Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts

Tuesday, 18 June 2024

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



Monday, 25 March 2024

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. 





  1. 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). 




  1. 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. 




Friday, 29 September 2023

Generational Abuse

 



GENERATIONAL ABUSE


A case study of Narcissism as family dynamic.



What happened with Girls Mother from Guys perspective is he set a boundary which Mother, fair play to her, respected to his face. But she did not like it. So she lied to the family and claimed Guy had said things he had not said (1 mention of heroin, 2 calling her ‘unwise’). It positions Mother as vulnerable needing caring attention and positions Guy as nasty for having upset her by saying those things. 



1 He did not say those things.

2 He is allowed to establish boundaries. 

3 He not responsible for Mothers reaction.* 


*This is interesting because in the overall situation Guy is claiming how Girl is responsible for bullying him and for her ignoring the boundary he set to protect himself and their relationship from the bullying. Guy has described that as ‘Girl not listening to him’.


At cursory glance it appears to be a double standard on Guys part. However; 


Guy has repeatedly asked Girl to be responsible for her own behaviour. 

1 to stop bullying him, 

2 to respect personal boundaries. 


To go to other people to gripe about someone behind their back is not respectful of that person, it is both disrespectful and sneaky. 


To lie about what a person said is also disrespectful, is also manipulative. 



That this issue has been festering, repeating, causing ongoing damage for so long without being resolved is because Girl has not accepted what Guy is saying to be valid. 


Girl simply ignores that Guys ‘questionable behaviour’ is a reaction to her bullying, so she does not have to take accountability for her own behaviour. Girl does not acknowledge it all, so Guy is unsure whether Girl is aware she is doing it despite his attempts to communicate with her about it. 



It has come to a head now because of Girls Mother’s involvement.  


This has exposed the same behaviour seen in both Girl and her Mother. Now we recognise from where Girl has learned that behaviour. 



Transactional Analysis reveals it is the classical narcissistic cycle of abuse. 


1

To bully someone (by applying pressure and insults, coercive and controlling behaviour), 

and then when the person reacts by setting boundaries, 

2a

to ignore those boundaries, 

thus pressuring them further toward a more extreme reaction, 

2b 

and/or;

to say that the reaction is abuse and the person is abusive, * 

3

to deny accountability for bullying them in the first place by denying and ignoring that had happened at all, 

by technique of dominating the narrative to keep it focused only on the targets reaction, not on the cause of that reaction,

to outright lie about what happened (manipulation), 

to get attention = energy from anyone who will listen and support the bully who is now in vulnerable mode claiming to be the target,




*2b 

In this case, the target has gone into ‘Flight Mode’, needs time-out to stabilise. This is not the same as ‘avoidant attachment’ although by repetition it can cause it. 

This is also characteristic behaviour of autistic overwhelm. 



Accuse the person who needs ‘time-out to stabilise’, as being emotionally and mentally unstable, unsupportive and emotionally unavailable.  


to play ‘poor-me’ for being in a relationship with someone who is mentally and emotionally unstable, unsupportive and emotionally unavailable. 


The narcissistic cycle of abuse is characterised by maximum yield of sympathetic attention energy for the person who stirred up the drama, through non-accountability of their own behaviour, projecting at their scapegoat target.  



CONCLUSION: 


The dynamic is understood very differently based on one critical factor; 


Who has the dominant narrative? 


This depends entirely on recognition of the targets perspective of the experience being valid or not. 


This involves holding the bully accountable for their own behaviour which  originally created the drama cycle, instead of whitewashing that to focus instead on persecuting the target for reacting how our biologies and psychologies are designed to naturally react.