Baldovin Concept censured on Facebook

(ro- for English scroll down) Baldovin Concept a fost pentru o perioada in imposibilitate de a fi publicat pe Facebook. Probabil ca unii dusmani ai sigurantei femeilor au fost deranjati de articolele scrse aici in ultimul an, si l-au raportat masiv ca spam, desi continutul sau nu contine reclame si nu vinde nimic. La rugamintile mele, dvs. cititorii ati contraraportat ca spatiu sigur care nu incalca standarderele comunitatii, pentru care va multumesc.

Eng- Baldovin Concept was for some time banned to be published on Facebook. Probably some women's security enemies were disturbed by the last year's articles I wrote here and received multiple negative spam reports to Facebook, although its content doesn’t contain advertising or any kind of commerce. But due to my asking for help, you the readers counter-reported this space as safe, not going against the Facebook Community Standards, so I thank you for that.

20 decembrie 2020

5.4. The radical feminism sadism and its reversed sexism

5. The Feminism as a reaction to crimes and emotional abuse against women

5.4. The radical feminism sadism and its reversed sexism

The profile of 3 types of women who adhere to radical feminism

The exclusive female courtship initiation proposal is popular among most women because it gives the impression that can counter the sexual abuses and crimes against women. As I have already mentioned in the previous articles, they support it after being emotional or sexual abused (harassment or rape). But, as usual, the victim is a bad judge, in the sense that it tends to give an exaggerated punishment and thus lead to the spiral of violence between the parties, instead of bringing back the initial state before the abuse. We have shown in previous articles that changing the courtship policies are either unjustified to what most women want  , or inapplicable  , according to the principles of the society.

As I have shown in this article , the common women generally respond to contrary arguments and give up arguing like this of ideas. (1) There are some advantages in these proposals for certain common women such as they would have an easier life and a better partner if society generally recognizes that a woman is superior to a man in all areas, just because she has female sexual organs. Such a thing is an inverted sexism that actually turns against them because men avoid them and they remain outside a stable love affair. I will return to this idea in a later article.

(2) Beyond that there are quite a few women who live in routine marriages  and so they adopt a feminist-radical mentality out of this personal status frustration. I have shown above that, basically, a man has a higher sexual appetite than a woman, which affects the couple's long-term relationship. Such women constantly feel abused and even raped by husbands who offer them a sex life on the verge of physiological needs. As I mentioned in above linked article, the exclusive female courtship initiation theory comes as a glove to these women, as well as some radical-feminist ideas.

There are indeed many women who have a problem with coordination with their over-libidinal husband. There is a need for an honest public debate on all the social levels on this lack of concordance problem between the male and female sexual appetite. And solutions must be found before there will be a general splitting between the two sexes. Women should not have "marital debts". It is not fair to be blackmailed into accepting a more intense sex life than they feel. From this point of view, blaming all men as rapists by radical feminism has some justification. But however this is not entirely justified. Firstly, not all men have a higher sexual appetite than their partners. There are also cases in which women are greedier. Here is how, in these cases, there exist no "rapists" men percentage even under the feminist-radical vision of rape. Then, the pressure on partners for a more intense sex life cannot be called rape in the sense of the unknown person who pursues and forces through threats and violence a woman to have sex with him. So, in this moment of civilization a husband cannot be convicted of rape, even if he has an unnatural approach to his wife, unnatural for the couple's relationship harmony.

Most women accept such a thing because of the superior material comfort offered by such an abusive husband. Somehow, they also lack verticality in making a firm decision about their own lives through divorce. I will return in a later article to this topic. And, thirdly (3), those disguised prostitutes and histrionic women that represent the radical feminism’s core  (I point out once again that not all the disguised prostitutes, histrionic women and lesbians are radical feminists) have no satisfaction in their sexual activities and accept them out of the various material gains interests. They feel constantly violated in a heterosexual relationship. This feeling of the pan-rapist man is a "professional bad habit" or a histrionic symptom and not a social reality. Their vehement militancy for these new rules implementation in social norms has in particular a psychopathological interest for such a thing and less a social prophylaxis one on the crime against women stopping.

I have already described above in this text the fact that androphobic neurotic women or the rape victims will perceive as anguishing threat the unknown man street courtship initiation. But those who have not experienced such a thing or do not have a phobic type neurotic psychopathological constitution and feel aggression towards men in general have a big problem in relationship and positioning within the couple. A histrionic woman with an exclusive exhibitionist libidinal satisfaction, a frigid or a lesbian woman perceives as rapist any kind of man who tries to initiate a love affair, no matter how discreetly he approaches her.

Radical feminism and competition with men

It goes without saying that those lesbians or transsexuals who vehemently express a radical feminist militancy do not accept the female position in a heterosexual couple. They do not feel exactly feminine, as are attracted to women and want to pose a sort of masculine attitude. These women have a personal problem with the female sexual instinct biological role, which they do not feel exactly like a normal woman does because of the psychopathological distortions that overlap to it. (Beware of the risks of falling into the opposite extreme sin that condemns these women, following the model of the Inquisition, which remained in the common mentality!). The lesbians marry and have children only to escape public disgrace over their sexual orientation. Like histrionic women, they do it only to gain access to a higher social class, without devoting body and soul to the family, rather tending to leave it for a better game. The disguised prostitutes do not fall in love and do not want a stable relationship, but rather to make as much profit as possible from their mimicked love.

Under these conditions, the sexuality is a burden for them, an instrument. Being practiced more for material interests (secondary benefit) and not out of an intrinsic need to have sex (a kind of primary benefit), these women feel constantly used within the relationships they are involved in. From here, they later develop the prejudice that all men are abusive (androphobia), only because the man tries to approach them emotionally, which will eventually lead to the interest in having sex. Some of these women resignedly accept their "fate" as unhappy in a heterosexual relationship. But the others become militant radical feminists.

The exclusively female courtship initiation feminist proposal or the over-amplified irascibility towards the initiators, both discreet and explicit, comes from the background of this very feminine condition non-acceptance. The most vehement radical feminists who emphatically support and practice it are lesbians (not all the lesbians support it), to which histrionic women also adhere. The radical feminists aggressiveness towards the men who opens the doors in front of them or offers them a seat in the public transportation are explained precisely by the paradoxical non-acceptance of this normal femininity biological role for the human species and for the vast majority of mammals to be protected by men and males.

It is difficult to explain from a political point of view such an attitude given that in general the radical feminism actually wants more rights from society for women. But still such a thing is very easy to psychologically decrypt: such a revolt against these courtesy gestures is explained by the self-perception that the radical feminists have towards men; receiving such a favor gives them the impression that they are inferior, morally and physically handicapped, and that means they cannot compete with men. On the contrary, for the normal woman, receiving these little favors is a sign of social respect and love. The radical feminists do not appreciate this because they are not interested in this type of heterosexual love from men.

Thus, they found a loophole to get rid of their inferiority complex caused by the more or less drastic superego that manifests itself through the psychological discordance with what they enjoy. And, as usual, this inferiority complex turns into superiority one on favorable environment. The radical feminism has often been equated with men hating. There is often hate in debates or certain moments like these but these women often show only arrogance and contempt for other ideas than theirs. In fact, the lesbians are direct competitors with men in attracting women in love; accepting the traditional advantages of courtesy would mean recognizing inferiority in the struggle with men to impress potential partners. The "love" of these feminists for women and their rights has a sexual interest, which is exactly what they rightly reproach to the "patriarchy."

Radical feminism and the sadistic libido sublimation

Mimicking the real abused women dramas by the radical feminists makes sense to justify their predisposition to aggression against physically and mentally weak men, who are basically non-abusive, in order to actually abuse them in counter parting. If they are lesbians, such behavior actually sublimates a male sadism type. If they are hysterical, they want to show their emotional dominance. The "toxic masculinity," which they have fairly accurately described, is a projection of their own abusive tendencies. By accepting domination, some of their followers even go so far as to adopt their theories, becoming appendages of their abusive libido.

And this is the main problem for their militancy; they do not fight exactly with the source of abuse against women but with those who are not generally sex offenders or abusers. I will return to this topic in the following articles. Their scandals against "oppressors" do not take place on the street in front of certain Casanova pick upers who constantly abuse women, as I described it here . They are also rarely seen in courts where murderers or rapists are tried. On the contrary, they prefer to accuse mannered educated men for the crimes committed by those that they don’t risk to fight with. These women cause terrible scandals at book launches events, conferences, concerts, literary evenings, awards, etc., which are exactly where present the harmless and a little culturally instinctual tired men show up. We saw in the previous article that, despite supporting an abusive, intrusive mentality in the woman's decision to have an abortion, that boy from the Metropolitan Cathedral of Buenos Aires is a delicate one. That made him a perfect target to be slapped and punched by the radical heroines…

We are talking here about true inverted sadism that these women unconsciously practice but very carefully directed at these emasculated men, under the false feminist militancy appearance. Just as murderous sadistic men are very careful to pursue a weak family ties woman, so are the radical feminist sadists careful to target a man that does not fight their physical aggression. It is very interesting that every time they justify their own abusive intentions with the general violence against women. During the inquisition the sadistic men justified their morbid impulses to burn at the stake or to apply unimaginable torture for women through their "devilish" character. Just in the same manner, the nowadays radical feminists justify their aggression on the manners men in "defending" against the sex offenders’ crimes.

I was very surprised that many rigid radical feminists (not temporary supporters of radical feminist ideas) that I met in Romania do not participate in anti-violence against women mass-meetings organized by various social organizations that are involved in the women rights. I watched several marches like this in the Western countries and also didn't see any radical messages. The explanation for that is that they don’t collaborate with the moderate feminists. Beyond that, they have an ambivalent reference to the very sadism practiced against women, as they themselves practice it on frail men. When it comes to protest against such behaviors, the sadistic predisposition women paradoxically tend to justify them according to their own sadistic constitution. The sexual crimes against women disappearance would no longer provide them with justification for their own sadistic impulses. So they have no interest for these crimes go away. That is why they are very rowdy in the innocent situations or minor abuses (such as the male courtship initiation), but very silent and absent in marches on violence against women.

Toxic masculinity in radical feminists

In the same way we can analyze the famous "Toxic Masculinity" feminist formula. The feminism has very well described what it calls the "toxic masculinity", namely that macho, harsh man behavior, employed in repressive institutions, which is ready at any time to beat someone. But this expression does not differentiate between this type of man and those men who do not support the same values. I personally hate them, and that shouldn't make me ashamed of my masculinity. This formula main problem is that it misses the second formula naturally correlated with the first, such as "Normal masculinity" or "Natural masculinity". It hints to the feminist-radical prejudice that all masculinity would be toxic or that there would be a toxic part in masculinity, according to the well-known slogan "all men are rapists." This formula somehow induces the idea that any man would have such a "toxic masculinity" in him unless he would, of course, cure with the radical feminist ideas…

Moreover, the words should be more carefully thought in this case where all men are widely accused of "toxicity". Perhaps, indeed, for those seductive hysteroids or those lesbians (not all) who constitute the radical feminism core, the masculinity with all its attributes causes disgust to them, like a food poisoning. Needless to say, such a reaction is exactly that of homophobes towards the homosexual orientation people. However, despite the sexual crimes committed by some men, no one died poisoned after the male substances ingestion.

So even if these women have very accurately described this dubious expression "Toxic masculinity" (or precisely because of their own projection), many radical feminists show such a perverted masculinity in their own gestures. Their rhetoric is sometimes ambivalently mixed with abusive mentality. Instead of a general militancy for the human being rights, which would implicitly bring rights also to women, some radical feminists waste their energy in the militancy for theoretically and practically affirming and demonstrating the women superiority over men. Unfortunately, many radical feminists are looking for (abusive) power, instead of demanding diminishing it for all, which would eliminate the abuses for everyone and those against women in particular.

They want to replace the abusive traditional man with the abusive modern woman. Except for the LGBT condemnation, the radical feminist does everything an abusive conservative man does. The aggressiveness and vehemence that some of them show toward ideological opponents reveals a prominent "toxic masculinity" in themselves. In the following article I will bring more details on this radical feminism predisposition towards aggression.

27 noiembrie 2020

5.3. The radical feminism acting

5. The Feminism as a reaction to crimes and emotional abuse against women

5.3. The radical feminism acting

This article continues the previous one  

The judicial-reparative mentality finds the solution for the numerous abuses and crimes in compensating and "rational revenge" on the criminal person. But to believe that these excesses would be an act of justice, as the reparation for a previous injury that makes the criminal commit the crime, is unspecific for a fair society. This justice-revenge mentality is a resentful one, specific to warrior societies, which eventually turns against itself  . Thus, it may fall into the extreme of "instilling fear” that is, threatening the potential criminal through various punishments not to commit the crime. The social system thus becomes an abusive, violent parent who traumatizes its child rather than educating him. The result will be a future adult predisposed to antisocial or paranoid mental disorders. In the same way, the social system retaliation threatening actually is more inciting the potential criminals to commit crimes rather than stoping it. Unfortunately, in the short term there is no other solution to prevent major crimes: you can only prevent their occurrence in the short term by isolating the individual. The real solution can be found in an open education as it has been experienced for decades in the North European countries. Today they have taken most of their prisons out of use, turning them into something else for lack of… criminals.

On the other hand, the sexual eccentrics’ aggressiveness towards the normal ones is not justified according to the principles of this traditional vengeful justice. The cases in which the heterosexuals assaulted them are still rare, even if very monitored by the press. Then the radical feminists’ aggression is not focused on the abusers or the criminals but on the harmless ones. I will return to this idea in a later article. The specific to Inquisition crimes against the LGBT sexual orientation people were not committed by the contemporaries, in order to apply the justice-revenge solutions (anyway, morally unsupported) to the normal ones. There is a principle in law that no one is responsible for the actions committed by another adult person. That is why even the today's normal people are not responsible for their ancestors’ actions or for the persecution to the marginalized people in general and the sexual eccentrics in particular. In the same way, the crimes committed by the old Europeans against the native populations they colonized cannot be blamed on their descendants, ie those who live in those areas today. What would it be like to take revenge on all white Americans now because their ancestors exterminated the natives a few centuries ago? This is no longer justice but psychopathological aggression. Even if someone justifies those crimes, however, that does not mean that that person would have actually committed them oneself in order to justify the unleashing of revenge on, as we saw in the Metropolitan Cathedral of Buenos Aires feminists case, whom I mentioned in the previous article.

The Androphobia and Misandry

The most vehement and aggressive radical feminists are not victims of these sexual crimes, which does not justify their gestures even from the perspective of the justice-revenge mentality. The sexual crimes victims’ relatives can be violent in debates or in actions to repair the damage they have suffered. If the victim lost its life as a result of the crime, then the vehemence with which its relatives demand justice is even bigger. After a period of depressive incubation of trauma, the victims themselves develop paranoid disorders that can turn into radical feminism. But in general the radical feminists have not been real victims and their reactions are unjustified by this psychic mechanism of revenge.

A clear distinction must be made between the androphobia and the misandry. The Androphobia is the psychopathological fear of men, while the misandry is abhorrence and hate to them. The radical feminists have been constantly criticized for hating men, including women themselves. On the contrary, the traumatic androphobia  is a short and medium term reaction to a sexual assault. In the case of neurotic phobias, the phobic object can either not cause a trauma or the patient has not experienced such trauma. Most androphobes are not misanders, just as most misanders are not androphobic. The misanders radical militancy is not caused by a trauma or by a physical abuse, as is the case with the major aggression victims. In fact, any trauma leads either to depressive and distressing-avoidant behavior for emotionally weak victims or to paranoid counterattack behavior for strong victims. That is why the vast majority of radical feminists have not been abused. Many of them describe situations in which "it was about" to happen but still it didn’t happen.

The histrionic psychopathology and its paradoxical protection against the sex crimes

Despite victimization (paradoxically combined with the powerful woman attitude), the hysteric women avoid meeting a dangerous man. Just as the somatic-converting hysterical neurotics mimic very convincingly the great epileptic seizure, fainting in someone's arms to avoid hitting the tough objects around them, so the radical histrionic feminists smartly avoid the rude rapists. Paradoxically, a hysteric woman is rarely raped by those 90% rapists known to the victim  . This is because she does not communicate with familiar people from the same social environment, and does not get out there where she could be raped. In fact, she thinks of herself as part of high entourages which would actually honor her if raped. Unlike the normal women, the hysteric would interpret such rape as a sign of an obvious love affair. Because of this, knowing it or suspecting it as a "broken mouth", the potential rapists in high circles rather avoid her. Moreover, she is avoided by a sadistic killer, just because he avoids any trace left for a possible investigation by the police.

The hysteric woman does not work so hard so to get home late in night, nor she travels to dubious spaces, where she would be assaulted. This is how her psychopathological constitution gets also rid of those 10% unknown rapists, from the rape statistics in the civilized world. The fact that she detests her own social status is a facet of her social hypocrisy and has the same beneficial effect of rape avoiding. By this she avoids the spaces in which she could be raped due to the very nature of their psychopathological configuration.

This is how the hysterical theatrical mind helps the histrionic women in this case, protecting them from rape, unlike their fellow ideologues, disguised prostitutes, who often fall victim to the sadists. Although they represent the most spectacular side of the feminism vehemence (as in any activity they practice), the hysterics look like the hypochondriac obsessive persons who complain all their lives of all kinds of imaginary diseases but live on average much longer than the others and die a natural death.

On the other hand, the hysteric women and the disguised prostitutes generally perceive the sexual intercourse as an abuse, regardless of who their partner is. The prostitutes generally have the experience of sadistic clients who prefer to satisfy their morbid addiction for a fee rather than practice it with their wife or partner. So they are used to trauma like the poor with poverty. When raped without actual physical violence *, such an experience does not affect them as it does for normal women. These women are actually very strong beyond their apparent fragility. Of course, such a routine does not make the rape on these women less of a crime than on normal women. But the hysteric women are less raped and more assaulted because of their ideas and reactions to male abusers.

The hysterical men are the only ones who can stand up to scandal (this text is a testimony ;)) . Sometimes the hysteric women seem fragile and helpless but their physical strength is already a somatic conversion of their predisposition to aggression. It takes a contact sports trained man to be able to fight them. Only if these women meet a Casanova-type abuser, then things can take an unpleasant turn for them. Such a man usually goes to the gym and practices contact sports. If such a hysteric woman verbally assaults him or humiliates him with his lack of (feminist, possibly) culture, like the one in the above video, then he can become violent. But such a situation happens very rarely. The histrionics usually feel distant and avoid each other like rivals, regardless of gender. That is why bringing as high percentage argument in the exclusively female courtship initiation debate is erroneous. The exclusively female courtship initiation theory is meant to give them an advantage over their male counterparts, the Casanova abusers, in the process of such a "galactic encounter."

Oversizing the frustration caused by the male courtship initiation

Initiating courtship in the public space (usually on the street) from the unknown person position creates frustration for a normal woman because she is not given space to decide the courtship. This reminds of how the consent is forcibly taken from citizens in contemporary society. The female frustration exists because such a gesture also brings a bigger or smaller risk that the unknown man will be an abuser. As I have shown here  , there are real reasons for women's fear of any unknown person who tends to violate both the rules and the pre-initiation to courtship stages  .

The radical feminists generally exaggerate the discomfort caused by a street approach, compliment, or greeting from the unknown men in a populated space. The frustration caused by such a man is not so big in itself so to start a fight and shout out loud that a rape is going on. The extent of this frustration is artificially exaggerated by the radical feminists precisely to justify their resentful predisposition against the marginalized. I emphasized in a previous article that this fear of rape is extended either out of ignorance or due to an androphobic psychopathological constitution , far outside the spectrum of criminals or even to all men. In the video below you can see Tyra Martin's denial to the sexual harassment allegation made by some feminists on her behalf against the actor Morgan Freeman.

A wide range of psychopathological factors are involved in this kind of reactions that I have already described so far  and I will continue to describe below. Naturally, if the man does not persist after her refusal, the dissatisfaction inherent in this too explicit approach is still counteracted by the specifically feminine satisfaction of being admired and liked for normal women. But the psychopathological factor is stronger at the radical feminists than this satisfaction. That is why they act differently in these situations, through disproportionate aggression, as we saw in the previous article. The discomfort felt by them is not caused by the too explicit courtship initiation gesture but by the oversized perception of aggressiveness projected by them into the courtship initiator, due to the various psychopathological configurations. And, in this case, we need psychotherapy or social verticality at the work place in clearly dissatisfaction expressing than blaming masculinity for courtship proposing.

In the case of disguised prostitutes, an approach to courtship initiation is perceived as theft or disregard for their "product" put up for sale. If a man does not show signs of willing to offer an amount of money for their service, such as a courtship initiator who thinks of building a love affair, it is an insult to such a woman. The misandrous histrionic women are not far from this profile. Their irascibility outbursts shown in these street courtship initiation moments are not found in other similar situations, for example in the case of bosses who sometimes force such unnatural consents for love affairs. I haven't seen from what I've read so far in the feminist texts too many references to this type of abuse that I wrote about in the above linked article. Instead, there is a lot of exclusively female courtship initiation theory and the militancy for the "sexual harassment" notion extension to simple courtship initiators to whom there are no links to secondary benefits. This is how much bigger frustrations are thus disguised by the need to keep the privileges obtained by a certain job with an abusive boss! In the next article  I will describe other psychopathological interests in the radical feminism militancy to extend the notion of "sexual harassment" or "rape".

* The rape trauma is not solely caused by the actual physical violence such as hitting or cutting. The lack of violence marks on the body does not make the rape less criminal. This is due to the fact that the main trauma is the breaking off the female sexuality selective character. The vast majority of rapists are socially inferior to their victims. The rape means an extirpation of female sexuality and this is equivalent to male castration itself. All the rapes are violent in the sense that they use brute force or threats on victims. However, not all rapes are accompanied by actual violence such as hitting or cutting. However, these can accentuate the main trauma

28 octombrie 2020

5.2. The Psychopathology and etiology of radical feminism

5. The Feminism as a reaction to crimes and emotional abuse against women

This article continues the previous one

5.2. The Psychopathology and etiology of radical feminism

I am convinced that most readers don’t support some of the radical feminism actions previously mentioned in this study. I will describe other cases below. But it is better to etiologically understand these excesses and not rush to a hasty judgment towards the radical feminists. In fact, any form of psychopathology has in its causes certain abuses suffered individually or transgenerationally. The mental disorders generally come from previous traumas. And usually at the other end of this causal chain are the war, the slavery, and other such traumas. The traditional society is based on the war culture, which the feminism generally distorted calls "the rape culture." Neither the modern industrial nor the contemporary digital has completely detached from the threats and implementation of the crimes produced by the weapons superiority.

Once opening up our perception horizons, we will have more empathy towards the excesses of radical feminists or any other psychopathological form. I have shown in the previous article that the moderate feminism is politically justifiable and that the difference between it and radical form relies only in the fact that the solutions proposed by the last one are either too discriminatory against men, sometimes out of ignorance or psychopathological resentment, or too advantageous for women. Even though I am a political opponent of radical feminists, I personally do not consider myself an anti-radical feminist, it is that I see a psychotherapeutic solution and the personal life evolution and focusing on their problems rather than a political issue involving the whole community or society.

So we have to be very careful with the wide antifeminism, which generally carries a warrior and misogynistic mentality. A warrior society automatically becomes anti-pacifist. And, through this, it also becomes anti-feminine and antifeminist. The threats that the warriors points to each other lead to libidinal distortions either as hyperlibido or as the eccentric sexuality predisposition. The hyperactive libido is the softest of these male sexual perversion forms, as I have shown here . It brings a libidinal discrepancy with partners, creating the feeling of being used as inanimate objects. Then, the eccentricity reaches the unhealthy attraction for anal sex rather than for normal sex, especially by those who work in repressive institutions, as I have shown here and about which I made a vlog here:  and then I made a documentary here

And finally, the peak of the male libido psychopathologization is that of morbid satisfaction in producing physical suffering, until the death of the partner. In all these situations the women have to endure too intense or too eccentric sex life, which is unsatisfactory for them.

Karen Straughan claims in one of her videos that the women should endure a more intense sex life of their husbands because they also bring them more material comfort, being creators of civilization. She sees the marriage as a contract between the male's willingness to produce a livelihood for the family and the female's willingness to bear children. Such a contract, however, closely resembles to that of J.J. Rousseau; everyone talks about him but no one has seen or signed. Indeed, there is a marriage agreement in the town hall, as well as an eternal love agreement in the church / mosque or whatever the temple is. But such an economic exchange is nowhere specified, although it is somewhat implied. However, this traditional way of seeing marriage practically turns a woman into a prostitute, if she does not consent to a more intense sex life, in accordance with her husband's hyper libido. And if we accept something like that, then any woman could be raped and then compensated with a sum of money, the equivalent of these services on the free sex market.

And the lack of concordance between the couple members libido intensity is the least disadvantage of such a contract. A psychopathological libido such as the predisposition to eccentric sexuality, like the sadistic one, cannot be satisfied by any contract as we cannot accept the idea of physical abuse compensated by privileges, although it is still practiced. From another point of view, an absent acceptance of such a hyper libido male partner is one of the attraction and love destruction causes within the marriage. Everyone can see its own case the value of such a "contract" when the partner decides to divorce. And no one can stop it, because the contract can be terminated at any time, despite the "agreement" and the initial feeling of fair gain.

Then, according to the same logic of the libidinal concordance or the masculine self-inhibition, in order to adjust to the feminine one, but reversed, the search for a partner according to one's own libido can be justified. The feminism justifiably claims the woman’s right to choose a sex life in accordance with its own libidinal constitution, without suffering any harm from it. Such a requirement is perfectly justifiable not only concerning the sexual interest but also other needs. Because of this, I have been and will always be in favor of sexual partners' testing partnerships before the marriage. The female libido rarely produces sexual crimes such as rape or pedophilia. There is a fundamental human right to choose one's partner and to exclude the community from one's personal life, as long as no crimes are committed*.

The histrionics and the eccentric sexual orientation people have severely suffered in the past centuries and still suffer more or less today from the damnation coming from the society. With a few exceptions, these kinds of women have been constantly persecuted or blamed throughout the history. In the Middle Ages, histrionics were frequently burned under the witchcraft charges. I wrote more about the risks to which the prostitutes expose here  . Much of the widely used curses in the today society tend to demonize the eccentric sexual preferences, especially if they are practiced by the women. As psychic manifestations, the curses are primitive rituals manifested in modern times that glimpse the wild social model of eliminating the marginalized on the grounds of demonizing their eccentric sexuality.

In the twentieth century there were marches of different sexual orientations condemnation, violating this normal democratic society human beings right to choose the suitable person or persons for their own libido in the intimate life. Unfortunately, the LGBT communities are still persecuted even in the long individual freedom experience countries. The lesbians have been and still are persecuted by the society’s majority, as are all the LGBT community members. Such practices are based on a medieval view concerning the psychology and the psychopathology. The majority’s predisposition to social engineering and the marginalized elimination is an incitement to murder. Although they consider themselves "normal", they still claim this title only because they are in the majority.

We can see in the today’s radical feminism excesses a secular reaction to the unmarried women persecution in the past, mainly considered witches. Even the normal women have been killed with such charges. Their back then pain is found today in those vehement militants mind who demand impossible or absurd requests from the today’s society. So there is a whole spectrum of abuses and crimes against women that makes them feminists. Their militancy is not due to a genetic predisposition to wailing, as Karen Straughan thinks at the beginning of this video . That is why I invite the honest anti-feminists to a moment of reflection on this aspect that is found in the behavior of the most vehement and radical feminists. Perhaps those crimes committed in the past in the name of absurd justice will make us think today when the contemporary society uses the same justice to eliminate the economic marginals from the human species patrimony.

"Identification with the aggressor" and the inverse discrimination developed by the radical feminism

The persecution practiced by the cultural normalcy on these eccentric sexual behaviors could not be fully completed. There are many who escaped that persecution but remained traumatized deep in the psychopathological background. These secular persecutors experiences have settled into their own self-accusing consciousness. So these women have developed or culturally received a strong sense of self-blaming, which implies higher or lower discordance between their self-esteem and their libido peculiarities. Any predisposition to eccentricity is confronted by this accusatory superego, just as the viceversa is equally valid.

Therefore, one can deduce from this, on the one hand, a predisposition to conflict with social normalcy, which tends to condemn them under the habit tradition. Like any victim who finds the strength to fight back, the women also can fall into excess. In general, the radical feminism advantages for women are more beneficial to the harsh faction of feminism, which consists in some lesbians, disguised prostitutes and histrionics, than to the normal women. An example here is the consent for greeting theory or that of the exclusive female courtship initiation, which I analyzed in detail under the external, socio-functional frame in the previous chapter.

The vehement militancy to criminalize the courtship initiation by an unknown man and the support for the exclusive feminine courtship initiation is also a counteraction of this feeling of guilt embedded in itself from the traditional social blaming coming from outside. Also, the predisposition to conflict with the majority can be manifested by applying or conceiving the punishments that are too harsh for certain deeds. The result of those abuses is found today in this radical feminism, which relates to the majority in a conflicting way, either passively or actively. But with the freedoms and rights that have come with contemporary society, these people have come to practice the reverse discrimination, as I will show in one of the following articles  . The psychoanalysis described the "identification with the aggressor" as that psychic mechanism by which the previously abused turns into becoming an abusive tyrant on its own with the weaker ones.

Aggression examples started by the radical feminists

Further on I will show few more examples on how the eccentric sexual behavior women tend to become abusive. After being discriminated against in the past, some of these social categories have recently begun to develop attitudes of superiority to heterosexuals and traditionalists. From them it can be deduced how their inferiority complex was converted to a superiority one.

I'm reposting this video that I gave as a previous example.

Whether this video is authentic or not, it describes a worrying thing that often happens in the radical feminists excesses. Whether mimicking radical feminism or even being a genuine radical feminist, the woman in this video herself becomes a street harasser to that man, using typical insulting language and jumping straight into the fray.

The feminists slip towards aggression can be seen in the video below, made in 2017, at the Metropolitan Cathedral of Buenos Aires, Argentina, on the occasion of International Women's Day.

I do not subscribe to the Church's anti-abortion ideas. The women have indeed been victims of the discriminatory culture practiced for millennia, including by the religions. The anti-abortion activists are usually the first to be violent in this debate, as most of them have a traditional, conservative mentality. But in this video you can see how the feminists themselves were the first to become violent towards the one who had different ideas. Despite his ideas that limit women's rights, such an activist is still peaceful, overwhelmed by hits coming from the radical feminists, and without disapproval from the moderate ones.

The intelligence agents might have previously infiltrated among them and violently behaved deliberately to escalate the situation on the feminism movement behalf. The states authorities with dictatorial tendencies constantly use such a thing in order to justify their own violence against protesters and to suppress the democratic right to protest and assembly, as I showed in this documentary  . But we don't see feminists stopping the aggressive ones from hitting that man. Most feminists are not violent, and LGBT marches are peaceful. But there is a feminist-sexist minority among them that seduces many through combativeness and that sometimes behave with the weakest exactly like that. Of course, these situations are rare, just like the cases of women rape against men. But they still exist, and must be recognized as negative examples of radical distortion inside feminism.

The feminism can become ultra-radical when it proposes measures to drastically punish men because they are totally rapists. I repeat here the ultra-radical feminist Jenny McDermott proposal for women to kill male babies so that the future women can get rid of oppression.

Also, remember the lesbian Julie Bindel's statement that she would put all men in a concentration camp  . Such proposals come from the idea that all men are women rapists or murderers, so meet the radical feminism criteria. But because she further on proposed a repressive measure against all men, she even became ultra-radical. I will continue the description of the psychopathology of radical feminism in the next article  .

* The already famous idea that gay parades would "seduce" children into becoming gay and indoctrinate them with gayness is firstly based on the information role oversizing in determining the sexual orientation. Such an idea is absurd because, if it were true, then everyone would be heterosexual. In the society there is very few information about homosexuality and a lot of information about heterosexuality. The movies, the commercials and the magazines abound in heterosexual sexuality. Then this idea comes from somewhat more advanced predisposition of many of those who support it towards same-sex attraction. Their inner conflict regarding this choice is then outwardly projected and acts through hostility and sickness towards the homosexuals and the whole LGBT movement.

17 septembrie 2020

5.1. The need to differentiate between the politically-justifiable and the psychopathological side of the feminist militancy

5. The Feminism as reaction to crimes and emotional abuse against women

In the first three chapters of this text, I have shown why feminism in general is needed to counter up the crimes and the emotional abuses against women. Since them I have called “moderate feminism” this set of social measures to counteract these crimes and abuses. In the previous chapter  I described the overlap area between this justifiable feminism with the exaggerated, extremist and inapplicable one. I have analyzed in detail the first two examples of such exaggerated measures from a legal, political, anthropological and psycho-affective point of view. They are the theory of consent for greeting and that of the exclusively female courtship initiation. These are either unjustified to what most women want, as I have shown here  , or inapplicable, as I have shown here . They are supported by a part of feminism, which I have called "radical feminism" (in the sense of improper, extremist).

In this chapter I will describe other characteristics of radical feminism and I will emphasize the criteria for a more precise definition of it, from a psychological and sociological point of view. I will continue the analysis of these political and ideological projects coming from the radical part of feminism, but from the relationship perspective with the psychopathology dynamics of the different social groups engaged in this type of political militancy. I will thus show each group specific interests (called the primary and secondary benefit by the psychoanalysis) and I will further show why the measures proposed by the radical feminism are impossible to implement in society.

I will first describe the persecutions of our still highly eugenic society against the marginalized, in which the women are the biggest part, that led to the radical feminism subsequent emergence. Then I will make a slight group psychoanalytic incision by describing the psychic mechanisms that determine some to support these radical ideas (in order to continue this at the individual level with a professional psychoanalyst, or maybe self-analytical). At the end of this chapter I will show in detail that this radical feminism has the important merit of being able to draw attention to the real problems that women face, and that the social system rulers tries to hide from public opinion.

5.1. The need to differentiate between the politically-justifiable and the psychopathological side of the feminist militancy

The women need bigger social protection than is offered to them today by most civilized states against the 21-th century intra-institutional sexual harassment  . They also need bigger social protection against domestic violence, simple or sadistic rapes (some even murderous) caused by antisocial and sadistic psychopaths . They also need bigger social protection against emotional abuses . They still need favors for the typical motherhood and other disadvantages. The feminism is that set of solutions proposed from different social areas for these problems, whether they are realistic or utopian in the current society.

If we lived in a fair society, in which every human being would been guaranteed the right to a decent life or to effective psychotherapy for transgenerationally configured mental disorders, then we would not need feminism at all. Unfortunately, the society still uses repressive means to prevent crime; those who have already committed them are isolated in order to be prevented from committing them again, and the potential criminals are threatened with isolation or loss of certain rights in order to be persuaded by repression not to commit them. This leads to social repression, with tensions occurring in less guarded social areas, after they were repressed by the police forces in the secured ones. This is the typical individual repression model, which can also be extended to the general social level. The social crime brutal repression has the same result as the individual criminal impulses repression, namely their psychopathological exacerbation and their explosion elsewhere. Like the individual psychotherapy, the society must take measures of social protection and psychotherapy from an early age with its members who are at risk of antisocial behavior. However, the current penitentiary system is a spearhead of the paradoxical, obsessive-compulsive crime reinforcement. The general repressive system artificially creates criminals rather than reducing crime.

Women can fall victim to this vicious retroactive psychopathology circle, without having the effective defenses. It is everyone's duty to think of solutions. Karen Straughan claims in one of her videos that men are more exposed to dangers than women, as they are more likely to become victims. Indeed, men's work is more accidents risky. And the solutions must be found for them in such a way as to make their work safer. But those who work in the military or in the prone to accidents areas are consciously taking these risks. Then no one premeditates them. On the contrary, the crimes against women are premeditated. I mean, they could be avoided. In this case the statistics are no longer relevant. To justify crimes against women on the grounds that more men die than women is like deciding that a certain percentage of each social category and profession be sacrificed, because the same is true of risky professions. Yes, these professions need increased automation, so that those who practice them would be protected from these risks. In the same way, the women need increased protection against the above risks.

The moderate and radical feminism criteria

I have largely differentiated the moderate and radical feminism in this text so far. I resume it as a summary for a better understanding. The fact that women should receive more rights over men should not be unacceptable. In certain situations they received these rights from the traditional society and the Etiquette and good manners code proves to this fact. Most of people accept the idea that the women should be overprivileged, according with the very protective education towards received in the family. However, differences of opinion appear in drawing the limits of these advantages.

Women have harmony and peace in their nature, so they are not suitable for the sex offenders’ answers. But the risks of exaggeration slipping are high, given the constant threats to which they are exposed. And, even if their response is smaller, without reaching the crime stage, there is still a disproportionate, exaggerated response from the victims, or those who are afraid of becoming victims. This is the case with some certain feminism excesses that I and a few others consider as radical feminism.

From my perspective any tendency to exaggerate these advantages outside of correcting those traditional discriminations or gender disadvantages, as well as the concrete solutions to prevent sexual crimes and emotional abuse, as the too harsh punishments against criminals (the death penalty , for example), are signs of radical feminism. I also consider as radical any tendency to diminish the rights and nature of those who do not commit sexual crimes and emotional abuses, especially since such a thing is ineffective against the core of the problem. Conceiving the punishments for discreet gestures done by the innocent men is a sign of such radical feminism. Any distorted presentation of facts and unfounded accusations against male individuals, or larger groups of emotional abuse or sexual crimes, without objective arguments and criteria for such a thing, is a manifestation of radical feminism. This can be seen in the video posted several times in this text.


Below I will show other such examples. So I have a pejorative view on the "radical feminism" formula, as opposed to the today widespread view about it. I will return a little later to this terminology meaning difference.

However, these ideas are necessary but not sufficient signs for radical feminism. There are some moderate feminists who can come to support them under the influence of the radicals. In fact, most end up supporting radical feminism ideas under the honest belief that it would lead to decreasing the sexual crimes and emotional abuses against women. But since these people do not affirm it aggressively in language and behavior is the most important criterion for not being considered radical feminists. In addition, they respond to counter-arguments and debates and change their ideas accordingly. On the contrary, the radical feminists do not, are ironic about any kind of ideological opposition, use ad hominem arguments in debate, and become aggressive in language and behavior for those who do not conform to their ideas.

If the opposition to these innocent social categories comes also with violence in behavior and language, then the signs of radical feminism are even clearer. The aggression, sometimes vehemently expressed by both women and some men to stop the abuses and the crimes against women, without being victims or having close relationships with them, is the main criterion for differentiating between the two types of feminism.

The existence of such ideas does not necessarily make them radical feminists, but only merely occasional or temporary supporters for the radical ideas. Each of us can have moments of radical reactions, irascibility, depression, etc. But, that doesn't make us explosive psychopaths or depressive disordered directly.

Other women adhere to the radical ideas described above because they find certain advantages in this proposal, as I have shown here or here .

Terminological clarifications to the "radical feminism" formula used by others

I did not randomly decide these criteria, but they arose from the confrontation with linguistic semantics. Etymologically speaking, the term “radical” refers to the root and has retained its original meaning in linguistics or mathematics. The term is also used in chemistry, botany and music theory, but somehow with different meanings from the basic one. As far as I am concerned, I do not use this term "radical" meaning, but the one of "extreme", which became naturalized naturally and with this meaning in language. In English, it means according to oxford dictionaries  where it means far from tradition, innovative, unorthodox, fundamental.

The "radical feminism" formula came for the first time also with a pejorative meaning, from groups of misogynists or conservatives who did not like the anti-discrimination movements promoted by women in the late nineteenth century. Because of this past, I might give it up this term in the future in favor of another, such as "exaggerated feminism" or "psychopathological feminism." I have not used them so far because it could be understood that the whole of feminism in general would be exaggerated or a psychopathological symptom. On the contrary, the term "radical" with the above meaning automatically correlates in the reader's mind and with a gentler, moderate, beneficial feminism form, from which it descended. This is the case with nationalists or believers. The nationalism and the faith in moderate forms are a side of human spirituality, bringing benefit to the society. But they cause social unrest when become radical. I can't think of any formula in which the adjective "radical" is present in which there is no moderate, beneficial side of the noun to which it is attached. So, despite the misogynistic past, I think this formula is the best option for this kind of exaggerated feminism that automatically sends the reader to the justifiable feminism form.

Some feminists have declared themselves radical, probably trying to give a positive look to this initially pejorative side formula. But they use the other meanings of the term "radical." Such a feminist speaks in the video below about radical feminism as root feminism, at min 01.45.

This woman thinks of herself as being radical because she would denounce the "patriarchal root" of society. I consider that there are no clues to give the term "radical" from this formula another meaning such as those included in the disciplines invoked above. I will return in a later article to this anti-patriarchal rhetoric of feminism.

The same logic led me to describe the radical feminism as extreme. Much of it is very vehement in public, but even moderate feminists can become very vehement once in a while. I believe that the vehement actions can also be part of the moderate feminism if they draw attention to the risks to which women are exposed or to the disadvantages arising from gender inequalities and social discrimination. So a person who vehemently militates, through street protests can be considered radical in terms of civic activism to which she/he adheres, but not necessarily after the ideas she/he has. If such a person vehemently demands rights for the marginalized that does not mean that that person is radical. On the contrary, she/he is a humanist.

On the other hand, the radical feminism can manifest only at the level of ideas, without civic activism. In the video below there is another example of a feminist who considers herself radical. She argues for a different in attitude and ideology between the liberal and radical feminism, only on the basis that the latter declares that men are principally oppressive towards women.

For me, the "liberal feminism" term is irrelevant and I don’t support her vision about the "radical feminism ". I do not consider her radical in what she says here, as she considers herself, but moderate. We note that she accepts the idea that not all men are oppressors, but she further argues, non-oppressors are in fact insignificant exceptions. That means that she is willing not to unfoundedly accuse all men of emotional abuse and sexual crimes. So she can support radical ideas not out of a psychopathological predisposition for these radical theories, but out of lack of knowledge or misinformation. As far as I am concerned, the only difference between me her, in terms of the distinction she makes, is this criterion of the majority. I think the number of oppressive men is much lower than she suggested. From my point of view, the criterion she invokes is insignificant. But she probably also supports the theory of consent for greeting or the exclusive female courtship initiation, which brings her it somewhat closer to the radical feminism, according to the criteria I have stated.

For the moderate / radical distinction I did not use the metapolitical background over which the feminist ideology adopted by the feminism landmarks overlaps, through the forms already affirmed in the academic environment. The feminism association with a radical metapolitical ideology such as the communism or the violent anarchism is not a sign of radical feminism. Although the communism is at its core an ideology that instigates social hatred, its association with feminism cannot lead to such a thing. The idea that the oppressed class would take revenge on the oppressive class (the dictatorship of the proletariat) cannot be transferred to feminism. The women basically have peace and love in their blood, so only a few radical exceptions actually support the dictatorship of femininity. Most radical feminists do not support ultra-radical ideas. To accuse all the feminists of being ultra-radical is a misogynistic exaggeration, just as accusing all men of being rapists is a sign of radical feminism.

Despite the anti-communitarian excesses, the communism had, at the declarative level, a very humanistic side at the theoretical level, respectively the social integration of the marginalized. As the Communists themselves later acknowledged, putting it into practice was the main problem. The idea of communism seduced many through the egalitarianism of social retribution, even if such a thing did not really happen when it was concretely applied. Well, such an idea applied to the feminism makes it moderate * and not as radical, as the very doctrine of social revenge promoted by the communism. The same argument can be applied to the association of feminism with the violent anarchism.

On the other hand, there are many isolated and non-communicative misanthropes, reluctant to any action of civic militancy, but who support radical political experiments such as Nazism or Communism. Here that, although they are still radical in visions, they are still docile concerning the civic activism. So a feminist person might have certain radical ideas, but she/he may not act them radically. In the following article I will describe the psychogenic causes that determined these women to support the radical feminism, as well as a more detailed psychopathological description of it.

* I will show in the last chapter of this text why a fair society, based on social intrusion leads to decreasing the criminality, including the crimes and abuses against women.

27 august 2020

4.11. The conflict between radical and moderate feminism

4. The feminist proposal of exclusively female courtship initiation

4.11. The conflict between radical and moderate feminism

Let's go back to the video below, that I kept posting in previous articles!

We remember that at minute 01 :45 the unknown man greeting is not only blamed, but even labeled as sexual harasser. I showed in this article  that such a thing does not meet the incrimination criteria, according to the law principles. There are indeed in this video some men who have far too explicit gestures for the principles of Social Etiquette and Good Manners, not giving the woman room to politely refuse. First of all, I notice the much too intimate greeting like that of “hi, baby!". This salute formula is used only in intimacy relations. Then we can see prolonged following the woman by walking beside her. Such a thing is a street harassment according to the existing legislation criteria.

But most of those given as examples in the above video only greet and don’t actually stalk or harass. Their greeting does not violate any form of the code of Social Etiquette and Good Manners, as they have been asserted by various Western spaces over time. Also, the greeting alone does not violate the prior to courtship rules and stages, as I described them in this article  ; the gesture of greeting is discreet enough not to disturb the woman and give her enough room for an elegant courtship refusal. The greeting is used in other contexts than that of courtship, so she is not put in the situation of being excluded from the decision to accept and form the relationship. The greeting alone, without other explicit signs of courtship initiation is a discreet enough gesture that the woman is not offended under the elegant refusal impossibility. The woman may refuse to respond the greeting if she thinks it is far too lascivious to be impartial. Even her greeting response is by no means a courtship acceptance, specific to the 5th stage, even if such a gesture encourages the man to come up with more explicit signs in initiating the courtship.

We note firstly the radical feminists’ stubbornness  in blaming these masculine gestures specific to the prior to courtship second stage as sexual harassment. This vehemence initially gives the impression that wants a change in the legislation in such a way that the greeting, the peaceful approach or the discreet compliment addressed to an unknown woman should be incriminated by the law. However, there are some voices that already consider that these proposals are literally part of the law text and behave as such, as the above video author does.

I showed in the previous article that there are several social groups of women who accept the exclusive female courtship initiation proposal due to their own personal interests. But within the global feminist movement there is no unanimity on extending this courtship revolution either morally or legislatively. There are many feminists who do not agree with what is said there, as can be read in the posted above video comments.

However, there are moderate feminists who support it under the most radical ones influence. But in the face of the arguments they change their position. Although they disapprove an unknown man's gesture to explicitly initiate the courtship of a woman, still most feminists do not demand legal punishment for that and don’t classify it as sexual harassment. They only require a change in the good manners mentality, although the traditional principles of Social Etiquette and Good Manners applied in the prior to courtship period is good enough in this regard. Although I have not seen that exposed in a study so far, they support a return to the traditional pre-court rules, as everyone feels them. These norms were only partially stated, as is the case with the third pre-courtship rule  (of the ring / wedding ring). But the application of the interlocutor over-appreciation attitude and the patience of building the relationship from the code of good manners to the period preceding the courtship leads to these norms without being clearly stated somewhere.

As I mentioned in this article  , in general, the moderate feminists do not support legislative incriminations for the street courtship peaceful initiators neither a sudden (absurd) emancipation of the marginalized ones habits towards the good manners. These women admit that the direct or implicit blaming the men who initiate peaceful courtship as sexual harassers or rapists has no legal justification. Others change these ideas after counter-arguments like the ones I have set out here , unlike the radical feminists who remain firmly on their position and do not respond to the opposite side arguments. The most undecided of them oscillates between these two positions.

This is how within the wide feminist movement there were and still are stormy debates, with insults, excommunications, fights, social media blocking between those who support it and those who do not. The exclusive female courtship initiation supporters entered into irremediable conflicts with those who do not accept it, with all the ingredients of an ideological war. The feminists who support it have met fierce resistance from the non feminist movement women. An international organization called "Women Against Feminism"  has appeared and even has a Facebook page  . But it is visible that behind such platforms there are often obscure interests, which unjustifiably condemn the whole feminism in bloc, including the moderate one. In this extreme opposite position, it feels the discriminatory attitude specific to the abusive societies.

The feminism has supported and still supports certain valuable ideas, such as those of the ancient sophists and resumed by Marxism, such as that of the patriarchy dictatorship. From my point of view the only error in this idea is that it considers that the patriarchy would be made exclusively by men; my opinion is that women also contribute to its founding, or take advantage of their social position, which it strengthens. This social reality existed in the dark times and, unfortunately, continues today. Both the sophists who observed it first, the Marxism and more recently, the feminism, are discreetly rejected in mass by those who take advantage of this abusing the week situation. They have a general social interest in seducing the "believers" into sinking into this slavery mentality that maintains their social status. So we must not fall into the extreme of blaming the entire feminism without noticing its valuable parts, in accordance with the political interest of this traditional "patriarchy" in the traditional slavery crimes. But, at the same time, we need to see what the feminism excesses are. So, in the next chapter I will try to describe in more detail the mysteries of this ideological war between the radical feminism and traditional mentalities, with the exaggerations from the both sides.

14 iulie 2020

4.10. The risk of the spiritual love forbidding communication by the exclusive feminine courtship initiation proposal theory

4. The feminist proposal of exclusively female courtship initiation

4.10. The risk of the spiritual love forbidding communication by the exclusive feminine courtship initiation proposal theory

Spiritual love and the Social Etiquette and Good Manners

The woman's refusal to accept any love, no matter how spiritual it might be, is both biologically and culturally justified. Firstly, according to the female sexual instinct selective principle, every woman must be protected for refusing the sexual activity or emotional approach from somebody else. Then, according to the tinny skin freedom that the civilized society promises to its citizens, every human being must be guaranteed the right not to give his body for somebody else interests. Any kind of organic social institution or group that tries to force someone’s consent, either by open means or by advanced social engineering maneuvers, commits an abuse.

The love shown to a woman is a possible way to establish a love affair with her. But the love alone, and lived more or less intensely, is not enough to form a couple with her. The famous philosopher Augustine aphorism "Love and do what you want!" is not justified anymore. Numerous nowadays examples show that the transition from the affection to the abuse can be done very easily. Casanova and Don Juan are always in love troubadours, but who leave behind emotional ruins. And the women have the normal right not to consent to their more or less sincere productions. Casanova mimics love with a few verses taken from unknown authors, with which he raises the woman on the courtship love pedestal, and then invites her to bed. Such a thing is not a spiritual love, but a very brutal, instinctual one adorned with spiritual packaging. The spiritual love is actually cased by the inhibition of this male sexual instinct raw side.

The existence of such a spiritual love feeling for a woman cannot lead to the automatic couple building with her. But, in the same way, its communication prohibition, as supported by the exclusive female courtship initiation proposal, does not seem all right either. The only exception here is, obviously, such feelings communication to a married person. This violates the universal rule of emotional isolation given by the engage / wedding ring. The explicit communication of spiritual love feelings to a person isolated from the marriage institution is a serious violation of social norms. Only in this case the exclusive female courtship initiation proposal is fully justified. We know very well that the adultery has happened in the past and is constantly happening today. The consequences of such acts can be tragic, although, in my view, the adultery is normal in some cases. There are some routine marriages that worn down beyond the point of being refreshed with sporadic flirtations. For this kind of couple relationship the best invigoration is the very divorce. But I think that the divorce decision must come directly from the members of the married couple, without the influence of third parties. In this case, the prior to courtship rules must be changed to a minimum male action.

But if the woman is not engaged in a stable relationship, then the spiritual love communication to her should not be forbidden. As I said in the previous article, on the one hand, communicating it violates the courtship 3rd prior stage deductible from the Social Etiquette and Good Manners. Indeed, these feelings communication conflicts the discretion principle, expressed in this article . But, on the other hand, such behavior strengthens its principles, raising the beloved woman above its own person. So, in principle, the Social Etiquette and Good Manners are not violated, but strengthened in its purposes. Even if the love is not spiritual enough, its communication should not be forbidden. I have shown in this article why there are not enough legal arguments for such a thing. Violation of the 3rd prior rule to courtship is a lack of Good Manners gesture, but such a thing cannot be punishable by law.

The exclusive female courtship initiation proposal came either from a too emotional mentality or from a too mercantile one.

The main argument for ruling the exclusive female courtship initiation as a new social norm is that it would stop the sexual crimes and the emotional abuses. If banning its communication would put an end to them, then this proposal would be justified. But I showed in this article , such a measure does not solve these problems, according to its stated role. Even if it was not clear enough, the Social Etiquette and Good Manners had already banned them before, but without success. Another rule like this would not be more successful than this Social Etiquette generally used by the society’s upper classes. In addition to this failure, banning this feeling in one way or another is an attack on human spirituality itself. Prohibiting these feelings expression, by more or less practical means, is a rigidity gesture, at the opposite extreme.

The love invariably comes with a bigger or smaller dose of suffering. Love is generally a painful game, from an emotional point of view. Scarred hearts inevitably remain behind. And this not necessarily happens because of the particular social group tendency to increase the freedoms that eventually abuse the others. Love in general is a hoax of nature itself to make us perpetuate the species. After the reproductive instinct is satisfied and the offspring has matured, the love with which he is adorned disappears. Love is a game of chance that everyone accepts or rejects according to their personal emotional pattern. This option should not be a subject of any institution intervention. On the one hand, its wounds have always been the most painful throughout the history, and some of the elderly do not want to repeat them. But, on the other hand, the happiness it produces is unmatched. Most of people, whether men or women, are willing to accept this risk in order to gain an unforgettable experience. For everyone, the exclusive female courtship initiation proposal is a restrictive one.

There are women who accept this proposal precisely because of the love suffering they had. Some radical feminists themselves have radicalized themselves precisely because of the consecutive getting through these states of maximum happiness followed by cruel disappointment. The exclusive female courtship initiation proposal makes sense for them according to the idiom "keep the road!", meaning never. These fears from a new suffering bring with them a real moral stoicism in some women. Hence their slipping into the opposite extreme, arguing that the spiritual love should be blamed as inauthentic or even incriminated as a predisposition to abuse. But it will never be eliminated by a few legislative restrictions or by changing the good manners. Of course, following the analogy, the happiness produced by love will not also ever be oversized nor reduced by such social norms.

But a lot of radical feminists women (and even men who support their ideas) don't know that. They have experienced a deformed maternal attachment in their families and cannot apply it harmoniously in love relationships at the level of adult women. This feeling communicating prohibition in principle a priori excludes the existence of its sincerity, according to the radical feminism prejudices about the men "disgusting nature". Despite Casanova-type simulators, there are men who live these feelings. The proposal in question is based on a false (sometimes hypocritical) premise that such a thing would not exist. There are some women who do not know this and do not want to know it, because they are not interested in heterosexual relationships and do not give a man a chance to communicate it from the very beginning. But both the histrionic-seducers and the disguised prostitutes know it very well. They even seek to hook it out and histrionic-emotionally or financially exploit it. It is sad that they cannot live the inestimable feeling that such a thing presupposes and are blinded by the psychopathological counteracting symptoms and the mercantile interests.

From the first moment I heard of their proposal, I was struck by its mercantile character. Indeed, if we think only about the crimes and the emotional abuse against women, the mercantile prohibition of any male courtship initiation, whether discreet or explicit, would be justified. But in the face of such a spiritual feeling, it looks like the meeting between an eccentric philosopher/artist with the authorities in dictatorial societies. Whether it is called consent for greeting or compliment, or exclusively feminine courtship initiation, such an idea hints at a commercial exchange mentality: you give me something to accept you do this to me or I do that to you. Yes, the economic exchange has brought a higher level of humanization in the human society, as opposed to the warlike culture of robbery. If we compare it with the primitive and classical period, the industrial exchange is more human. But sex and love in general need more than a negotiation between "I do this for you" and "you do that to me."

The economic exchange mentality is far too bureaucratic and too impersonal for what should be an emotional relationship between two people. And I'm sorry for those who haven't experienced this in their families since they were very young. I think they have lost much more than such of this new politeness rule implementation could ever give them. The psychoanalysis described in detail the too much maternal attachment problems. So it is an example of the emotional imbalance due to too much detachment from the mother, either through negligence or by a too strong maternal attachment counteracting. People generally complain of "confusion" in the face of a situation, but in this case the (maternal) complex in the normal dose is good for strengthening the emotional relationships.

The exclusively female initiation of courtship proposal in relation to the culture

Moreover, the very traditional culture of love itself is recently confronted with a new type of iconoclasm under these too radical norms. At the cultural elite’s level, there were sporadically such feelings of cultural rebellion. The (proper) Ionoclasm of the Byzantine or the early twentieth century modernism era, were such radical moments in the history of culture. But this kind of radical rejection of tradition was only a passing step. Tradition has been and will be an important part of culture, so it cannot be radically erased with a sponge. Returning to forgotten forms (once called "postmodernism") was a constant solution after a trend or mentality become obsolete and had exhausted its forms of expression.

There are indeed situations in which certain gestures in traditional culture are dubious about the social norms of courtship. For example, the scene of the prince who brings "Snow White" back to life, in that famous fairy tale, has a meaning for traditional culture; as a royal figure, the prince's gesture was not only not inappropriate towards the lower classes female character, but even desirable for the traditional mentality, according to the prior to the courtship 4th rule . Nowadays the dream of accessing a higher social class through marriage is no longer so exciting. Although most women would still consider this gesture lucky, there are enough who would not accept to be kissed by a stranger, whatever a prince he might be.

But this situation of contemporary social norms flagrant violation is rare. The important traditional culture anticipates today's normalcy. That is why it is still an important part of human history. Next I will expose a short list with several universal art works that have situations in which the rules and stages prior to courtship are flagrantly violated. Here are some examples from the literature:

William Shakespeare: “Antony and Cleopatra”
“Romeo and Juliet”

Johann.W. Goethe: “The Sorrows of Young Werther”

Famous songs in which the first contact initiation by the man was used are the following:

Elvis Presley: "The lady loves me"
"The Girl of My Best Friend"
"Fort Lauderdale Chamber of Commerce"

Beatles : „Hey Jude” 
"Come together!"

The Doors: "Alabama Song"

Guns 'N Roses: " Sweet child of mine"

Queen: "Crazy Little Thing Called Love"
"In Only Seven Days"
"You Take My Breath Away"

Michael Jackson: "Human nature"
"The way you make me feel"

All these risk to be excluded from culture or to be blamed for containing the courtship initiative by male characters.

There are arguments that come from the nihilistic area of the philosophy of culture that criticizes civilization's preference for spiritual (fantasy) love while it also condemns the (concrete) rape. These arguments are meant to show how civilization perverts the nature of instinct to become phantasmic, transforming the individual into an entity torn from the reality of life. Although they do not clearly support the practice of rape, they still consider it more coherent than the lie of overestimating the loved one to the rank of deity. There are probably certain radical feminists who come up with this kind of argument, although I haven't found them anywhere. However, most of them do not refer to this type of philosophical nihilism, but to the sociological factor of spiritual love as the universal way to rape. The refusal to accept it as a social norm outside of the expression consent comes from the assumption that it universally turn into a sexual crime. However, the biological argument is stronger than the anarchist one: it is not society that "perverts" the instinct, but the selective female sexual instinct itself that takes only one thing from the masculine one. So we are not talking about a conflict between the civilization and the instinct but about that between the two forms of the same instinct, as split into feminine and masculine.

The Western civilization is full of lonely people, some of them parents, both men and women. My opinion is that if we weigh the risks of abuse from a Casanova man with the loneliness pain, then it is worth the risk. The rigidity towards male courtship initiation avoids the emotional abuse at the age of 35-40. At that time, a large part of women adopt a feminist vision regarding the love relationships initiation, without necessarily becoming de facto militants. But, at the same time, at this age and on this mentality, couples also disappear. The result is an accentuation of the couple's life destruction that is already affected by the corporate mentality. The chances of such a mentality to be avoided by men and fail to start a couple are very high. Many feminists understand and accept this. Because of this, there was a conflict between radical and moderate feminism on this topic, which I will detail in the next article .

Popular Posts