Posts by Rebecca Chase5

Steven Allen9 said:That’s just a reaction.
But what about the guy who's hardwired to be evil, whether there's a war going on or things are peaceful?
Is there another category out there? Like, crimes written in their DNA? Just born to kill and cause chaos?

You watch far too many American movies and TV shows. That concept doesn't exist; nobody is born to kill. It's pure fantasy.

goldenpuma84 said:There are differences in anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Medicine handles the first, biochemistry the second, and psychology deals with the third. Because if everything were just a product of social conditioning, psychology wouldn't even need to exist as a field. It would just be sociology...

The differences show up in:

- worldviews,
- core life values,
- criteria for choosing a partner,
- risk tolerance,
- conflict resolution styles,
- tendencies toward aggression,
- levels of empathy,
- natural inclinations toward certain types of work,
- the drive to follow a leader

and plenty of other things.

There are tons of them. To reiterate—since we are all offspring of both men and women, nobody hits every single marker perfectly. You'll find guys with feminine traits and vice versa, but on average, most men tend to behave differently than most women.

http://www.najreklame.com/najbolje-r...00c62728b.html

This ad captures just one of those differences pretty well...

1. A worldview is merely a byproduct of one's environment, society, and upbringing.
2. While a hierarchy of values should ideally be universal, it remains shaped by what we are taught.
3. This varies from person to person.
4. There is no difference here.
5. It depends on the individual and their specific character.
6. Again, this depends on the individual and their character.
7. Empathy is not innate; it must be cultivated, which brings us back to learned behavior.
8. Either social standing or physical strength.
9. It is entirely dependent on the individual.

Biologically speaking, there should only be two sexes—two distinct gender identities. Everything else is simply a deviation resulting from genetic or hormonal factors...

restlessviper5 said:Actually, I think being female should be celebrated constantly—by women themselves and by men, for that matter. A man with true backbone wouldn't see femininity as anything less than nature's greatest gift. 😉 Anyone who's intimidated by a woman's success, or thinks a woman isn't fit to lead the world, clearly lacks confidence in their own masculinity. To put it plainly, they lack grit. Personally? If there were a truly capable Queen, I’d be honored to serve as her top soldier. But if I had the talent to wear the crown myself, I’d take it. If not, I’d gladly bow to her visost. 🙇 I really don't care who sits on the throne, as long as they know what they're doing.🤷

This is much better

restlessviper5 said:Honestly? It just comes down to a lack of... well, let's call it masculine presence. Both literally and metaphorically. In the bedroom and out of it. Women end up suffering because of this perceived deficit, which then turns into resentment toward men. And if we're being real about why women feel so physically and socially sidelined, it traces back to a long history of male chauvinism—men degrading women simply to compensate for their own insecurities. So, what do we get? A massive pile of frustrated women and a bunch of idiots for men. Real gentlemen wouldn't cause any of this trouble. Just something to keep in mind. 😁

So, it comes down to having balls... or lacking them entirely.

rowdywolf1 said:Concavity equals greed. Every move a woman makes is driven by greed because she’s basically wired to take rather than give. That’s why they get jealous of everything in sight—honestly, even their own partner—just because of what he's packing down there. It’s the exact opposite for men.

Precisely from a Taoist perspective. The beginning of convex violence over concave justification... the idea that the concave is inherently greedy and always taking...

Let’s get back to the point; there is no room for regret here. Transcendence possesses neither concavity nor convexity—those are merely attributes of our own nature, shaped by how differently one person relates to another. At first glance, it might seem as though they perfectly complement one another, but eventually, that connection dissolves. Reason inevitably prevails over instinct, and thank God, it always will.

Lawrence Allen49 said:Look, if you want someone to be submissive, you need dominance.
How can dominance even happen if both sides are submissive?

Submissiveness is impossible without dominance, and vice versa.

When a woman runs into a submissive guy, she just calls him "boring." Usually, there’s nothing to talk about, no drive, zero sexual attraction—the relationship just dies before it even starts. It’s impossible. Even when it comes to sex, everyone agrees they prefer people they can actually clash with, and for that friction to exist, someone has to be dominant.

As for a community made up entirely of concave personalities? Yeah, it’ll collapse. People will eventually drift toward whoever shows a bit of convexity.

It applies to everything. Sexual, friendship, politics, even... eroticism. 🙂 Everyone wants a captain on their ship, right? 🙂

I’m not saying women are exclusively concave and submissive, even if nature suggests otherwise. But if a woman is somewhat convex (meaning, let's say, more assertive 😁), she's naturally going to look for someone more convex than herself.

Because the concave is destined to love the convex.

PS: If a man acts as the convex force for a concave woman and lets her take control, he’ll end up alone. That’s the theory, and it’s the reality too. That’s why whenever a woman faces a big decision, she says, "Hold on, I have to ask my husband." 🙂 Or, if you're an investor, "Let me check with the CEO."

I asked about a community of convex types—whether the most convex would simply rise to the top or if the whole thing would fall apart.
The convex are always more persuasive; it stands to reason.
A captain on a ship... heh. I work in a similar field, and it seems to me that everyone occasionally desires to lead.
Natural laws govern our impulses.
And seeking counsel is perfectly fine; even the convex do it.

Lawrence Allen49 said:I'm with you. That NBA dynamic shows up in MM, FF strict dynamics, and even mixed ones. Without at least one convex person—a leader—the whole community just falls apart.

The convex partner provides the confidence the concave one needs. If you have two concave people—both being submissive, for example—it just doesn't work. It's impossible.

That’s why a woman (who claims to be "oppressed" by this) who relies entirely on someone else's dominance... I don't know how she expects to handle a convex submissive. Heh.😁

But does a community collapse if there isn't a single concave person present?
What kind of relationship? Sexual?

I remember my own tonsillectomy... I recall being told not to drink anything for three hours post-op, and even then, the throat dryness was intense. That was about fifteen years ago; I assume medical protocols have become more advanced since then.

I could never see myself being a man. They seem so bland—unstructured, soft, and indifferent. When you really look at how men operate, they're practically handed everything on a silver platter (which might explain why they've become so complacent). Women, on the other hand, have to put in the work. We have to prove our worth, take risks, build arguments, be more ambitious, more resilient, and more driven... it's exhausting. We're constantly competing against someone... I truly believe we were chosen for the more difficult and demanding role. Women are natural leaders, and frankly, the world is failing because men refuse to let our innate leadership emerge. Men are essentially just imitating us, and whenever someone tries to mimic someone else, things inevitably go wrong.