Boys Don't Cry. Girls Do.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

@Twentyfirst How much of your personal freedom would you be willing to relinquish - or in other words, how much rules would you tolerate - and still would take part in this hypothetical XY society? Can this society have democracy or a system at least resembling democracy or is it just some form of authoritarianism? Are human rights seriously taken into consideration and respected? (I don't mean any SJW BS just basic human rights). And the most important question, is organized fundamentalist religion a necessary part of such a society and even more importantly, does it have to be Islam? And if so, what version of Islam? I am questioning you about the Islam bit because you seem to be from Saudi Arabia and therefore it's possible you have some biases in this regard. And also in general, since you think a more conservative society is superior over the liberal one, vehemently defending your traditional views, you should provide us an exact describtion of how an ideal society should look like, according to you. Just as a thought experiment

[Emerald]

59 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

How many more years of gender dissection until it’s finally solved? We have seen where it has gotten us today and we will disagree but what about the plan for the future. Is there an opportunity cost plan or just however long it takes no matter the cost? Let’s say men start to cry, okay. Will that be enough or will you just want more and more? At what point do you think it will be okay? And how will you know when it’s finally ok and then the change can stop? And what if the change does happen by ten years time but it still doesn’t work? Do you have a plan in place for that too? Whats the end goal EXACTLY? To make sure men and women are happy? To make sure children are happy? Or forget about happiness and just focus on equality and fairness? 

My understanding of what's happening right now is this...

Once certain technologies and societal infrastructure arose, society started to depart from Stage Blue.

And this ushered in a collective hermetic time of deepening levels of individuation and atomization... and deepening levels of knowledge about various disciplines.

This is what happens when a society enters Stage Orange. And most of the most wealthy and influential nations are in Stage Orange.

And in this time, people are freed from the previous constraints of absolutist Stage Blue societal structures and roles. And this allows us to collectively explore parts of ourselves and embody parts of ourselves that we previously haven't had access to.

And individuality and achievement becomes prized over collectivism and duty.

But strong communal structure had to deconstruct for that to happen. It's a catabolic time for systems, institutions, governments, families, and communities. 

And many people are struggling in that process of deconstruction. But these are just the collective growing pains of our species-wide process of evolution.

But I don't struggle much because I was born into Stage Orange family where my parents were already post deconstruction. So, individuation was my baseline.

For someone raised in a Stage Blue family or community, this process will be more difficult as it will require the discomfort of letting go of attachments to certain worldviews, identities, and roles... and to embrace uncertainty when "getting the right answer" was always the objective before.

Then, over time, as we collectively learn what we need to learn from Stage Orange... my sense is that we will collectively enter Stage Green and reorganize back into intentional communities.

But instead of needing an external authoritarian structure to keep everyone smooshed together and repressing themselves to stay together, we will develop a much higher degree of personal and emotion awareness... at more emotionally intelligent ways of operating in relationships without bulldozing each other. 

And we will get better at navigating boundaries and having healthy emotionally intelligent relationships and friendships based on compatibility and allowing space for people to show up as they are without having to cut away so many parts of themselves.

This can only be done if we first have a hermetic time, where we become like hermits that go separate from community and systems to find the light of one's authenticity and sovereignty.

And in this higher degree of emotional intelligence that we will develop in this individuated era, we will be able to access and utilize far greater levels of human potentials and deeper levels of interdependent community.

But I figured we'll probably be in this period of collective individuation for our entire lives. The process can have brief backfires that quickly fall apart. Individuation is a permanent process. And there's no back.

So, it's best to find a way to come to peace with how things are. And to be able to think more about what you want and need personally to live a happy and fulfilled life and what kinds of dynamics you want in a relationship. 

[Twentyfirst]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

This is a very long post. I won't hit every point. 

But the reality is that you're inexperienced with relationships. But you want to feel like you're the expert when you're in the stage of unconscious incompetence about them. You're a Dunning Kruger on this topic.

And just because some Dutch girl liked you and was turned on by the idea of being dominated, isn't proof that women love it when you "scream at them to make you a sandwich".

But no need to screenshot the messages. I tend to enjoy taking the submissive role in the bedroom. So, it isn't surprising to me at all that she's turned on by that. Lots of women are. I've had sexy conversations like that before where it's basically playing up that male dominant female submissive sexual dynamic to spice things up.

But if she's young and inexperienced, she might have a romanticized notion of what it's like to actually be submissive in a relationship and might tend to over-glamorize or sexify it. And she will likely feel disappointed by how it actually is if she has no space to be seen and heard as herself (which means her expressing her opinions that differ from yours and even engaging in conflicts with you, as these are what's necessary to have connected intimate relationship. 

And if your version of dominance is shouting at her to make you a sandwich, you might be quite surprised when doesn't put up with it... because it isn't supplying the intimacy and spiciness that she's looking for from the male dominance fantasy. And instead she's getting the very stifling and lonely reality of being dominated. 

And I know this because I've been there before. Being in a relationship with a power imbalance squeezes all the joy out of life. 

And I've had 3 male clients and 1 female client from Saudi Arabia. But only the guy I mentioned was native born Saudi Arabian. One guy was Nigerian and living there for work, the other guy was Indian, and the woman was Turkish but lived in Saudi Arabia during some of her childhood and teen years. 

The only guy I talked about Saudi Arabia with is the native born Saudi guy. And so it is only his example that I have to go off of. I don't have a specific focus towards Saudi people.

Just your comment about only hooking up with female family members and the strong patriarchal ways of thinking about thing, reminded me of conversations he and I have had. And I used it as an example.

I'm still not 100% sure though your reaction makes me think that it's probably the case. Are you Saudi Arabian? 

And I do not elevate myself above Saudi Arabian women. But I do feel grateful that I was raised in a more egalitarian society, and I would not choose to trade places as it would be very challenging to live within the confines my client described.

But it's not just Saudi Arabia, it's any society that has very rigid roles... as the roles for women would feel unlivable to me and would kill my spirit.

But the client that I mentioned had said the new prince (at the time, new) was a bit more progressive and was passing laws allowing women to drive. But this was 4 years ago or so. 

So, it seems that Saudi is progressing towards higher degrees of female sovereignty in this sense. 

Not sure how I am inexperienced. I have so much experience it's insane. You make so many assumptions and don't really read what people write

I didn't say she enjoyed domination. I said she enjoyed me. 

I never said I would hook up with a family member. You brought that up and I said I wouldn't marry a cousin.

I have lived in Western society and I have lived in more traditional societies. You have only lived in one society I assume? 

I have never had problems with women. Never had weird incel problems you see online. Women have always eaten out of the palm of my hand. Since a young age. I have to reject women all the time. Sorry I know you want to believe otherwise because how can a guy as old school as me get women in this new age? Because women are women and they always will be. What worked then will work tomorrow. An OG man can always reset the feminism software 

[Twentyfirst]

2 hours ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

@Twentyfirst How much of your personal freedom would you be willing to relinquish - or in other words, how much rules would you tolerate - and still would take part in this hypothetical XY society? Can this society have democracy or a system at least resembling democracy or is it just some form of authoritarianism? Are human rights seriously taken into consideration and respected? (I don't mean any SJW BS just basic human rights). And the most important question, is organized fundamentalist religion a necessary part of such a society and even more importantly, does it have to be Islam? And if so, what version of Islam? I am questioning you about the Islam bit because you seem to be from Saudi Arabia and therefore it's possible you have some biases in this regard. And also in general, since you think a more conservative society is superior over the liberal one, vehemently defending your traditional views, you should provide us an exact describtion of how an ideal society should look like, according to you. Just as a thought experiment

I just meant to say. If you can't fit in X society you probably wont be able to fit in Y society. People are people and wherever you go you take yourself with you

[Twentyfirst]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

My understanding of what's happening right now is this...

Once certain technologies and societal infrastructure arose, society started to depart from Stage Blue.

And this ushered in a collective hermetic time of deepening levels of individuation and atomization... and deepening levels of knowledge about various disciplines.

This is what happens when a society enters Stage Orange. And most of the most wealthy and influential nations are in Stage Orange.

And in this time, people are freed from the previous constraints of absolutist Stage Blue societal structures and roles. And this allows us to collectively explore parts of ourselves and embody parts of ourselves that we previously haven't had access to.

And individuality and achievement becomes prized over collectivism and duty.

But strong communal structure had to deconstruct for that to happen. It's a catabolic time for systems, institutions, governments, families, and communities. 

And many people are struggling in that process of deconstruction. But these are just the collective growing pains of our species-wide process of evolution.

But I don't struggle much because I was born into Stage Orange family where my parents were already post deconstruction. So, individuation was my baseline.

For someone raised in a Stage Blue family or community, this process will be more difficult as it will require the discomfort of letting go of attachments to certain worldviews, identities, and roles... and to embrace uncertainty when "getting the right answer" was always the objective before.

Then, over time, as we collectively learn what we need to learn from Stage Orange... my sense is that we will collectively enter Stage Green and reorganize back into intentional communities.

But instead of needing an external authoritarian structure to keep everyone smooshed together and repressing themselves to stay together, we will develop a much higher degree of personal and emotion awareness... at more emotionally intelligent ways of operating in relationships without bulldozing each other. 

And we will get better at navigating boundaries and having healthy emotionally intelligent relationships and friendships based on compatibility and allowing space for people to show up as they are without having to cut away so many parts of themselves.

This can only be done if we first have a hermetic time, where we become like hermits that go separate from community and systems to find the light of one's authenticity and sovereignty.

And in this higher degree of emotional intelligence that we will develop in this individuated era, we will be able to access and utilize far greater levels of human potentials and deeper levels of interdependent community.

But I figured we'll probably be in this period of collective individuation for our entire lives. The process can have brief backfires that quickly fall apart. Individuation is a permanent process. And there's no back.

So, it's best to find a way to come to peace with how things are. And to be able to think more about what you want and need personally to live a happy and fulfilled life and what kinds of dynamics you want in a relationship. 

You have no practical plan. Only fantasies based on where humans will be in a thousand years 

What are we gonna do with all these single mothers? What about all these dads separated from their children? What about a corrupt court system that breaks families up? What about all these children growing up with resentment? What about the increase in porn and only fans "models"? What about all these inches growing frustration? What about Andrew Tate? All these are there own ticking time bombs. What happens when one blows up? 

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Twentyfirst said:

Not sure how I am inexperienced. I have so much experience it's insane. You make so many assumptions and don't really read what people write

I didn't say she enjoyed domination. I said she enjoyed me. 

I never said I would hook up with a family member. You brought that up and I said I wouldn't marry a cousin.

I have lived in Western society and I have lived in more traditional societies. You have only lived in one society I assume? 

I have never had problems with women. Never had weird incel problems you see online. Women have always eaten out of the palm of my hand. Since a young age. I have to reject women all the time. Sorry I know you want to believe otherwise because how can a guy as old school as me get women in this new age? Because women are women and they always will be. What worked then will work tomorrow. An OG man can always reset the feminism software 

I'm saying you're not experienced because you said you hadn't had a relationship before and that you're waiting for an arranged marriage.

That means that you don't have any relationship experience because you haven't co-navigated life with someone before.

You may have experiences with women being attracted to you and "eating out of the palm of your hand"... but that doesn't give you even the tiniest bit of relationship experience.

Once you have a real relationship/marriage, you will realize how different the relationship dynamic is from the attraction dynamic and you will understand why I'm saying this. That's especially true if/when you raise children with someone.

And why would you assume that I believe that no one would be attracted to you? Most women are attracted to men. So, I wouldn't be surprised about any given man having women who are attracted to them.

It still doesn't mean you have relationship experience because some women find you attractive. It also doesn't mean that they agree with the way you think.

And you did say that she enjoyed the idea of you dominating her because it made her feel safe... 'unlike weak men from Feminist nations' or something proximal to that.

You also did say cousin marriages are fine and that you're only interacting with and "hooking up" with female family members. 

So, don't make it out like I'm making stuff up about you. I'm pulling right from the text.

[Twentyfirst]

22 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I'm saying you're not experienced because you said you hadn't had a relationship before and that you're waiting for an arranged marriage.

That means that you don't have any relationship experience because you haven't co-navigated life with someone before.

You may have experiences with women being attracted to you and "eating out of the palm of your hand"... but that doesn't give you even the tiniest bit of relationship experience.

Once you have a real relationship/marriage, you will realize how different the relationship dynamic is from the attraction dynamic and you will understand why I'm saying this. That's especially true if/when you raise children with someone.

And why would you assume that I believe that no one would be attracted to you? Most women are attracted to men. So, I wouldn't be surprised about any given man having women who are attracted to them.

It still doesn't mean you have relationship experience because some women find you attractive. It also doesn't mean that they agree with the way you think.

And you did say that she enjoyed the idea of you dominating her because it made her feel safe... 'unlike weak men from Feminist nations' or something proximal to that.

You also did say cousin marriages are fine and that you're only interacting with and "hooking up" with female family members. 

So, don't make it out like I'm making stuff up about you. I'm pulling right from the text.

I said that I am currently not in a relationship and currently waiting for marriage. I never said about my past

There was a time where I tried everything you speak of. To a high level in fact

This girl I spoke about that I met a few weeks ago. Who was older than me. I did not dominate her in or out of the bedroom. But she basically asked me to because she knew I would be the only one that could do it

I said cousin marriages are fine if done correctly by skipping a few generations and getting it down to a science. Of course it's fine. Why wouldn't it be? Royals get married to cousins. And I just said I was interacting with female family members for long periods of time not hooking up. That wouldn't be okay where I am from. Find the text where I said I hook up with family members or plan to 

 

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Twentyfirst said:

You have no practical plan. Only fantasies based on where humans will be in a thousand years 

What are we gonna do with all these single mothers? What about all these dads separated from their children? What about a corrupt court system that breaks families up? What about all these children growing up with resentment? What about the increase in porn and only fans "models"? What about all these inches growing frustration? What about Andrew Tate? All these are there own ticking time bombs. What happens when one blows up? 

Bombs are going off every day... literal and figurative. It's the way of the world... and it always has been. And every solution comes with new problems... which come with new solutions... which come with new problems.

Like, what are we going to do about income inequality? And what are we going to do with the opioid crisis? And what are we going to do with war in Gaza? And what are we going to do with big corporations buying up all the houses? And what are we going to do with the problem of child trafficking? And what are we going to do with micro plastics in the food and water? And what are we going to do with the threat of climate change? And what are we going to do with rise of hate movements online? And what are we going to do with the senior loneliness epidemic? And what are we going to do about oil spills? And how are we going to cure cancer?

The thing is... all outrage is selective. And there are lots of problems to be solved. And every one of them is a ticking time bomb. 

And if you're honest, you'll see there's a much more self-focused reason why you're bothered by all these things you mentioned instead of focusing on the other things I mentioned.

So, work on the internal and coming to peace with how humanity is evolving and all the growing pains that come with it.

It's really all you can do for peace of mind during this transition. Find a way to become neutral or accepting of it. It's a force of nature that can't be stopped. None of this is a mistake. 

But I do see my longterm solution as the only real effective solution to the problems you mentioned.

The issue is that the archetype of community is absent... and that is by design as it the catabolic process is necessary for the things we must learn now in order to effectively engage in the anabolic process of re-coalescing.

People are able to survive now without community.

And so, all the repressed human potentials have come to the surface as we've shifted away from duty and towards acheivement, and people have individuated into more authentic expressions of themselves. But people collectively don't yet know enough how to re-coalesce without losing themselves. So, we are atomized.

So, it is our time to learn how to find integration between community and authenticity.

And it won't take 1000 years. With population decrease, I suspect that intentional community will become a potential solution to deal with the aging population  when there are fewer young people in the workforce... in 30-50 years.

And if we learn how to have emotionally intelligent relationships, we can re-coalesce into intentional communities where we have no more single mothers because there will be a huge support system to help mom with the kids. And there will be fewer breakups and better breakups because people are more successfully navigating relationships in emotionally intelligent ways that don't rely on top-down force or power imbalances to keep everyone bonded together. 

And this is beginning now. It's not 1000 or even 100 years in the future. 

I have tentative plans to start and intentional community some time in the next 10 years or so when my children are both in their 20s.

But as a quick reminder about how the problems you mentions aren't THE problems.... and that everything's always been going to Hell in a hand basket and how everything is a ticking time bomb...

 

[Emerald]

4 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

I said that I am currently not in a relationship and currently waiting for marriage. I never said about my past

There was a time where I tried everything you speak of. To a high level in fact

This girl I spoke about that I met a few weeks ago. Who was older than me. I did not dominate her in or out of the bedroom. But she basically asked me to because she knew I would be the only one that could do it

I said cousin marriages are fine if done correctly by skipping a few generations and getting it down to a science. Of course it's fine. Why wouldn't it be? Royals get married to cousins. And I just said I was interacting with female family members for long periods of time not hooking up. That wouldn't be okay where I am from. Find the text where I said I hook up with family members or plan to 

 

How long is your longest relationship?

[Twentyfirst]

45 minutes ago, Emerald said:

How long is your longest relationship?

5 years. Just to be clear by our previous message not all women want to be dominated mostly it comes from the workaholic women in these feminist societies 

[Twentyfirst]

@Emerald Do you think patriarchy men have an inability to be emotionally intelligent with women? Other than crying I mean 

 

If you had to choose between equality of the sexes versus unity of the sexes but you could only choose one what would it be?

Edited Monday at 12:21 AM by Twentyfirst

[Emerald]

38 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

@Emerald Do you think patriarchy men have an inability to be emotionally intelligent with women? Other than crying I mean 

If you had to choose between equality of the sexes versus unity of the sexes but you could only choose one what would it be?

Men with patriarchal ideologies tend to have blocks to emotional intelligence because they are trying really hard to differentiate themselves from women as much as possible and denying their own emotions and vulnerabilities to themselves to do so.

And the more a man sees men/Masculinity as superior to women/Femininity, the more he will repress traits that archetypally or culturally Feminine to avoid feelings of inferiority.

And emotional intelligence falls into both of those Feminine buckets. 

And this block to emotional intelligence extends especially to relationships with women... but also to other men and themselves.

But I worked with one man with a moderately patriarchal ideology (like he liked the idea of being with a strong independent woman and had some issues with his partner because she wasn't ambitious... but he was also super resistant to the Feminine and saw it as inferior to the Masculine).

And he had a natural aptitude for emotional intelligence compared to most people. I could sense it to be his zone of genius.

But he still blocked that natural aptitude with his ideology in some ways. And he didn't develop that strength as much as he could have had his intellectual paradigm been less polarized and more holistic.

And that's because he was really dug in about being a manly man and he had insecurities and fears about being perceived as weak, gay, or womanly. And he resisted his potentials for that reason.

He was a really Masculine guy though. No one would look at him and see him as Feminine. It was just a deep-seated fear. (And most patriarchal guys have that same kind of fear of coming across as weak or Feminine in varying degrees.)

So, sometimes he'd say some really insightful things... but other times his framework of beliefs would get in the way and it would cause him to respond to certain things in emotionally unintelligent ways.

So... yes. Patriarchal men tend to have ideological blocks to their emotional intelligence, even if some of them may have a lot of potential to develop emotional intelligence. 

And to answer your last question, that's a hypothetical question that would never actually happen in real life.

I believe that true unity of the sexes is only possible when everyone is in their full power. And for women to be in their full power, they need sovereignty. 

So, if I had to choose... one would nullify the other.

Might as well ask "If you had to choose between having your heart removed or your brain removed, which would you choose?"

At that point, it wouldn't really matter because you're dead either way if you're choosing.

Edited Monday at 12:49 AM by Emerald

[Emerald]

42 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

5 years. Just to be clear by our previous message not all women want to be dominated mostly it comes from the workaholic women in these feminist societies 

You did say before that all women want to be dominated. You said that 'even Feminists secretly smile when I shout at them to make me a sandwich.'

It seems that you're backpedaling. If that's your perspective, don't squirm out of it.

In that 5 year relationship, how did your partner respond when you screamed at her to make you a sandwich? Did she give a great big smile like you said?

And did she enjoy it when you were telling her that she's inferior and that men own her? And did she love it when you were lording other men's accomplishments over her and telling of how you are responsible for building society and she isn't?

[Thought Art]

Want to apologize for my earlier posts. I think could have been more well thought out.

[Basman]

11 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

Want to apologize for my earlier posts. I think could have been more well thought out.

I forgive you 😌.

[Twentyfirst]

19 minutes ago, Emerald said:

You did say before that all women want to be dominated.

No I didn't say that ALL women want that 

19 minutes ago, Emerald said:

 

You said that 'even Feminists secretly smile when I shout at them to make me a sandwich.'

It's the truth. Deep down feminists are the ones that yearn for a man to tell them what to do. They just cant admit it because it would shatter their worldview. But I see that smile 

19 minutes ago, Emerald said:

It seems that you're backpedaling. If that's your perspective, don't squirm out of it.

In that 5 year relationship, how did your partner respond when you screamed at her to make you a sandwich? Did she give a great big smile like you said?

I do it in a joking way. But also serious. You should know that I would never be in a relationship with a woman I have to tell what basic duties are. They already know or else they wouldn't make it that far. You keep grouping different societies together. My culture doesn't have the problem of women being out of place. When I go to western countries thats when I have to remind them with joking about the sandwich and then im like ya but seriously go do it 

19 minutes ago, Emerald said:

And did she enjoy it when you were telling her that she's inferior and that men own her? And did she love it when you were lording other men's accomplishments over her and telling of how you are responsible for building society and she isn't?

I never said anything about inferiority. Thats the issue with you. You think patriarchy automatically means someone is higher than you. Men are just more powerful in terms of physicality but that doesnt mean they are superior. But if you think it does then I can see why you would have a problem with it. Patriarchy means men RUN women not own them. Even in feminist societies it's the men that uphold feminist ideals. Men build the world and women build the babies which turn into the people of the world. But ya women like to be owned. Imagine if your husband of 20 years said "You are your own woman, I have nothing to do with it, we are just two bodies hanging out in the same room"...versus "you are mine, you belong to me forever and ever". Its in every romance novel since ever 

Patriarchy means men have the authority but all the responsibility falls on them. Women are rarely held accountable. I dont think we ever look through the lens of superior or inferior. You cant choose how you are born. Plus you do know that in patriarchal societies the father will have a daughter right? Please don't tell me you think that the father thinks his daughter is inferior  

[Twentyfirst]

40 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Men with patriarchal ideologies tend to have blocks to emotional intelligence because they are trying really hard to differentiate themselves from women as much as possible and denying their own emotions and vulnerabilities to themselves to do so.

And the more a man sees men/Masculinity as superior to women/Femininity, the more he will repress traits that archetypally or culturally Feminine to avoid feelings of inferiority.

And emotional intelligence falls into both of those Feminine buckets. 

And this block to emotional intelligence extends especially to relationships with women... but also to other men and themselves.

But I worked with one man with a moderately patriarchal ideology (like he liked the idea of being with a strong independent woman and had some issues with his partner because she wasn't ambitious... but he was also super resistant to the Feminine and saw it as inferior to the Masculine).

And he had a natural aptitude for emotional intelligence compared to most people. I could sense it to be his zone of genius.

But he still blocked that natural aptitude with his ideology in some ways. And he didn't develop that strength as much as he could have had his intellectual paradigm been less polarized and more holistic.

And that's because he was really dug in about being a manly man and he had insecurities and fears about being perceived as weak, gay, or womanly. And he resisted his potentials for that reason.

He was a really Masculine guy though. No one would look at him and see him as Feminine. It was just a deep-seated fear. (And most patriarchal guys have that same kind of fear of coming across as weak or Feminine in varying degrees.)

So, sometimes he'd say some really insightful things... but other times his framework of beliefs would get in the way and it would cause him to respond to certain things in emotionally unintelligent ways.

So... yes. Patriarchal men tend to have ideological blocks to their emotional intelligence, even if some of them may have a lot of potential to develop emotional intelligence. 

Yeah I just don't see it. There are men that bottle things up but actually it's better for a man to bottle up emotions. Maybe all these freak gun shooters are letting out their emotions. Men should bottle up their emotions but they should also observe their emotions to reflect on them. Not completely bottle it up and forget about it. You make it seem as if once the patriarchy is removed that every man is automatically an emotional genius

40 minutes ago, Emerald said:

And to answer your last question, that's a hypothetical question that would never actually happen in real life.

I believe that true unity of the sexes is only possible when everyone is in their full power. And for women to be in their full power, they need sovereignty. 

So, if I had to choose... one would nullify the other.

Might as well ask "If you had to choose between having your heart removed or your brain removed, which would you choose?"

At that point, it wouldn't really matter because you're dead either way if you're choosing.

The sovereignty you speak of is just denial of the real world. Women tend to be followers by choice

But you do have to choose. Right now you have equality but no unity 

[Leo Gura]

@Twentyfirst You are misunderstanding what it means for women to want to be dominated. They want masculine containment and leadership, but that does not mean they want to be bossed around in an immature, disrespectful, narcissistic, juvenile, selfish manner.

It is the difference between conscious leadership vs authoritarianism. Good leadership means respecting the soverignty of those you lead, not using them to serve your selfish needs.

There is a healthy and a toxic way to lead people. The toxic way is "go make me a sandwhich".

Edited Monday at 04:55 AM by Leo Gura

[Twentyfirst]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Twentyfirst You are misunderstanding what it means for women to want to be dominated. They want masculine containment and leadership, but that does not mean they want to be bossed around in an immature, disrespecrful, narcissistic, juvenile manner.

It is the difference between conscious leadership vs authoritarianism. Good leadership means respecting the soverignty of those you need, not using them to serve your selfish needs.

There is a healthy and a toxic way to lead women. The toxic way is "go make me a sandwhich".

I think if a man is doing everything right. And going above and beyond serving his woman in every way he can. She should do as he commands. And she shouldn't be hurt by it. She should be excited to give back value. Its not asking for a lot

Some women are built this way so you don't even have to ask. Once you get that treatment for a long time it's really hard to deal with other women that make you earn it even though you are already doing everything you can as a man 

Theres nothing more amazing than a woman bringing you a steak with a smile while you wait at the dinner table. They enjoy it too. Why rob humanity of that experience? To prove what?

Edited Monday at 01:33 AM by Twentyfirst

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

She should do as he commands.

Theres nothing more amazing than a woman bringing you a steak with a smile while you wait at the dinner table. They enjoy it too. Why rob humanity of that experience? To prove what?

That's just not going to work.

You are describing an authoritarian fantasy. Eventually even the least self-respecting and meek woman will get tired of your domination and selfishness and leave you. But before that happens there will be so much drama and fighting that you will regret you ever met her.

What your domination will do is just make her hate you and leave you in the end.

You're simply not going to find a human who will be your doormat as you dream. And that you even desire to have that is the problem. This is a sick way to relate to other human beings. Just because you think you are providing for her or whatever does not mean she will be your doormat. Fundamentally, you are violating another being's soveriegnty for egotistical purposes, and that will not end well.

Try it and you will see how badly it fails. Because people are not on this Earth to serve you. If you think you will get away with dominating women, you are sorely mistaken.

Edited Monday at 01:45 AM by Leo Gura