silentnomad23 said:So, I was sitting there after lunch today, letting my mind wander through a rather curious thought: why does it always seem easier to be the one initiating action rather than the one receiving it?
It’s a phenomenon that goes far beyond physical intimacy; it’s deeply rooted in our psychological makeup. If I were to imagine myself navigating the world from a masculine perspective, honestly, taking charge and being the active force with one, two, or even ten people wouldn't feel like much of a struggle at all. However, looking at this through a feminine lens changes the equation entirely. When you are the one penetrating, you are essentially asserting your integrity; when you are the one being penetrated, that sense of self-integrity feels like it retreats. This is where those classic archetypes of male "dominance" and female "submissiveness" seemingly originate.
For instance, if someone wanders into my personal space—say, coming within half a meter of me—my instinctual reaction is often to push back with both hands. People usually look for an explanation because they can't quite wrap their heads around why I reacted that way (essentially, my "penetrating" stance). It got me reflecting on my own behavior and thinking about the times I have been the one in the active role—and just how many different ways people have tried to defend themselves against that.
Still, these convex and concave dynamics in life and behavior are inevitable; ultimately, they play a role in the very mechanics of reproduction. But as society evolves, we are seeing more fluid identities, which will likely lead to a generation of "moral relativists" regarding these convex-concave mental statuses.
To get straight to the point: could you envision yourselves as the opposite gender, and if so, how would you describe that experience?
(A quick note to the feminists and the chauvinists out there: please leave the moralizing at the door. We're keeping the ethics strictly to the philosophy section below.) 🙂
I believe it all comes down to perception—to our individual sensitivity and our psychological defense mechanisms. It is an undeniable fact that there are certain people who lack the capacity for balanced communication; they barge into your space, interrupting you mid-sentence (a crude form of penetration). Then there are the trolls (which applies perfectly to the wild west of the American internet), those who refuse to engage with the actual subject matter and instead choose to analyze their interlocutor. This analysis is usually amateurish and fundamentally flawed, as their "psychoanalysis" is merely a projection of their own flaws onto others. They introduce irrelevant elements, drift into nonsense and illogic, and adopt an offensive, aggressive stance. This is essentially invading someone else's territory without permission—it is reckless, malicious, and driven by a desperate need to be right rather than a pursuit of truth. It is, quite simply, a pure manifestation of the ego. 🙏
I have always appreciated your approach (even during the times we disagreed), because you respect boundaries. I have never felt contempt, disrespect, or even the slightest threat that you might cross the line of decency or politeness, even though I know I can be quite aggravating at times 🤣. I believe such behavior stems from a deep sense of self-respect and an awareness of one's own integrity. (Of course, there is a difference when one does this intentionally—approaching boundaries as a sort of game, which I find can be unnecessarily cruel).
So, how should one deal with a crude penetrator? My view is that a person does not need to bend more than they wish to, provided they can control their own concavity. Only those lacking self-control unconsciously become victims of convexity. Others provide a flat, smooth, and cold surface that acts as a mirror to the penetrator. The aggressor remains unaware that they are merely seeing themselves reflected; they continue to believe they are observing another person, which is why they project their own character deviations onto them.
In conclusion, this is a matter of immaturity, lack of awareness, and sheer stupidity (from which evil is born in a metaphysical sense). Therefore, it is best to avoid such individuals entirely—much like avoiding mindless infantry—because you can only end up hurt. Once they finally grow up and get their heads screwed on straight, they will stop acting this way. Using a "mirror" only works if you notice a glimmer of lucidity in the person, but that usually leads to shattering their narcissistic self-image, which is incredibly painful. To escape that pain, they will either flee or double down with even greater force. You are left with two options: flight or victory at any cost, regardless of the casualties or the purpose. Both paths involve adrenaline and a level of behavior that is purely animalistic.
The point of this post is this: every victim eventually finds their killer.
Oh, and I nearly forgot to mention: I don't believe this is strictly tied to gender. Men can be just as spineless as women can be incredibly bold.
