“The courage of a man lies in commanding, a woman’s lies in obeying.” – Aristotle
2.) The Dancing Metaphor
3.) O Equality, Wherefore Art Thou Equality?
4.) Love & Lust Are Intrinsically Unequal
5.) He Is To Mould, She Is To Be Moulded
6.) Faith, Trust, Risk, Hope
7.) In Closing / Relevant Reading
It hardly feels worthy of mention, because it comes as naturally to one’s self as a sky of blue or a blade of green grass, yet in our age of dystopic social engineering and decadent artifice, it appears controversial that healthy romantic relationships between men and women take on a dominant-submissive dynamic.
In a culture of toxic femininity in which the feminine is made primary, the natural and healthy role of man and woman has been perverted to the extent the mere idea of man leading his woman is deemed offensive, if not at the very least backward and regressive in its stance. The intelligentsia of our time, ever unenlightened as they are, have placed their chips on the pillars of equality and obstinately refuse to re-evaluate the foolishness of their pseudo-progressiveness.
2.) The Dancing Metaphor:
Dancing has been used ritualistically as a preliminary step to courtship since time immemorial, the dance itself serving as little more than a finessed way of ascertaining a man’s ability to take charge and a woman’s to follow. Now imagine if a couple were silly enough to think that neither partner should lead nor follow, owing to their shared belief that equality negates a need for hierarchy. If their roles as dance partners was not identical, they would inhabit a state of inequality. But because dancing requires a leader and a follower, and our fellow dancers do not believe in inequality, they would quite simply fail to dance! The absurdity of their beliefs would, effectively, render them incapable of dancing.
Extrapolating this to the dating market of today, much of the general dissatisfaction and unhappiness we see stems from this belief, or at the very least the incapacity for one or either sex to fulfil their roles as dominant and submissive. Be it that the man is an ineffectual and submissive “leader,” or the woman is an insolent, ball-busting sham of a “follower”. Neither is good relationship material for the other and neither will do, for although dominance and submission is necessary for a relationship to take place, a woman’s love is based upon respect, and her inability to respect a man she has been burdened to lead will ultimately conclude in her loss of love for him.
As such, it falls to man to lead, not to woman, for no matter how much the feminine ego may covet leadership, it is spiritually, emotionally, mentally and psychologically incapable of maintaining the dynamic in a mutually enjoyable and unexploitative fashion. It is within the narcissism and insecurity of women brainwashed by feminism who are uncomfortable in their femininity that we hear the cries of execration denouncing masculine authority, and yet ironically it is within the petty jealousy of this infantilism she lies completely oblivious to the fact that leadership is not all fun and games, but a burden, and a cumbersome one at that.
A dance in its physical elements foreshadows the optimal dynamic that should take place mentally and emotionally when man and woman couples; as such, dancing, much like relationships, is about complementation. The tyrannical social engineers through their inversion of values have our populace thinking that for a man to be dominant and lead his woman is to oppress her, and that her consequential submissive following of him is tantamount to enslavement, but in matters of intersexual dynamics these connotations are incorrect and misplaced.
3.) O Equality, Wherefore Art Thou Equality?:
As per feminist sociocultural influence, there has been a normalisation of the rather perverse paradigm in which the woman leads, or each party is somehow “equal” in the most intangible, esoteric and subjectivist of unquantifiable manners. And be it that this supposed equality is defined by the sentiment of the believer, who even knows what it looks like beyond the figment of the wildest imagination, for equality is a fiction, and all romantic relationships are hierarchically contingent upon a leader-follower dynamic to take form and function.
Indeed this absurd idea that each party is equal to the other, that nobody leads nor follows, but rather that each makes proposals to the other and that such a thing somehow works is a dysfunctional, pervasive memetic. The absence of hierarchy is chaos, and thus to aim for and idealise equality is to promote and usher in chaos. It is inconceivable to think how one could reach consensus within a democracy of two, for one must eventually concede to the authority of the other, and without concession there is no basis for relationship, but merely a series of conflicts that lead to inevitable forfeiture and abandonment by whomever the most frustrated party happens to be. Antithetically, when one does concede to the authority of the other, equality is lost. As such, true equality is a notion, not a pragmatic relational methodology.
Egalitarianism, much as it fails to operate as a functional social model, likewise fails utterly as a workable relational model. This makes sense, for the only thing that separates socialism from the equality of gender in romantic is scale and context – the same, flawed and basic underpinnings are otherwise identical. As such, it seems foolish if not out right insidious to posit equality as an aspirational relationship model, for not only is equality a completely unobtainable end, but even were it obtainable, it would not yield the degree of relational satisfaction that a dominant-submissive dynamic encompasses, for equality is unsexy.
4.) Love & Lust Are Intrinsically Unequal:
Although sex is equally enjoyable, it is not equal in the roles that are performed, and neither is a relationship outside of the bedroom. In fact, if one wishes to get into the bedroom, they should be foreshadowing its dynamic outside of it. Neither man nor woman covets egalitarian liaisons, for it is within the very nature of man to want to dominate in the bedroom, as in the nature of woman to want to be taken in it. Unlike politics, dogma and social ideology, sex does not lie, for the heart wants what the heart wants and the purest manifestations of masculinity and femininity are laid bare in all their unfettered glory in the bedroom.
Love and lust are not based on mutual respect. Love is based on mutual care, lust on mutual desire. Women care and lust when they can respect man’s hardness, men lust for flesh, caring only when they are ensnared by a woman’s softness. An equal woman is not a soft woman, nor a desirable woman, nor a woman a man of any real standing desires to protect, and so she is neither a woman he will endure to commit to, nor a woman in anything but the physical sense of the word, for by behaving as a man and trying to compete as one, she devalues herself in his eyes.
It is as such the strategy of the wise woman to submit, complement and enjoy the fruits and protection of her man, whereas it is the purview of the foolish woman to compete with him at every turn. Women of a masculine nature will never be truly desirable to men in much the way men of a feminine nature will never be truly desirable to women. The difference between the two of course is masculine women can get laid, but feminine men can’t, where they are of course equal is neither receives commitment from anyone either.
5.) He Is To Mould, She Is To Be Moulded:
Many of you are privy to the fact that women are more easily influenced by their nation’s culture, religion, family, and immediate surroundings than are men. Yes, men are likewise influenced by said things, my point was not to say they solely affect women, but rather that those of you who aren’t so brainwashed as the common people realise women are on the whole more easily influenced.
What is the reasoning behind this? Well, I lack the requisite desire to speculate too deeply on the matter, and nor do I wish to digress too far from the central thesis of the essay, nonetheless I believe it comes down to women’s greater need for approval, an ability to be more fluid in character as a form of adaptation, and lastly, perhaps as a necessity for the capacity to perform the two prior functions: a diminished capacity and desire to employ logic.
So now I have firmly established the reasoning behind my belief in woman’s greater malleability, I return to my original point: a woman is to be moulded, a man is to mould. If a man is to find a woman when she is young, he can craft her into the woman he wants her to be, be it that young women are ever pliable, and if mentally healthy, ever hopeful at their prospects of a future with a strong man who loves them.
Much as I said in “Women of Substance Are Made, Not Born”, a good woman is the handiwork of great men, ideally well-raised by a strong father, but at the very least young and receptive to dominant, masculine governance. A woman cannot, try as she may, become the embodiment of what a man wants without her chosen partner having a hand in the matter, for her constitution is innately erratic, and as such, in the absence of a strong male figure in her life, she will in all likelihood fall prey to predacious dogma and sully herself.
The value of a young woman extends beyond the appeal of her physical youth and fertility, although both are covetously desirable in and of themselves, it is her malleability to be formed into a woman who complements a man that is her main draw. Older women are, much to the dismay of men everywhere, not solely lacking in beauty, but largely irredeemable in that they lack the pliability archetypal of young women.
Bitter older woman unable to secure a dominant alpha who see a young woman coupled with a man perhaps ten or even fifteen years her senior have an instinct to shame the couple, more specifically, the man. It is said by spinsters of ever-increasing opinionation that such men are no more than perverts, that they only covet a young woman’s body and sexuality, and that if such men were as refined as they, they’d look to date someone “more mature.” Be it that maturity for women is little more than bitterness that erodes their femininity, the point of maturity is an entirely moot point, for women mature little in adulthood. These spinsters disguise their vitriolic bitterness as concern for the well-being of young women, but in reality they are the jealous crabs in the bucket, scornful of the men who don’t want them, jealous of the women who can get them.
The man must act upon and mould a woman more than she does him, for if the woman is to act upon and mould the man, she will create something she finds abhorrent. More simply and explicitly stated, a woman will mould a man into someone she despises, but a man will mould a woman into someone he loves.
6.) Faith, Trust, Risk, Hope:
A man does not want to waste time trying to mould an unmouldable woman in much the way a mouldable woman does not want a dominant man to abandon her. Man must be careful, for the more he invests, the more he loves, and the more he loves, the more he is prone to holding an unworthy and toxic asset. Likewise, woman too must be careful, for if a man of dominance does not wish to intimately mould her in his paternal patience, he will not commit, and will as such subsequently abandon her. It is only wise that men and women alike are discerning when seeking to cultivate a healthy, sustainable masculine dominant and feminine submissive dynamic, for there are women who feign submissiveness in much the way there are men pretending to be dominant.
Likewise it bears mentioning the insecurities of women are no large secret, and it is equal parts ego in so much as it is fear that if a woman is to submit to a man, the man in question may exploit his influence over her to her detriment. It is her desire to yield, and yet her simultaneous fear that should she yield she will irreparably harm her emotional well-being. This is why trust is so integral, and must be fostered with great benevolence and might in order to be created and sustained. Trust is not an easy thing, but a woman cannot truly submit until she trusts a man sufficiently not to abuse his power over her.
When the young woman is around the right man, she has it within the depths of herself irrespective of how dysfunctional she may be to yield and give herself to a sufficiently dominant man. The older woman’s undesirability lies in her inability to cultivate this dynamic, betrayed beyond redemption and hurt too much previously, her inability to trust, place hope in a strong man and yield to him makes her a non-option to the most dominant of men.
Dominant men evaluate the concerns of their woman, dominance is not tyrannical in so much as it is paternal. Such a man rewards and disciplines, but does not do so mercilessly and without reason, but rather as a response to insolence and good behaviour. Trust is integral to the dominant-submissive dynamic, for if a man is not benevolent enough to be righteous in the exercise of his discipline, he will unduly punish and thus needlessly ostracise the woman he is partnered with. It is vital a woman’s fears are assuaged whilst her uppity affront is simultaneously quashed. Such a thing is achieved through sheer mastery of dominance, that is, knowing when to punish, knowing when to reward, and knowing how to encourage that which is deemed productive and good in a woman. It is a delicate balance that must be practised, and yet once it is attained, each party is all the better for it.
7.) In Closing / Relevant Reading:
It is man’s responsibility to lead, and woman’s to follow, for man is drawn to feminine submission in much the way woman is drawn to masculine dominance. This basic premise is itself the very basic building block on which attraction is formed, and whether knowingly or unknowingly to those involved, all healthy, happy relationships operate upon this very foundation. To conflate masculine dominance with oppression is a grossly disingenuous mischaracterisation of the functional order between man and woman, and it is with the greatest of sadnesses we see such an egregious idea adopted with ever fermenting commonality.
33 thoughts on “Dominance & Submission”
Awesome ! Unfortunately this being 2017, every time I talked to a woman, it’s like dealing with a rattlesnake…
that healthy romantic relationships between men and women take on a dominant-submissive dynamic.
All relations and relationships do. But most also have in their foundation the denial of the former fact. There must be the fact, and the pretence that the fact isn’t there: it’s not a one-sided dynamic.
Now think if an élite wants to keep society much divided because that makes it easier to rule over… They will take the mentally feebler demographics, and non-stop program their minds against natural relational dynamics. Therefore neurosis, the conflict between stimuli (drives, preferences,…) is induced.
The women want certain things, but due to the cultural programming done unto them they can’t stand knowing they want those things, or even seeing they are getting those things.
The élite succeeds in making a good share of relationships quickly perishable and temporary — certainly co-operating with nature itself, and human vanity and pride.
As for me personally, dominating moulding being dominated and moulded all sicken me equally. After all… when you lead and mould, you are still serving her as a tool. There is no way in the world, outside of idealistic love dreamed by some male minds, that you aren’t serving her as a tool. Sonce that live isn’t to be found, you can be a tool of various types, or leave the stage and the whole opera house perhaps.
Why not be a tool? It is biologically programmed into you to want to be a tool.
Very much needed in my story.
How does a man mould a woman?
A woman is part of your life.
You mould everything.
Once again, an amazing article.
However, you never explained any theoretical ways on how to swing the pendulum back to societal normality…
Would it simply fall on men to lead by example? To find a young woman, capable of free thinking who largely agrees that, with the mass amount of successful, historical examples that prove this piece, this is how relationships are supposed to be?
Yes. The ultimate burden falls on man, because woman is man’s burden. All you can do is be the most bad ass man you can possibly be, filter hard, and if a woman passes your filters, with a little luck and game you should inspire her to follow you. Failing that, you always have the bachelor lifestyle as a fallback option.
Well maybe you can help me?
Machiavelli was always a hero of mine, his ingenuity was second to none. However, how does a man deal with the claims that he is controlling or manipulative etc when he simply has desires for how his life is managed, controlling chaos as much as any man possibly could?
At what point does a man cross the threshold between determined leader and a tyrant, within his life or relationships?
I have no desires for a sheepish woman who does as told, but a strong woman, like the noble women of renaissance Italy, The Me’dici’s etc (hell even going back so far as the actual Roman Empire). Where women planned with or pushed their men to be greater. Feminism, apparently giving power to women, has robbed women of the lust for family power, class and respect and instead, enforced a hedonistic nature of individual power… which ironically makes them powerless.
How the hell do you,
A. Filter for those traits properly (Without confusing certain traits which in reality, makes her a sociopathic female)
B. Keep her loyal throughout this “Game of Thrones”, which is long, difficult and requires a lot of sacrifice?
It almost seems pointless nowadays, maybe i was born in the wrong era :L
I surmise it would be seeking out someone with say the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator type that would reflect a strong preference for supporting others – in particular at the officer level so they have well honed abilities to deal with a broad range of dominant personality types and possess superior tact and interpersonal skills, with a reconciled ego that doesn’t seek personal individual recognition, fame or fortune, just thoroughly enjoys helping and supporting someone else shine as best they can as a team.
They are cooperative and dependable to be able to make it to the career senior executive assistant level, which speaks for itself for possessing the traits needed for a good solid supporting dominant-submissive relationship.
Yes, assistants have a general proximity advantage to the alpha males that run our nation’s companies, but also their personalities are perfectly honed to fit like puzzle pieces, the personalities of the executives they support, including a willingness to listen to them as they unload their frustrations and concerns – with a true empathy (I absorb the emotions of the people around me), genuine smile and no ego issues to speak of, as my boss says, his breathe of fresh air, the one light in his life. It is no surprise that so many personal/executive assistants end up with their bosses romantically; while their wife is a naggy bitch, their assistant is supportive, listens and genuinely cares about them.
My Myers-Briggs moves around a bit depending on the situation – it is somewhere between an ENFJ and an INTJ; I am on the border of introverted/extroverted, feeling/thinking and perceptive/judgmental. At no time am I ever interested in pop culture, excess spending or trends however, those preferences do not change.
You mean he should do a search for zeros, noughts, naughts, and once it succeeds call it happiness.
Well, hopefully he will be able to. Many are, but not all…
How would you expand on this “falsify dominance”? What does that mean to you?
In my view, women wanting/demanding “equality” is a misnomer.
I have jokingly referred to myself as a “Male Equalist Feminist”, in that if there is to be equality between the sexes then I expect and demand that equality is applied EQUALLY in ALL things, ALL of the time and not just when it suits or benefits women.
No more traditional privileges to go along with the modern “rights”.
I expect that the vast majority of women (other than crazed, toxic feminists) would not be in the least interested in this sort of system.
So you believe the people who would be fair as you ask them to be are “crazed and toxic”? Does that prove that you then are crazed and toxic, since it’s you’re idea?
to prove your point, simply ask the women you deal with one question: do you want women, upon reaching 18 yrs old, to be required to sign up for selective service?
i haven’t met one yet who agrees.
Be sure that there no crazed toxic feminist who rejects female actual privilege in any of its part.
It’s just doublespeak and doublethink. When a demographic asks for “equality”, they are asking for more privilege in the only way acceptable to society, and compatible with their self-view as moral actors.
Nothing in human business will ever be about a demographic striving for equality. Humans strive for privilege. To call one’s privilege equality, and one’s thirst for more of it thirst for equality, that’s one more privilege.
@Brett, here is your answer, in the second to last paragraph:
“Dominant men evaluate the concerns of their woman, dominance is not tyrannical in so much as it is paternal. Such a man rewards and disciplines, but does not do so mercilessly and without reason, but rather as a response to insolence and good behaviour. Trust is integral to the dominant-submissive dynamic, for if a man is not benevolent enough to be righteous in the exercise of his discipline, he will unduly punish and thusly needlessly ostracise the woman he is partnered with. It is vital a woman’s fears are assuaged whilst her uppity affront is simultaneously quashed. Such a thing is achieved through sheer mastery of dominance, that is, knowing when to punish, knowing when to reward, and knowing how to encourage that which is deemed productive and good in a woman. It is a delicate balance that must be practised, and yet once it is attained, each party is all the better for it.”
Although, if your question is about how to mold her worldview on subjects such as politics and the way of the world. This is a different subject, but as Plato points out – marrying a woman at 18 would allow you to accomplish this task with much ease. Although, I will say that your very being and your own values, principles, and beliefs put into action and sometimes put into words are what molds her. Women are always watching male behavior and constantly analyzing it consciously and subconsciously.
@IllimintableMen, thank you for this great writing. I agree and have learned of this natural concept in the past 1-2 years. The change in my relationships has been amazing. Not only the positive change in romantic relationships, but the positive change in myself after aligning with my natural tendencies. It pervades to all relationships – that of brother, son, grandson, and friend.
As you move from ignorant to understanding your nature, everything becomes clear and you feel strength and peace. I have found this and beyond. I am now clearly able to judge the character of men and the worthiness of women. Situations that would have me wondering ‘should this person should be in my life?’ and ‘are they treating me right?’ are now easier to navigate.
It is also very enjoyable, as your mastery of dominance increases, to recognize moments where you can assert your leadership. Sometimes you will implement the correct action whether it be a disciplining, rewarding, or encouraging. Sometimes you will implement the wrong action, but you will learn as you see the results.
I must also point out that as my mastery has increased, I can clearly see the lack of leadership in other men. Situations arise all the time where I watch an interaction between a man and woman and see that the woman was clearly looking for leadership and the man fails to deliver. You can almost feel the disappointment coming from the woman.
This concept is best summarized in one of the greatest movies of all time here:
You’re a bear and she is a bunny. This hasn’t changed since the beginning of time.
You’re a bad man.
You’re a bad man.
this made me so wet XD!!
My big fantasy is to see you release an article on how to fuck women up mentally and hurt them emotionally, to make them dependant and to ruin them inside.
Does that fall under the sadistic category that you refuse to talk about?
Just do all he teaches, and then abruptly leave them for another woman. Lol.
However, remember that as someone wrote, the Golden Rule applies in the reverse as well: what you do to others, you do to yourself.
If women, or the games one has to play with them and on them to be with them, disgust you, the healthiest route is to walk away from the whole thing, not to fight back. You can’t cleanse or even just clean the world, or women, or men. You can stay away from the mud, if mud is all you judge it to be.
All White Men who have cojones – BoycottAviva #MeddlingSJWWitches
This is a business maxim, but it applies equally to a LTR: “When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.” Roles need clear definition and legitimate buy-in by all team members, and some one has to lead. Egalitarian anarchy is a lovely idea, but it never actually exists for long. Whether it’s The Walking Dead, a business, or a relationship, someone ends up the leader.
The question then becomes “What are the roles and responsibilities we have accepted?” When both the leadership and the roles and responsibilities are ambiguous and in question a company will fail, and a relationship will too.
This is also true: “her inability to respect a man she has been burdened to lead will ultimately conclude in her loss of love for him.”
The only solution is to accept responsibility and lead. Make yourself into a man worthy of inspiring and deserving submission, but for a man, the bottom line is: If she wont follow you, for whatever reason, she cant be happy. Whether it’s you or her is irrelevant. Your job is to see this, leave and find another who can and will. Meanwhile keep investing in yourself.
Excellent comment, and I love the overlap between business and romantic relationships. It’s quite poetic to see the parallels between seduction and sales, corporations and relationships. After all, under the hood, it’s all the same underlying psychology – just different social contexts.
You can add politics to “love” (mating) and trade (sales), as well.
I am new to the TRP community and have read a couple of articles like this one. These have enlightened me to such a degree that my perception has changed. If I look at men-woman interactions, I can clearly see why some end in the woman falling for said man, whilst other end in said man being rejected. It is because each and every woman has a list of standards that she holds potential mates up against by shit testing them. If you pass her shit test (in other words, say all the right things or ”press” all the right buttons) it ends with an almost unresistable attraction the woman feels for you.
Another thing that I now do understand is the distinction between love and lust. I too used to be one of those losers that thought that in order to win over a woman’s affection and make her lust for you, you must make her love you (by showing how good of a husband/boyfriend you could be. IOW by playing the nice-guy). Not nowing that love comes after lust and that, contrary to what many people may think, love can be the death of lust. For love is an anti-aphrodisiac. Love is complacency, love is familiarity, love if trust, love is comfort, love is caring, love is finding a comfortable nest to settle and make it full of nestlings. Lust, on the other hand, is novelty, lust is fear, lust is jealousy, lust is admiration, lust is unattainability, Lust grows in absence of the your lover and above all else, lust is in the mind. When your women thinks/fears she is losing you, she starts wanting you more and, consciously or not, it leads her to want to satisfy you more in all areas (she becomes more compliant and more giving sexually) in order for her to keep you. This is also true when a woman becomes jealous of the attention you may be receiving from other woman.
When a woman becomes complacent with/ familiar with a man her sexual appetite decreases. when a woman feels all of the above stated attributes of love, accompanied with the absence of all the stated attributes of lust, she will lose interest in her man. Thats why a wise man should keep a good balance between the two to keep a woman long term.
I believe that the inability to distinguish these two from one another and balance them is the reason that many men are not capable of keeping a woman interested long term and the reason why many marriages wither down and lose their ”passionate sexuality”.
I feel like, for the very first time, I truly understand women and that is greatly thanks to the articles on this site. I want to thank the author of these articles greatly. You are doing great work sir! You articulate these topics in such an efficient and eloquent manner that you do not only teach me more about life, power and women. But also expand my English vocabulary. Kudos.
I just wanted to share what I came to understand on this platform and if anybody can find something that I had wrong or may have misconstrued, please do point it out to me in the form of constructive critisisme.
An enlightened man
You guys seem to always find the grossest way to view something and that generally leads to your getting the wrong result. If you think “lust is making her jealous and scared she will lose me”, you will go about ti wrong and she will not trust you … and you will lose all. The man a woman chooses is her most prime investment. She knows the crap she will endure of his human flaws, so she searches for the man who can offset that as much as possible; either through status or treatment. But status being the most powerful. Because men are so singular, is has always been a point of interest when a woman captures the concerns of a valued man.
So you see, it isn’t that the women desires to be jealous, she desires the accolades and benefits to the union. If the man makes moves that are unflattering to his partner and humiliate her, she go to great lengths to protect her reputation, going as far as leaving or disgracing him. BUT – if a man understands that what a woman really wants is a desirable man (much as men do) because it reflects well on her choice and reputation, then he will move correctly, maintaining his mass appeal all the while securing her allegiance. She’s always gonna want her position and hold it well when it’s perceived as desirable, and even more so when it is genuinely as good as it seems
I mean, if you got a job as a body oilier to the woman of your fantasies, who you enjoy being around and gives you great perks and benefits and there was a press conference that told the world of your new position – imagine how lucky you’d feel. And also how threatened, knowing how many men would kill for a dream job like that. THAT is how you want your woman to feel! Like she got a dream position with someone who is really good at what he does, is enjoyable to work with, and offers perks and benefits to offset the work. That’s her dream position and partner.
It’s definitely a personality. Like a father. A man you can TRUST, who can offer guidance FOR YOUR best interest, not his. Great father’s do not create submissive daughters. On the contrary, they create confident daughters. They seem submissive because they are relaxed. The KNOW there is a man looking out for them always and she is protected ALWAYS .. even if married. So she rarely must fight her own battles. Father’s can also be covered by and governed by their daughters because of the mutual bond. Her say so is valued by him because he lives to enhance her life and protect her. This what many of the men on these posts are lacking — actual heart. It’s truly amazing that with all this writing and keen awareness that men must lead the change if any of them desire to lead at all – it’s bewildering that very few turn to advising men against the behaviors that LEAD to “bitterness, hate, and disappointment” doled out to the “mature” women. The writer states both sexes should use discernment when choosing mates but casually forgot that he selected young inexperienced women to be the only desirable kind, therefore the group he’s deferring advice to. How does an inexperienced women whom the author claims has next to no capacity for logic plan to gauge between the real and impostor dominance? The tyrant and the strong leader? What if she was brought up by a widow or does not have a proper father figure to gauge? You see, the author suggests a lot of just writing women off for the experiences they endured all while these men are advised here to find some one fresh to soil and practice on. It’s maddening. A woman would only need to read a blog like that to see men still can not be trusted with power and control. They will only look to serve themselves. This man had very little knowledge on the female perspective.
Also, side bar: why do people act like most companies aren’t run by collective boards now? There’s actually very little “clear boss: leaderships situations in business. There’s just a face. The same way the POTUS is not really the leader of anything autonomously. And you all also seem to love to ignore the WHY behind the social changes. Women weren’t just SO HAPPY being housewives and then out of nowhere fought against it. If dynamic was so great and worked so well, why did women fight so hard to get out if it? Because contrary to popular opinion, women do make sense and they do NOT give up things they truly enjoy. They get so very few.
“It is man’s responsibility to lead, and woman’s to follow, for man is drawn to feminine submission in much the way woman is drawn to masculine dominance. This basic premise is itself the very basic building block on which attraction is formed, and whether knowingly or unknowingly to those involved, all healthy, happy relationships operate upon this very foundation. To conflate masculine dominance with oppression is a grossly disingenuous mischaracterisation of the functional order between man and woman, and it is with the greatest of sadnesses we see such an egregious idea adopted with ever fermenting commonality.”
…and I might add the downfall of great civilizations of past and in now the present!
Whats your wife like IM? Also how does a young girl recover from a masculine, domineering mother and a beta father?
Physical height plays a huge role in dominance. I grew 2 inches at age 26 and it literally changed everything for me. Girls that used to treat me like shit now act like giddy school girls around me. Anyone looking for a life changing confidence boost definitely check out heightify.com. They sell subliminal tracks that increase height at any age, which I didnt even think was possible but it worked perfectly for me.
I loved reading this. I am absolutely childlike in my woman-ness: I live with my family so I have security, company and some financial protection; I work part time as a supply teacher because I’m not able/unwilling to generate enough masculine energy to become financially competitive/status seeking or embroiled in politics. I am capricious, inconsistent, weak willed, insecure, and needy. I love men for generally being the opposite and can only desire/be with a man I admire and look up to. I live in the moment and don’t want to burden my mind or body with the toils of labour and long term planning. I recently quit my MA in Social Science & Anthropology because I felt academia was having a neutering/de-feminising/stultifying effect on me, plus the constant ‘plugging’ of covert feminist, Marxist ideologies to the illiterate literates posing as scholars was nauseating to witness!
Some of the personal upsides of having a solipsistic nature include the ability to experience orgasmic sensations from observing nature, a greater propensity for mystical moments and esoteric awareness, and a highly sensitised sensory capacity, in general. I struggle with feeling too much empathy; it means I get sympathy pain, making it so much harder to identify where I end, and the other begins. I find it hard to recognise my own hunger, independently of the collective need, and also find it very easy to organise myself around the needs of others, and to adapt myself to fit my surroundings, sometimes known as ‘people pleasing’. I am not happy with too much of either routine or individualism.
I am crazy a lot of the time and a pain in the butt, too!
I have instinctively always been attracted to, and have attracted, masculine, dominant partners. I was never career oriented, believing that my true purpose in life was to get married, raise a family and support a husband. I still feel that way now, even though I’m nearly 40, and have a divorce behind me… I hope there is still hope for me.
It has been affirming to read your articles/posts. An old friend visited earlier and thought she was helping me by telling me I could earn more money, and would be happier, if I got a 9-5 job in an office, as though whoring myself out to a corporation was the best thing I could do with myself. Her face when I said ‘I have enough money. I’m happy with what I have’, was so shocked it actually entertained me (her household income is £70k; my income approx £15k). She is able to meet our society’s expectations, and definitions, of success because, even though her husband is an overweight alcoholic, and her marriage is not functioning well, she owns a couple of properties, owns designer handbags and works in central London. She has little faculty or appreciation for reflection, contemplation or critical thinking, which is probably why she doesn’t value them. I wished to inform her that my wealth is in my being, not in my possessions, but she had already changed the subject, and was more interested in telling me about the £4k holiday she had not long returned from…
Reading your articles reminded me that it’s actually an asset for me to be this way as a woman, and that there are men who see the crock of shit for what it is! I’m not lacking in value or sense because I refuse to become a slave to a capitalistic system, because I reject becoming a hamster on a wheel, or because I resort to faith for fortification instead of Facebook!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, ideas and reflections, here. They have helped me, immensely. Forgive the long, drawn-out tangential response: I am a woman, and have been on an all-nighter down the red-pill rabbit hole! Peace 🙂
This “dancing” metaphor is brilliant. I shall use it in my youth meeting at church as the subject or equality vs “fairness” is taking a lot of my energy to explain it.
I believe even God is into fairness but equality won’t work, it just can’t be sustained!
Thanks, it will help me a lot to get the idea through:)
Imagine putting this much thought into something demonstrably wrong.
I’ve been with my guy for over 10 years (dated 7, married 4, 2 kids). We have an extremely egalitarian, stable, and laughter-filled partnership. I mean, if people like us didn’t exist, maybe your argument would be worth considering. But we do exist. And we aren’t difficult to find. Just to give you some highlights and hopefully, help you wrap your head around what this looks like. Though keep in mind, our relationship is unique to us, and other happy egalitarian relationships look different.
1) In sex, we take turns based on daily desires as far as who leads and who follows. Gotta admit, for me, though I enjoy bottom too, 9/10 times when I get off it is when I am on top. So much for a natural womanly state to want to be dominated. He gets off pretty much all the time either way. So much for a man’s natural need to dominate.
2) Your statement here, more than anything, I think demonstrates how you fundamentally do not understand what an egalitarian relationship looks like. I’d love to be the person who expands your horizons: “It is inconceivable to think how one could reach consensus within a democracy of two, for one must eventually concede to the authority of the other, and without concession there is no basis for relationship, but merely a series of conflicts that lead to inevitable forfeiture and abandonment by whomever the most frustrated party happens to be.”
This couldn’t be more different from our experiences. Consensus is found fairly easily, actually. We both recognize that we have expertise in different areas and we rely on the expertise of each other when making decisions. So if the decision being made is about what to pack for a backpacking trip, I usually defer to him, unless something sticks out to me as needing a different solution, and I am able to convince him of my position. If we are making a decision on investments (like home buying) I’ve got more expertise and insight and we have typically followed my lead (and boy has that worked out well so far). A lot of things we are already on the same page about. That’s kind of the point about dating. You find someone who shares your values and you don’t really end up conflicting on very much of the day to day. We don’t agree on 100% of everything. Those sticking points are worked through with rational debate over pros and cons, and ultimately if the other partner is required for a decision (i.e. a big financial decision, or a child rearing decision), then they have veto power through inaction. That would be the nuclear option, I guess. In my relationship, we don’t really ever get to that. It has happened once or twice though, feelings were hurt. When the situation was resolved, we got over it though
What’s required for this sort of relationship is something greater than just “who will be king?” It requires nuance and hard work exemplified by: a) A demonstrated commitment to continued rational and respectful communication. Even when the topic is a sensitive one, both of you must be willing to return to the table and talk it out. b) Mutual respect and acknowledgement of expertise where applicable. and c) the acknowledgement that no matter what decisions are chosen, both partners have each other in mind and the betterment of each other (and the family as a whole.) That is, even if you don’t get your way, you aren’t bitter about it because you know each other is trying their best. The both of you also commit to review the results of the decision without hard feelings. So if a decision he or she promotes goes sideways, both come to the conclusion that next time, maybe we try the other person’s idea instead.
TL:DR we don’t view decision-making as a competition in which the will of one must beat out the will of the other. We view it as a problem to be solved with each party bringing evidence to the table that will help develop a robust solution.
3) Re moulding. Interestingly, before we started dating, I had a series of prior monogamous relationships whereas he, due to a back injury from mountain biking, was in a hospital for an extended period of time and had no prior relationships, despite being slightly older. One of the things that attracted me to him was his capacity for change: not necessarily into specifically my own personal vision. But rather, a flexibility that I feel I also have in myself to adapt to the situation as is needed. This has served us very well as we have adapted to life changes like moving to different parts of the country, moving in together, having kids. We’ve both changed in the more than 10 years we’ve been together. We’ve also both retained parts of ourselves that are intrinsically distinct. I’d estimate the amount we have moulded versus been moulded by each other is not statistically different.
Along those lines, it is very amusing to see your conjecture about a woman being more influenced by her surrounding culture than men. We are both American, but I am significally more uncomfortable with that due to feeling like I don’t fit in. I have often brought up the conversation about moving to a different country. He’s been less open to that idea because he isn’t as good at learning new languages as I am (which is why he relies on my expertise for decision-making involving foreign language education for our kids, re: point #2). And re:point #1 as we have mutual repect for each other, he is open to the possibility but the decision to move to another country will happen only when I/we can sufficiently statisfy his concerns, i.e. move to another English speaking country and/or are in a situation where he doesn’t have a huge need to learn the local language.
There’s more to our relationship than these 3 things, but it is a snap-shot to what we have. Which, as I’d like to reiterate is egalitarian, happy and stable, going on 11 years.