years if not millenia that burst forth as one big thing.

[Alpha_F]

[quote]LoRez wrote:

You seem to have missed the most important sentence: “You do it enough, it starts to feel natural, and you slowly transform into that person.”

[/quote]

No, I didn’t. I saved it for later, for now:

Change is instant. Transformation happens in the immediacy of the moment.

What is slow is the process of removing the layers of the suit of Armour we build from infancy to defend ourselves from deficiency and shame, from knowing how incompetent and without guidance we are.

What starts to feel natural is self acceptance after repeated failure; we put it down to experience and move on, i.e we learn to forgive ourselves and therefore others.

Forcing change from the outside does not necessarily awakens the man from within.

Is imagining change better then doing nothing? Yes.

Two words to think about; Courage and core.

I am short of time for now, so I will say that I agree with this from batman’s post above completely;

"It doesn’t seem too much different from the Tony Robbins/NLP stuff from the 80’s, with a different focus and sense of style. I can even see how it may work for some guys up to a point. The self reinforcing feedback loop of our actions is a powerful force.

It just seems to lack substance and depth to me as a starting point. It seems to me that to be real, personal change must begin with hitting our own, personal rock bottom. A boy must utterly break before he can hope to become a man. Some fundamental, irreversible organic shift must take place at the core of his psyche, way down in the dark, where no one (including him) can see it happening. We used to have cultural rituals to try to induce this shift, but now we’re each on our own. Only from the rubble and ashes of the dead boy who has finally been crushed under the weight of his own inadequacy can the unique, individual character of the man begin to emerge. I firmly believe that we are each endowed with our own immutable inner nature which is infinitely more potent and valuable than any artificial construct we could seek to imagine ourselves or adopt from outside ourselves after reading about it or watching a video.

If the boy seeks to adopt this or that system before this shift takes place, I believe it is unlikely he will find real, lasting success. You don’t give a boy a man’s tools and send him to do a man’s job and expect him to succeed. Worse, if he does happen to succeed at some level his life may become agreeable enough, outwardly at least, that he may never hit bottom and break. Then he will go through life as a pale shadow of the man he could be, regardless of his apparent success. Conversely, if he has the courage to watch unflinchingly as he goes all the way down and finally breaks, the man who emerges from the ashes will be able to pick up various tools from this or that system and use them according to their purpose with a sure, strong hand. He will be real to his core."

[Alpha_F]

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:

Or to put it another way…if we really, truly believed that there was a true, inner self, a magical alpha-ness that can’t be learned and can’t be changed, then why would we ever lift weights?

[/quote]

Your post is interesting but I can only reply to the above statement, for now.

We lift weights because that is an expression of our Alpha-ness.

Lifting weights is an expression of our strength.

I have said in this site before that I lift weights because I like to experience myself as a powerful woman.

When what we do is an expression of who we are, life is art.

You are creating your own experience at every moment, with every choice that you make.

It touches into the exercise of free will to express and recreate and redefine your self.

[orion]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

Doing is not being.
[/quote]

For a man, it is.

[Elegua360]

[quote]harrypotter wrote:
Zyzz - Skinny beta turned Apex male turned Transexual bitch boy just before he died. Has many social ‘Alphas’ who are really just a bunch of beta suck ups basking in the flipstream of such Apex-ism. Careful betas! This guy is a social nuke and when he blows, he goes![/quote]

I love your sub-categories, and I think frankly that this whole discussion is a lot more complex than ‘alpha’ and ‘not alpha.’

It sort of makes me think a lot about some consistent assumptions, including the question about whether or not Zyzz was ever a beta to begin with (as opposed to just being a skinny teenager who happened upon the ‘secret’ as he matured).

1. if Zyzz ever was a beta (which is a big question), it shows that socio-sexual dominance is extremely fluid.

B. physique and alpha-ness have little if any correlation. There are quite literally millions of strong guys with incredible physiques who will always be followers, and will never even try to understand why so many women go for these skinny ugly guys. FAR too many guys worry way too much about physique as the sine quo non of alphaness without ever working on their mind, personality, or other positive traits.

3. It also makes me think about all the poon-magnet sigmas out there. An example of someone I knew a while back…the guy was totally ordinary looking. In fact, from a photo one might think he was sub-average. He was skinny, his style of dress was very plain, almost nerdy, his face was strictly average. However, he had the ability to very easily talk with ANY woman, without the appearance of hitting on them, and he could make almost anyone laugh.

End result…the guy always had very above-average looking women over at his place, one or two of which would happily spend the night at pretty much any night of his chosing.

He’s one of those clear Sigma males that Beta males love to assume is an Omega.

[Elegua360]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

We lift weights because that is an expression of our Alpha-ness.

Lifting weights is an expression of our strength.

I have said in this site before that I lift weights because I like to experience myself as a powerful woman.

When what we do is an expression of who we are, life is art.

You are creating your own experience at every moment, with every choice that you make.

It touches into the exercise of free will to express and recreate and redefine your self.

[/quote]

I like your poetry…but again, there are millions of powerful physiques attached to utterly pathetic Betas.

Oh, if you are alpha (or sigma), lifting weights can be an expression of your self-improvement, it certainly is to me. But physique is not at all part of the ‘magic’ of socio-sexual dominance and success.

Example – as portrayed in Pumping Iron, Arnold is a classic Alpha, Lou Ferrigno is a classic Beta. Even if Ferrigno had the better physique, he would have still been a beta.

But still, I think your post illustrates something I was trying to express – many if not most people have the potential to become something better. I am just not convinced that the magic is innate – I think it’s situational, and that it can be learned (or sometimes stumbled upon)

[Kakarat]

There’s a lot of good discussion here.

I find the comparison of said “alphas” and withdrawn “sigmas” intriguing.

How would you place someone who is thought to have done “work” but who is questioned by their opposing response?

This has happened to me quite a few times by both men and women outside my immediate social group who have thought I’ve been with more women than I have.

I am no alpha, and beta men/women are usually the ones questioning my honesty on the topic, which places me somewhere else.

I’ve never had a problem getting with women whatsoever, although I choose to avoid most of it along with LTR and large social events.

Looking back I had a lot of opportunities I did not act upon by choice.

Obviously everyone thinks they’re an alpha or a sigma, but it’s still interesting to try and place yourself along with acquaintances in specific socials groups regardless of the lack of concreteness or hard science that can be applied.

Like the beta guys who are constantly trying to prove themselves by creating fights and confrontations, while the alpha avoids most confrontation until he occasionally once again proves why hes the alpha.

Or when the alpha females are despised by beta females for simply being the alpha female lol

[Kakarat]

[quote]orion wrote:

Those of you who have been reading my blog for a while know I donâ??t like the alpha-beta (or even the alpha-beta-omega) classification. By definition having just two or even three categories is not enough for describing where men are especially since with just the alpha-beta thereâ??s no room to describe what is happening to most men. Vox Day has come up with a much better classification system:

Alphas â?? the male elite, the leaders of men for whom women naturally lust. Their mere presence sets women a-tingle regardless of whether she is taken or not. Once youâ??ve seen beautiful married women ignoring tall, handsome, wealthy, and even famous men because that ugly old troll Henry Kissinger walked in the room, you simply canâ??t deny the reality of Alphadom. Example: Captain Kirk, Big from Sex in the City. Suggestion: Do you see a scoreboard? Right, so relax already!

Betas â?? the lieutenants, the petty aristocracy. Theyâ??re popular, they do well with women, theyâ??re pretty successful in life, and they may even be exceptionally good-looking. But they lack the Alphaâ??s natural self-confidence and strength of character. Theyâ??re not leaders and theyâ??re not the men to whom women are helplessly drawn. Most men who like to think theyâ??re Alphas because of their success are actually Betas. Most Betas wonâ??t change their game because they donâ??t really have any need or reason to do so. This is probably the easiest social slot in which to find yourself, since the Beta enjoys many of the benefits of Alphadom without being trapped in the Alphaâ??s endless cycle of competition. Example: Brad Pitt Suggestion: Have some compassion for the less naturally fortunate. Try to include them once in awhile.

Deltas â?? the great majority of men. These are Roissyâ??s Betas. Almost all of you reading this are Deltas despite the natural desire to believe that you are a brave and bold Alpha snowflake notwithstanding. Deal with it. Thereâ??s absolutely nothing wrong with being a Delta, itâ??s just a simple statistical and observable reality. The sooner you accept the truth about yourself, the sooner you will be able to control your unconscious inclinations and modify your behavior in a manner that will help you achieve your goals. Iâ??ve gone out of alphabetical order here because delta symbolizes change, which most Deltas are capable to some extent. Hence the synthetic alpha instruction set known as Game. Example: Probably you. Suggestion: Never forget that there are plenty of girls on the girl tree.

Gammas â?? the obsequious ones, the posterior puckerers, the nice guys who attempt to score through white-knighting, faux-chivalry, flattery, and omnipresence. All men except true Alphas will occasionally fall into Gamma behavior from time to time, this is the behavior and attitude that Roissy is attempting to teach men to recognize and avoid. The dividing line between a Gamma and a Delta is that the Gamma genuinely believes in the Gamma reality to the very core of his soul whereas the Delta is never truly comfortable with himself when he behaves in this manner despite being thoroughly indoctrinated in it by his culture. Example: Probably you if youâ??ve found yourself complaining about your lack of female companionship over the last two years. Suggestion: Remember that the statement â??all are fallenâ?? applies to women too. She isnâ??t any more naturally pure or holy or ethereal than you are.

Lambdas â?? the gays. They have their own social hierarchy. They can fill any role from Alpha to Omega, but they tend to play the part rather than actually be it because the heterosexual social construct only encompasses the public part of their lives. Example: Neil Patrick Harris. Suggestion: Straights will be more tolerant if you keep the bathhouse behavior behind closed doors.

Sigmas â?? the lone wolves. Occasionally mistaken for Alphas, particularly by women and Alphas, they are not leaders and will actively resist the attempt of others to draft them. Alphas instinctively view them as challenges and either dislike or warily respect them. Some Deltas and most Omegas fancy themselves Sigmas, but the true Sigmaâ??s withdrawal from the pack is not a reaction to the way he is treated, it is pure instinct. Example: Clint Eastwoodâ??s movie persona. Suggestion: Entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell. The banal idiocy is incidental, itâ??s not intentional torture.

Omegas â?? the losers. Even the Gamma males despise them. That which doesnâ??t kill them can make them stronger, but most never surmount the desperate need to belong caused by their social rejection. Omegas can be the most dangerous of men because the pain of their constant rejection renders the suffering of others completely meaningless in their eyes. Omegas tend to cluster in defensive groups; the dividing line between the Omega and the Sigma is twofold and can be easily recognized by a) the behavior of male Betas and Deltas and b) the behavior of women. Women tend to find outliers attractive in general, but while they respond to Sigmas almost as strongly as they do to Alphas, they correctly find Omega males creepier and much scarier than Gamma males. Example: Eric Harris Suggestion: Your rejection isnâ??t entirely personal. Observe the difference in your own behavior and the way the Betas act. And try not to start off conversations with women by sharing â??interesting factsâ?? with them.

While I donâ??t think that even this is expressive enough to describe what we need when talking about male-female interaction (and I think the lambda category should be left out since this is about heterosexual interaction), its much better than the alpha-beta or alpha-beta-omega systems.

http://www.antifeministtech.info/2010/01/better-than-the-alpha-beta-classification/
[/quote]

Here’s the good post by Orion from the other thread.

[orion]

[quote]Kakarat wrote:

How would you place someone who is thought to have done “work” but who is questioned by their opposing response?

This has happened to me quite a few times by both men and women outside my immediate social group who have thought I’ve been with more women than I have.
[/quote]

That does not place you anywhere, except in an excellent position to plant your flag if it is a woman.

She is basically telling you that you are the shit.

[LoRez]

Coming back to an earlier point, I’m interested in if women even distinguish between alphas and sigmas.

Once he’s engaged her and they’ve built their own private world, does how he relates in the real world even matter?

I imagine that for a genuine LTR, that life with an alpha is quite a bit different than life with a sigma though.

[Alpha_F]

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

We lift weights because that is an expression of our Alpha-ness.

Lifting weights is an expression of our strength.

I have said in this site before that I lift weights because I like to experience myself as a powerful woman.

When what we do is an expression of who we are, life is art.

You are creating your own experience at every moment, with every choice that you make.

It touches into the exercise of free will to express and recreate and redefine your self.

[/quote]

I like your poetry…but again, there are millions of powerful physiques attached to utterly pathetic Betas.

Oh, if you are alpha (or sigma), lifting weights can be an expression of your self-improvement, it certainly is to me. But physique is not at all part of the ‘magic’ of socio-sexual dominance and success.

Example – as portrayed in Pumping Iron, Arnold is a classic Alpha, Lou Ferrigno is a classic Beta. Even if Ferrigno had the better physique, he would have still been a beta.

But still, I think your post illustrates something I was trying to express – many if not most people have the potential to become something better. I am just not convinced that the magic is innate – I think it’s situational, and that it can be learned (or sometimes stumbled upon)[/quote]

Thank you, I did not mean to come out as poetry.

I agree with all you said above except about Arnold.

The “look of power” is not the same as power.
That inner “isness”.

I do see plenty of powerful “looking” physiques housing “patheticness”, even weakness.
The problem is we are raised in a society of delusion: we are taught to “fall for the image” of the thing and worship it, instead of identifying the authenticity of the thing and respond to it.

I hate Arnold.
I think he was a total cock.
A peacock to be precise. He came across as a shemale to me, precisely because he went out of his way “to do” the Alpha Male Act without really being Alpha.
Very entertaining but a shemale internally. I take Lou any day.

And no, I do not believe the inner self is a snowflake. Neither do I believe in possessing “magic”.

I believe we are born deficient.
Different degrees of deficiency coupled with different degrees of deficient nurturing.

The saving grace is free will.

[orion]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

We lift weights because that is an expression of our Alpha-ness.

Lifting weights is an expression of our strength.

I have said in this site before that I lift weights because I like to experience myself as a powerful woman.

When what we do is an expression of who we are, life is art.

You are creating your own experience at every moment, with every choice that you make.

It touches into the exercise of free will to express and recreate and redefine your self.

[/quote]

I like your poetry…but again, there are millions of powerful physiques attached to utterly pathetic Betas.

Oh, if you are alpha (or sigma), lifting weights can be an expression of your self-improvement, it certainly is to me. But physique is not at all part of the ‘magic’ of socio-sexual dominance and success.

Example – as portrayed in Pumping Iron, Arnold is a classic Alpha, Lou Ferrigno is a classic Beta. Even if Ferrigno had the better physique, he would have still been a beta.

But still, I think your post illustrates something I was trying to express – many if not most people have the potential to become something better. I am just not convinced that the magic is innate – I think it’s situational, and that it can be learned (or sometimes stumbled upon)[/quote]

Thank you, I did not mean to come out as poetry.

I agree with all you said above except about Arnold.

The “look of power” is not the same as power.
That inner “isness”.

I do see plenty of powerful “looking” physiques housing “patheticness”, even weakness.
The problem is we are raised in a society of delusion: we are taught to “fall for the image” of the thing and worship it, instead of identifying the authenticity of the thing and respond to it.

I hate Arnold.
I think he was a total cock.
A peacock to be precise. He came across as a shemale to me, precisely because he went out of his way “to do” the Alpha Male Act without really being Alpha.
Very entertaining but a shemale internally. I take Lou any day.

And no, I do not believe the inner self is a snowflake. Neither do I believe in possessing “magic”.

I believe we are born deficient.
Different degrees of deficiency coupled with different degrees of deficient nurturing.

The saving grace is free will.

[/quote]

I think you are confusing “alpha” with “guys I like”.

[Alpha_F]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

Doing is not being.
[/quote]

For a man, it is. [/quote]

Yes, Orion.
Doing as a natural flow of being a man.
Doing is an expression of one’s manhood.

I just think there we still run into rejection and loss if the doing is an act, a means to an end; that end being to achieve manhood.

I can’t define masculinity but I know it when I see it.

I think the road to achieving true masculinity and true femininity does not have short cuts.
Depending on how deficient one is, one’s background and life’s circumstances thrown at him/her, that road is longer for some and shorter for others. More painful for some, less for others.

Problem also that I see it is that we have not enough healthy role models of how true masculine and true feminine people behave.

Some alpha-looking males and females are just a tool for manipulation; an attempt to have power over others rather then the possession of power in the self.

[EmilyQ]

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

Unless of course it’s really just about tricking some poor girl into fucking an omega in alpha clothing.[/quote]

I think there’s a lot of truth to this, though I find the designations largely meaningless. I do think it’s about building a facade, though, and much of what orion posts suggests that maintaining the facade is necessary into perpetuity, lest your girl decamp for a new alpha.

Trying to imagine having to track my “I love you’s” to ensure that I say it only 1/3 the times that he does. Seems really sad and lonely to me. I want to say it whenever I want, and have it said back just as exuberantly. Because it feels GOOD. A fear-based relationship would be worse than being alone, I think.