When Soulfulness Becomes A Liability

How male emotional availability is punished - and why it matters.

“To cheat oneself out of love is the most terrible deception; it is an eternal loss for which there is no reparation, either in time or in eternity.” - Søren Kierkegaard

A man’s emotional availability is not his default setting, because it is existentially risky for him to bear his purest and most naked self to a woman who is unwilling or unable to appreciate it in its fullness. And yet, modern relationships all too often teach men in action that openness will be punished as weakness, whilst detachment will be rewarded with respect and obedience, despite overt protestations to the contrary. So now we will dissect why this is the case, and what women can do to ensure a man will want to remain emotionally open to them.

The fundamental reason many men avoid relationships, is due to the sheer effort and vigilance required to maintain one in a healthy and functioning state. As its leader and foundational pillar, a man is tasked with sustaining a dynamic that should ideally invigorate, rather than drain either side.

Think of a relationship as a kind of spiritual energetic exchange. It can both nourish, and deplete. Sometimes it gives more than it takes, elevating both partners to new heights, and at other times, it takes more than it gives - holding you back because it requires so much. Nonetheless, there can be no ledger, because there is no transaction - only union. In union lies beauty, gratitude, trust, and the full flourishing of the masculine anima (his inner feminine) intertwining with the woman’s feminine (her soul, as opposed to her ego). And so long as each is respected, protected, and reverently considered, no harm is done.

But harm is done when that reverence collapses. Especially for a man, whose engagement with his anima is a more existentially risky act for him than it is for her to bear her feminine soul, in much the same way a woman offering her body sexually is a more existentially risky act for her than it is for him. A woman is at her most vulnerable when she gives her body - a man, when he bares his soul. Full emotional availability then, is, for him, the equivalent degree of spiritual penetration - it is soul-level exposure.

When a woman enters a relationship with a man of intelligence and depth, she is asking a logic-preferring being to tap into and embody a part of himself he rarely accesses. This is as tantalising as it can be destabilising for him. She wants his emotional attunement, not only for the joie de vivre and colour it brings to her, but likewise because it reassures her of her power: that because he has given her his heart and soul, he cannot hurt her. You see, she too is afraid. And yet she often asks for, expects, and simply requires this of him, without realising what it costs him - how repeatedly pulling him out of his ego and into his soul can erode his clarity and performance, and thereby his capacity to lead.

And if, in that vulnerable state, she misbehaves with inconsistency, obfuscation, dishonesty, or even subtle emotional games, she wounds him in the very place he exposed himself by trusting her. She asked him to open up so she could feel safe, and then in doing so, punishes him for it. When framed like this, a man's reluctance to fully bear his naked soul makes perfect sense, for most women cannot properly honour what they ask for. You see, as a woman, she effectively has to convince him "Yes, I am worth the hassle, and no, I won't abuse your heart" - and that's a tall order to meet - one many women treat cavalierly, and yet in practice often fail to uphold, inviting the very thing they dread: his withdrawal, distance, and loss of devotion.

This is something akin to a mosquito injecting anaesthetising saliva through its proboscis, before extracting blood. A woman who punishes a man for his patience, empathy, and sacrifice, through neglect, cruelty, or betrayal, is enacting the spiritual equivalent: dulling him mentally before extracting from him emotionally.

And sometimes, it’s not even intentional. Many women are simply less conscious - distracted, selfish, self-absorbed, or emotionally unaware, and thus fail to realise how their actions are actively conditioning him away from soulfulness. Damaging does not even require malice, merely negligence or carelessness. And trust, once fractured, may accept an accident as a mitigating factor, but not as a remedy. It may explain the wound - but it does not heal it.

Then comes the predictable complaint: that men are immature, scared to commit, or emotionally stunted. And sometimes, that’s true. But in many cases, it isn’t. It’s not always immaturity, sometimes (often even) - it’s simply earned distrust. She has demonstrated, often repeatedly, that she cannot be trusted with his inner world, because she lacks the maturity or reverence to honour his vulnerability. And when he gave it, she didn’t uplift him. She made him feel stupid for loving, weak for trusting, and foolish for hoping. She betrayed him. Not necessarily in intention, but almost certainly in action, and so his soul was made to bear the cost.

And betrayal is not always dramatic or carnal - it is often quiet, ambient, and cumulative. It can be flippancy: treating his reverence as excessive, mocking the very parts of him she once claimed to crave. It can be inconsistency: asking for his heart then vanishing, oscillating between warmth and withdrawal until his nervous system learns her love is conditional and unstable.

It can be disrespect: diminishing his judgement, mocking his mission, or failing to speak of him with admiration when he is not present to defend himself. It can be emotional withdrawal: retreating when closeness is needed most, using distance to punish, silence to disorient, and absence to reassert control. It can be shadowed cruelty: using sacred confidences as weapons in conflict, reaching into the softest parts of him to hurt him rather than to hold him.

It can be sexual neglect: expecting emotional presence while denying the embodied love language that makes that presence sustainable - demoting his appetite from devotional to crudeness. It can be public disloyalty: making him small in the eyes of others, by failing to honour the man she privately depends on. And it can be neglect of appreciation: acting as though his efforts are baseline, his beauty invisible, and his sacrifices forgettable. Betrayal then for a soulful man is not just what she does - it is what she stops doing once she believes she’s secured his devotion. It is through these subtle betrayals, she teaches him his depth is unsafe, his effort unrewarded, and ultimately, that his love was misplaced.