Why Yes

“Fleshlights are amazing. They detox men from their nasty bitch ex. Empower men by being always willing. They do what a perfect woman does.”  Rachel Bree

A woman who is always willing is respected more than any other. A woman who turns sex into a transactional power game is a problem. It is that simple.

Yet it is a founding principle of female empowerment which has resulted in the conflict of modern society. The role of the male is to bring stability to this by providing structure for order.

We are biological, emotional, psychological and spiritual. To work with our bodies needs in a healthy way is regarded by some cultures as divine. The bodies needs for health and healthy living is to not fight against these things and repress them. 

For men, this is deep rooted. As far as understanding abandonment anxiety is concerned, this is a core aspect affecting it from the male perspective of having to deal with what makes men tick. 

I do not know if it is exactly the same for women. I have attempted to discuss this with many different women. Some of whom I have had sexual relationships and some of whom it was platonic and/or professional. My findings are as follows. 

Women with whom I have attempted to discuss this with and who have acknowledged it could be, also happen to be more sexually willing to please men. 

Women who absolutely shout down any such discussion at all, also happen to exhibit the most severe dysfunctional behaviour and antisocial personality disorders. To such women sex is either a non-entity or is transactional. 

This is revealing. There is an association between the female ability for open communication and the female willingness to gratefully satisfy a man’s horniness on his terms. 

Those who reject, those who welcome. The criteria for this should be assessed (further study report). 

When the provision of sex to a partner becomes a matter of trade it is not a marriage, it is a business contract. 

This was an original definition of the word marriage before the medieval concept of courtly love, courting suitors, and the formal contract of a marriage before consummation on the wedding night. 

The consummation which is the wedding, the ‘joining together as one’. The marriage is the ongoing intention to always return to that union as soon as possible, to always be within its light. To consummate as often as possible. 

An engagement is a dedication to an intended goal. All of the stages of this delaying of instant gratification are the elevation of female empowerment to create a space within which she can accept, study, learn to yield to and learn to control her man, even as he grooms her to be his bride, his bridge, his connection to the bliss. 

An engagement is for her, a time required for her to come to terms with how she must behave to empower the marriage. Which at its core is quite simply is to always yield to him sexually. 

This is the historical perspective. Of course a marriage, any partnership involves factors outside of the bedroom. The practicalities of living together as archetypal people as well as the practicalities and needs of the unique individuals involved. 

We need to understand what this is all about to put into perspective the impact of  modernism and feminism has had on the medieval culture which we inherited and what was its original intended purpose. 

We need to be aware of this to recognise how far we have deviated from it and to see its wisdom and merits as much as any flaws we may perceive from the modern way of thinking. 

What has happened is the purity of marriage in creating lasting, functional relationships has been corrupted and is now being replaced by what is described as a modern marriage. 

A modern marriage is one wherein she has more power to behave as if she is not married but he is still expected to bring to her all of the benefits of marriage, including those of the courtship period of proving his worth by providing and supporting for her.  

He must maintain this even after his having proved it which creates a situation of mistrust and insecurity because non-acceptance of his having been tested. The tests become ongoing. This is perhaps a necessary adaptation to the compromises of modernity. 

This transition began in the latter medieval period, before the discovery of gunpowder.    We see how far the roots of the female empowerment movement go in terms of time and how deep they go in to the bedroom in terms of affecting the sanctity of the pure relationship between man and wife who have sworn a divine oath to serve one another by bringing one another harmony. 

The women’s rights movements that a woman is not merely a sex object has for our generation and culture destroyed this awareness of what it is required to make relationships stable in the historic sense. 

A woman who gives her man sex is respected for doing so. A woman who makes it difficult for him is going to lose him to the women who do give it to him. 

Men need sex. It’s a biological, emotional, psychological and spiritual driving factor of their existence. It is how God and nature made them. To question whether it is spiritual in essence is to question both the divine masculine and sacred sexuality. These items are aspirations of successful people. 

Broken men suppress their own need for sex. A woman who breaks her man is an unhealthy woman as much as a man who breaks his woman is an unhealthy man. Broken women suppress their men’s need for sex. Broken men either don’t take it or take it by force. 

Why do people behave in a dysfunctional, oppressive way to suppress and repress sexuality? 

It serves only one entity; the depopulation agenda. The death cult uses divide and control. It is colonial. It is no surprise how even our marriages are colonies of the death cult. Our minds have been programmed as its agents. 

What is the answer to liberate ourselves from that? 

See also: Female Abandonment Issues

See also: A Prayer to Lakshmi

WhoDoesYourThinking

Who Does Your Thinking?

This essay is in two main components with an afterword. 

1. Sociology which outlines a very common theme in contemporary Western culture,  and

2. Psychology which explores the hidden roots of it using Transactional Analysis. 

3 Afterword. 

1. Sociology

She has been put into a position where she had to put her Facebook Relationship Status on ‘For Your Eyes Only’ mode so her fiancé could see that was still valid but nobody else could. Everybody else who saw her Facebook status saw no information about her relationship status. This was to appease the critics in her life who wanted her to split up with him. 

There are two reasons: their own jealousy, and because they want her to be under their control, not independent from them by her being more strongly bonded with a partner. She did not stand up for her right to be in a dedicated relationship but instead felt she had been forced into manipulation. For him, manipulation is a sign of a duplicitous personality who can not be trusted. On this basis, when he found out what she was up to, he was offended and made a decision to discuss it with her prior to ending the relationship. To have outright ended the relationship on this basis would have been a knee-jerk reaction albeit an understandable one. 

The same people pressuring her to end the relationship have also pressured him and caused him problems by involving the authorities, all of which bounced off him because the authorities can see it for what it is based on the actual evidence; that her friends and family, her peers, are abusive, jealous women trying to control her. 

This entire statement is re-branded as ‘mansplaining’ in the language of what used to be called radical-feminism but has now been rebranded as normal-feminism due to the extremists activities which used to be considered a form of domestic terrorism but is now considered normalised. The malicious personality traits are being used as agents of agendas of segregation by extremists controlled by a cult which is effectively destroying the stability of this nation under the guise of progressive feminism. 

He believes in a relationship with an equal is a meeting of hearts, minds, bodies and soul. He respects the wisdom of a certificate on the wall of the local Marriage Registry which states; “Marriage is the world between two people to the exclusion of all others.” 

She is not exclusive. She has empowered the fray of peers and community, along with their segregation agendas. 

Both of the bitter, jealous, controlling people in question are themselves in marriages. His role, his intent is to protect her from them. However he has been compromised because she has rights to do what she wants, as endorsed by feminism. He was forced into a position, to protect his relationship. He offered her a hard line. To live in accordance with the confines of empowering a stable, loving relationship or to choose to live in accordance with feminism. She decided to try to have both because Feminism promises she can have both at the detriment of the stable loving relationship. Once again she proved these two disciplines are mutually exclusive. It gets tested almost continuously which is exhausting for everyone involved and amusing to the people throwing spanners into their home life. 

There are two paths before you.

You are in a position of empowerment to choose which path. 

You must choose one. 

You can choose only one.

If you choose and change your mind, the game resets 

but with a handicap and with the couple being regarded to have low integrity. 

If you do not choose, you are not exempt from consequence. 

If you do not choose, others will choose for you. 

If you do not choose, you are regarded to have no agency therefore are of low integrity. 

On one track, there is your loving fiancé.

On the other track, there are a community of bitter people, some of whom already are married and some whom hate men, all of whom want to split you up from your fiancé.

You must choose which to sacrifice. 

If you change your mind, you will have sacrificed both. 

The handicap to that is you will be regarded as having low-integrity. 

 

Having a high integrity relationship is a form of empowerment. 

You are deciding what to empower. 

The reason this equation is valid is because there are only so many hours in a day to decide where to put your attention. Attention is energy. It is a form of currency. We are powerful energies, which is why others seek to control us and society teaches us we are worthless, as a tool to control us.  

The critical question is; 

do you want a fiancé, or 

do you want to be owned by the community of jealous people who want to control you? 

The jealous people will describe marriage as slavery. Remember, half of them are already married themselves but for whatever reason which is nothing to do with you they have not ended their  own marriages. 

People living in fear do not trust the Divine. 

They are ‘Godless’ and disconnected from Source, Spirit, the holistic nature of reality. 

They turn instead of false idols to worship, to cults, 

such as for example the theories and philosophies of extremism and social agendas, 

or to false friends and manipulative relations. 

A successful marriage is one where the partners listen to each other and not to outside voices persuading them to cause friction within their family home. 

When people are diagnosed with Personality Disorders it is very often because they cause friction for other people, to disrupt the Harmony. 

The very fact that she chose to listen to them and not to her loving fiancé is all the evidence required to prove she does not respect marriage nor men. The string of men who she exploits along the way who are not scared off by her friends and relatives are persecuted at a higher stake by those same people, even when it bounces off them. The amount of problems those people are causing for men because they do not respect men adds to the mens stress associated with dating the girl in the first place. It is damaging antisocial behaviour. 

She could have simply said to them;

“That’s my boyfriend and I love him, leave him alone, he means more to me than you do.” 

But she is too afraid of the consequence, were she to raise self-respect boundaries to protect herself and her chosen life-partner, the world they are building together. The sociopaths would raise the stakes and cause even more problems for them as they observe her slipping out of their control.

She plays this game for self-validation. 

2. Psychology

She plays this game for self-validation. 

At the core of it is the female psychology which women known too well. 

Women emotionally exist on a spectrum, along a line of neurosis at one end and princess at the other. This is Yin energy. 

What stabilises her is the masculine assertive Yang energy, which either boosts her toward princess or toward neurosis. Women love and fear Yang depending how safe they feel with it, and seek to control it the same way men seek to control and understand the feminine quality of Yin yielding energy.  There are two sources of Yin and Yang which affect the balance of our own Yin and Yang; internal self-harmony, external other peoples influence. 

This explains why women are drawn to some men but fear others, and men are drawn to some women but not others. Yin and Yang naturally work to harmonise with each other. 

There are four quadrants each with its own expression; 

Fearful yin (vulnerable dependant & vulnerable narcissism) - black hole 

Confident yin (classical femininity, the worlds most treasured healing energy) - soothing star, life-nurturing 

Fearful yang (overt domination) - exploding or collapsing star

Confident yang (assured protection) - radiant star, life-giving 

The question then, what brings confidence?

The answer is stability. Inner stability feels like inner peace. 

It is to have trust in the universe as a beneficial provider. 

This is the best place to place trust. 

Most relationships are not so clear and simple as to be black and white. 

They are entanglements which function on many levels of being. 

What creates a perception into a specific dimension of awareness? 

Experiences. 

Trauma-bonding creates connections on sub-Dom, passive-aggressive, push-you-pull-me levels of relating. In todays society, we basically as a generalisation all have varying trauma. We all function on a mish-mash of unregulated and non-identifiable levels of trauma-bond which we project outward onto others. 

Social agendas will program us to shut down such complications on one side (marriage counselling methods) or the other (segregational feminism). 

3. Afterword

The resolution is always going to be open, honest communication about feelings and practicalities. 

Of course, situations where the clash of mixed necessities and compromises built on compromises are going to be used as leverage for energy-manipulation unless you can gain sufficient empowerment for a clean break.

This fosters for the society of ‘mutual self-interest’ where people are disposable, replaceable and expendable having fulfilled purpose. This creates a pandemic of Narcissism.

"The problem is people treat things like people and people like things." anon

"The problem today is people don't cherish good people, they try to use them." Bob Marley.

"Evil begins when you begin to treat people as things." Sir Terry Pratchett.

"The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, 

but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively." Bob Marley. 

How do we defeat that? 

Respect for one another needs. 

Reinforcing the institute of happy marriages instead of destroying it.

You can see what the enemy to community is when you have the Humanitarian understanding which defines us as Being Humans.

  

SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO?

Five questions to ask before deciding whether to end your relationship or not. 

Experientialism

 EXPERIENTIALSM

Psychology / Philosophy

I first began to use the term Experimentalism in the late 1980s early 1990s to explain the same use of the term as this blog explains. 

In the late 1990s I attended philosophy lectures at Cheltenham University with Alan Ford. I spoke with him about the phrase which he did not primarily recognise and directed me to the nearest equivalent. There was nothing published on the topic at that time. 

In the decades since then the phrase has been used to describe and regurgitate either the same basic or a different, vague theory of psychology and philosophy which is not the same as the one I present here. The evidence sourced and cited for it is flimsy. There remains scant little which I have been able to find to expand upon it. 

What I mean by Experientialism is as follows. 

The philosophy of basing everything you know exclusively on what you have first-hand direct experience of to the exclusion of what you do not. 

There are three forms of experientialism. 

The primary form is the simple thesis. Projecting probability based on what the individual knows from experience, to ascertain whether there is any truth in what is not known from experience but can rely on as a working thesis. 

Technically this includes the sum total of all human knowledge including polarised extremes of hard science to delusion. 

Some proclaim Experientialism to be cynical while others understand it as obvious. 

Certainly it posits the individual at the centre of the universe. This position is contrasted against any acknowledgement of collective consciousness as being superior to the individual. Thus, experimentalism is isolationism. 

The second form of Existentialism is to deny any plausibility to anything outside of the individuals own unique experience of reality and method of interpreting reality. It is to say Reality is subjective exclusive to the individuals own dogma. This opens into Lacan. In medical-psychological terms this is currently described as disbelief syndrome. 

The third form is when first-hand lived experience takes an individual outside of the commonly accepted normal reality, for illustrative example; experiences of the supernatural, which then become foundational in the individuals comprehension of macro cosmic reality even where it puts them at odds with the mainstream collective. The judgement call is that simply because you have never seen fairies yourself does not mean they do not exist and therefore it is possible others might see them. The argument of probability here is plausible and persuasive on the basis that simply because you have never been to Antarctica yourself does not mean it does exist. More people claim to have seen fairies than claim to have been to Antarctica so the numbers game is a win for supernature. Scientific validation has nothing to do with this simply because by its very character supernature takes us outside of the realms of clinically provable science. 

What differentiates second and third forms is objectively differentiating between delusion and potential. 

Experimentalism logically progresses toward Experimentalism. 

Lacan / Lycan

Lacan

I studied Philosophy under Alan Ford at Cheltenham University for four years, including going back to do an extra module to my degree the following year to achieve a field trip I would otherwise have missed out on. 

Although not perhaps ‘my favourite philosopher’, Lacan is critical and thus an important part of that education regarding the transition from Modernism to PostModernism and beyond. 

I discovered how Lacan resonates with my extra-curricular studies of The Philosophy of Magic especially involving late 20th century development of Chaos Magic (Osman O Spare influence of Michael Moorecock, Ken St Andre, Peter Caroll) which is excruciatingly post-modern in its approach to cause-and-effect. 

This week a new book arrived. 

What I love most already about it is the 21st century Israeli psychologists from Tel Aviv are writing about 20th century French European philosophy, evidently having recognised its ongoing validity. 

Integration of East and West is a good thing. Multiculturalism is a good thing. In this day and age of segregation, the integration and recognition of universal affinities is a good thing. 

I’m going on a probability that these scholars have nothing to do with their governments regime, genocide of Palestinians nor the seizing of their lands. 

People are People regardless of colour, creed, gender, age, experience, language, etc. 

This humanitarian attitude is one thing which the majority of respected psychologists and philosophers do apparently accept and usually promote, with some exceptions. 

World Wars have been fought against the exceptions. 

The importance of recognising humanitarianism even against your own governments abject lack of it is something to be proud of. 

While I wave the Palestinian flag but detest Hamas as much as the Israeli regime, the innocent and educated People of Planet Earth are on the We The People side of ‘the line’. 

That’s my philosophy. 

Let’s see what Lacan had to say. 

Lacanian Psychoanalysis, 

A Contemporary Introduction 

By Shlomit Yadun-Gadot and Uri Hadar

Published by Routledge

Preface (extract) 

“Lacan is not the first psychoanalyst to create inextricable ties between subjectivity and otherness.”

“Klein, Bion, Kohut and Winnicott had already deeply integrated contextuality into the subject’s makeup. Yet, their thought is embedded in a realistic epistemological framework that distinguishes fantasy from reality. Lacan was a unique and innovative contributor to postmodernism and may be marked as the first to recast psychoanalysis in an inter subjective epistemology. Accordingly, he predicated the constitution of self * upon otherness in fateful ways that our book describes.”

*”Lacan did not use the term ‘self’. We use it here as a reference to the concept of the first-person, as in colloquial speech.” 

Let’s look up that elitist word for a moment as the authors used it twice in the same paragraph it must be somewhat important to them. 

“Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is concerned with the mind's relation to reality.”

-University of Sheffield 

https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/philosophy/research/themes/epistemology#

epistemology

/ɪˌpɪstəˈmɒlədʒi/

noun PHILOSOPHY

1. the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.

mid 19th century: from Greek epistēmē ‘knowledge’, from epistasthai ‘know, know how to do’.

-Oxford Dictionary 

If I recall correctly, Lacan is about how we associate and construct mental maps built on concepts, illusions, delusions, rather than the hard existential reality we experience around us. 

That painting of an alien on an alien world is an idea. Technically it is a coloured dried pigment on woven fibers. Recognition of the abstract to make more sense to us than the practicality of the realism is what Lacan, to an extent Modernism and definitely PostModernism, are all about. 

If my memory serves correct. 

Let’s keep reading. 

[TBC]