I’m into what’s called “sensual (or gentle) femdom” and all of the men I’ve dated have leaned more towards “sub,” and I wonder if that sort of mindset (for me) is why I thoroughly enjoy these kinds of articles from you! It’s funny because I get along well platonically with (healthy) “dominant” types…
(Though a big difference for me is that as a woman I could never “make” a guy do anything and also I find the performative “cruel mistress” Domme behavior cheesy and strange… I see it more like “playing fun little dirty games that can be our little secret” angle). And also that since men usually have to constantly be vigilant & “on” for sex that they tend to really enjoy being able to offload all that stuff to me & turn their brain off and enjoy it. I think also because I’ve always very tempermentally unsuited for hook-up culture & still traditionally date like in the “before times” I (probably) am just sublimating my “thrill” urge into kookier private sex.
But even though I’m a (mostly) straight woman I feel exactly the same way as you towards being more tender with women in general. I think you’re really onto something and I hope you continue to write more on this!!
You might find this relevant: https://hvren.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/to-whatever-self-be-true-part-2/ . The guy created a system/model that is tangential to yours. Particularly, his argument that “alpha traits #1 and #2 are the ones from which all else flows, in male-female relationships” mirrors your conclusions.
In a western world where the native born women and homosexuals welcome in millions of young immigrant males that skew the sex ratio while also increasing the rape rate exponentially it should be dgaff time about women's fate
Funny how this entire apparatus just happens to optimize for Walt's standing while foreclosing criticism from every direction. Incels? Scapegoat class, no standing. Women who object? Dark feminine acting out, need firm male pasteurization. Her friends? Schmittian enemies, ice them out. Egalitarian society? Fake and gay norms. And Walt himself? "I'm one" of the exceptions.
You've built a Marian Purity Narrative of your own here—a mythopoetic framework that game-theoretically optimizes deployment of your leverage while maintaining plausible deniability through "I'm just describing reality" framing. The moment anyone disagrees they're either enemy, fool, or incel. Unfalsifiable by design.
For a normative nihilist you've got a lot of prescriptions. For someone who says everything is priced in and whatever happens is justified, you're working awfully hard to justify your specific arrangements.
This isn't analysis. It's advocacy with a PhD costume.
I have to read more of this also get better acquainted with your arguments before we speak, but the first thing that comes to mind is that philosophical reflection can involve a beyond of the question “should we or shouldn’t we” foreclose the incel from speaking , and talk about the many places you can’t have this identity, like professional settings and things like that. Then agency can be navigating these terrains with one’s position on it. Obviously there’s a lot of other things here, but one instance philosophically reflection is more like science than rhetoric.
There’s an aesthetic density to this, the combining of a hurt woman and women are hurting because there is no discourse of hurting women…it is kind of making an argument in favor of bringing the violent unconscious forward. A lot of reasons to do the opposite, but the main argument is one of authenticity or a desire for violence and the idea the world is cold without violence, and if you look at our entertainment, it is definitely true that people interpassively consume violence. I’d disagree with the idea you’re putting forward that there is a problem in the world that women secretly desire violent incel-adjacent discourse and this is an important cause, but the thing to this is that there is a consumption of violent, officially negative content that pulls us in. It’s not obvious how to relate to it, embody violent discourses for vitality? That’s a certain Trumpian or beyond Trumpian far right method for sure, also the left does that as well at times, but maybe it isn’t a good idea always!
But also if one meets a limit and doesn’t recognize it as a flaw in one’s own discourse but externalizes it, you get all sorts of ghouls and ghosts replacing the true cause of one’s own limit. But philosophy also says the mind is a thing that overcomes limits, so the paranoia is potentially also creative…but also potentially just paranoia. If it is entertaining and all just to get clicks and get a cult or whatever, then that matters less than if you were trying to unfold truth.
My 2010 vintage 750 SAT reading score was of more limited use than I would've liked here
I read the whole thing and here’s my takeaway “the actual source of eros which is genuine friction, real stakes, and deep asymmetry”
I’m into what’s called “sensual (or gentle) femdom” and all of the men I’ve dated have leaned more towards “sub,” and I wonder if that sort of mindset (for me) is why I thoroughly enjoy these kinds of articles from you! It’s funny because I get along well platonically with (healthy) “dominant” types…
(Though a big difference for me is that as a woman I could never “make” a guy do anything and also I find the performative “cruel mistress” Domme behavior cheesy and strange… I see it more like “playing fun little dirty games that can be our little secret” angle). And also that since men usually have to constantly be vigilant & “on” for sex that they tend to really enjoy being able to offload all that stuff to me & turn their brain off and enjoy it. I think also because I’ve always very tempermentally unsuited for hook-up culture & still traditionally date like in the “before times” I (probably) am just sublimating my “thrill” urge into kookier private sex.
But even though I’m a (mostly) straight woman I feel exactly the same way as you towards being more tender with women in general. I think you’re really onto something and I hope you continue to write more on this!!
Walt, are you taking speed again?
You might find this relevant: https://hvren.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/to-whatever-self-be-true-part-2/ . The guy created a system/model that is tangential to yours. Particularly, his argument that “alpha traits #1 and #2 are the ones from which all else flows, in male-female relationships” mirrors your conclusions.
Schmitt mostly states the obvious, but in a way that leads to self-destructively Manichean thinking.
In a western world where the native born women and homosexuals welcome in millions of young immigrant males that skew the sex ratio while also increasing the rape rate exponentially it should be dgaff time about women's fate
Thought this was a How-To 😐
I need to consult my thesaurus before I can react to the content here lol. I have never found another writer so capable of challenging my vocabulary
What happens if we DONT have a scapegoat class? Would we even function?
Funny how this entire apparatus just happens to optimize for Walt's standing while foreclosing criticism from every direction. Incels? Scapegoat class, no standing. Women who object? Dark feminine acting out, need firm male pasteurization. Her friends? Schmittian enemies, ice them out. Egalitarian society? Fake and gay norms. And Walt himself? "I'm one" of the exceptions.
You've built a Marian Purity Narrative of your own here—a mythopoetic framework that game-theoretically optimizes deployment of your leverage while maintaining plausible deniability through "I'm just describing reality" framing. The moment anyone disagrees they're either enemy, fool, or incel. Unfalsifiable by design.
For a normative nihilist you've got a lot of prescriptions. For someone who says everything is priced in and whatever happens is justified, you're working awfully hard to justify your specific arrangements.
This isn't analysis. It's advocacy with a PhD costume.
That's not X. It's Y.
I have to read more of this also get better acquainted with your arguments before we speak, but the first thing that comes to mind is that philosophical reflection can involve a beyond of the question “should we or shouldn’t we” foreclose the incel from speaking , and talk about the many places you can’t have this identity, like professional settings and things like that. Then agency can be navigating these terrains with one’s position on it. Obviously there’s a lot of other things here, but one instance philosophically reflection is more like science than rhetoric.
There’s an aesthetic density to this, the combining of a hurt woman and women are hurting because there is no discourse of hurting women…it is kind of making an argument in favor of bringing the violent unconscious forward. A lot of reasons to do the opposite, but the main argument is one of authenticity or a desire for violence and the idea the world is cold without violence, and if you look at our entertainment, it is definitely true that people interpassively consume violence. I’d disagree with the idea you’re putting forward that there is a problem in the world that women secretly desire violent incel-adjacent discourse and this is an important cause, but the thing to this is that there is a consumption of violent, officially negative content that pulls us in. It’s not obvious how to relate to it, embody violent discourses for vitality? That’s a certain Trumpian or beyond Trumpian far right method for sure, also the left does that as well at times, but maybe it isn’t a good idea always!
But also if one meets a limit and doesn’t recognize it as a flaw in one’s own discourse but externalizes it, you get all sorts of ghouls and ghosts replacing the true cause of one’s own limit. But philosophy also says the mind is a thing that overcomes limits, so the paranoia is potentially also creative…but also potentially just paranoia. If it is entertaining and all just to get clicks and get a cult or whatever, then that matters less than if you were trying to unfold truth.