yetineti

I want integrity. Not perfection. Not agreement. Just the willingness to live by the same standards being taught.

There’s a type of hypocrisy that isn’t loud. It hides behind silence. Behind intellectual prestige. Behind platforms that preach nuance—until nuance starts reflecting back at them. I was recently part of a conversation where the leader—brilliant, insightful, often right—dodged a subtle but important callout. He said: “Don’t speak hard truths to women.” Then proceeded to do just that, harshly, repeatedly. When I pointed it out—not with anger, but clarity—there was no response. Not even a rejection. Just silence. And then the crowd did what crowds do. Labeled. Mocked. Meme’d. Not because I was wrong, but because I respected women without needing to dominate them. Because I didn’t play the expected role. Because I became inconvenient. This post isn’t about blame. It’s about the subtle violence of systems that say “seek truth” —but only if the truth flatters the structure.

@AION Good. You?

Double negative. Do you deny that clothing affects the situation* — At that point having a vagina affects the situation— not clothes. — Man gets punched in face. Shouldn't have had nose. — Sorry. — Man gets punched in face. Shouldn't have had such hittable nose. — If women walked around naked, you should have the respect not to fuck them. If clothes or the type of clothes changes that for you. Cum 3 times before you leave the house, please.

Yeah, men are more likely to be aware of the abuse and put up with it. Women typically get sold a front before the man reveals his true abusive self. Statistically, it is under studied though. And it’s difficult because while abuse towards women is for about 1 in 4 and for men 1 in 9– men are more likely to under report.

Yep

Yep

@Miguel1 Then tell me my agenda. No really, I’m curious. Tell me how much you’ve connected with thousands of women. You were being Braggadocious; arrogant.

Everyone talks about evolution. Nobody mentions mating. Look into mourning doves for example. Evolution didn’t just shape us Men to dominate and Women to submit. Don’t @ me about the data or trends. Look into the evolution of mating, pairing, co-op, etc. Maybe it applies to you, maybe it doesn’t. But preaching about how women are is an obvious trap. Not because you’ll hurt their feelings. But because you are not appreciating your own desires and the beauty of a ‘woman’s abstraction.’

Men, if girls are so simple, why do you need all this data? Sounds like you all cracked the code already 😉 Aren’t you happy going through your endless women?

Once you eat one Dorito, the whole bag is gone. Show me the man who can eat one Dorito and I’ll take you as more credible than anyone else here. Otherwise we’re just arguing over who can eat more Doritos.

“Abusive relationships happen to irresponsible people who allow themselves to get boiled alive like frogs.” The connection is you’re both blaming her for her actions and implying an inability to solve them as well. This logic creates an unworkable, disempowering paradigm and is ultimately self full filling. And if you men believe your own words, that ‘responsibility’ lies with you and it should say: “Abusive relationships happen when irresponsible men who allow themselves to get boiled alive like frogs.”

@AION You’re upset because the women are on my side. 😘 Of course Leo’s right. He should embody it.

I’m not against truth-telling. I’m for truth that includes emotional presence—truth that lands, not just truth that hits. When you drop a “hard truth” and watch someone shut down, that’s not clarity. That’s bypassing the responsibility to actually be with someone. To me, integrity isn’t just saying the thing—it’s saying it while staying connected. I’m not saying everyone has to speak the way I do. I’m saying we need to notice when “sharing perspective” becomes a shield from emotional accountability. It’s not projection—it’s discernment. I’ve been in enough circles to know when someone’s sidestepping discomfort by intellectualizing or masking disengagement as neutrality. That kind of “truth” is often just a more sophisticated way of avoiding the moment. And I don’t need everyone to agree. What I’m pointing to is a pattern: whenever emotionally charged topics arise, the conversation often shifts toward detachment—like neutrality, clever framing, or sarcasm. That shift feels safe, but it kills the aliveness of the conversation. So when I see that move happen, I speak up—not to accuse, but to bring us back to what’s real. If someone replies, “Well yes, of course, that’s already part of my model,” I’d ask: is it really? Because what I’m saying isn’t just “some people need emotional sensitivity.” I’m saying: maybe the issue isn’t their sensitivity—it’s us not fully inhabiting our truth with emotional attunement. That distinction matters. It changes the whole dynamic. This isn’t about avoiding truth. It’s not about catering to fragility. It’s about whether we’re fully embodying the truth—or just dropping it like a grenade and walking away.

Mockery dressed as praise.