“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.