Female Weakness

Video: Female Weakness

Video: Female Weakness
Video: WOMENS SECRETS AND WEAKNESSES? Would You Like To Know Women's Secrets? 2024, March
Female Weakness
Female Weakness
Anonim

Very often we hear from women that men expect weakness from them. Like Robert Rozhdestvensky: Be, please,

weaker.

Please be.

And then I will give you

miracle

easily"

Many women come to psychologists with a request to teach them to be weak, otherwise, they say, personal life does not work out. In this case, it is dangerous to devalue women's experience: women have observations of more personally successful women: they almost always look weak and this seems to attract men. And such "strong women" have observations of themselves: when men like them, when not very much. And hence the conclusion: men love the weak. There are different explanations for this, but more often than not one: men are afraid of strong women, because only against the background of a weak woman can a man look strong and like himself. If a woman is strong herself, a man quickly loses interest in her, because she does not give him food to fuel narcissism, in the sense of narcissism. And without self-admiration for his masculinity, a man is not very interested in sexual relations, this is the main fuel for such a relationship. There is also a similar opinion: they say that a woman and the sexual relationship itself is interesting only when she can admire the superiority of a man, otherwise she loses an erotic feeling. Say, all female fetishes are built on "giving" to a man, and this is directly related to his domination, which completely destroys equality, and therefore deprives sex of its very essence. Not all women agree with this, however, even those who disagree sometimes admit that there is something in this thought, although it looks repulsive. It is unpleasant to see hierarchy where, on the contrary, it is important to open up as much as possible and trust another person as your second self. Many women have the feeling that sex is closely associated with violence, while love is something hostile to violence, its antipode. But why, then, are there so many symbols of veiled violence in the field of sex? And not only in BDSM, but also in simple pornography and even in the lightest erotica: here and there words hinting at outright cannibalism, where a woman is presented as appetizing food, then images associated with her conquest and "sweet captivity." Against the background of all this, the exhortations that men love strong women are somehow not very convincing. Intuition, relying on an unconscious analysis of cultural baggage, tells women that men do love the weak, and from this it turns out that a woman needs to choose: either to be strong and successful in society, providing herself with independent support, or to have love and a successful personal life. Men in this paradigm are in a much more advantageous position: they can develop supports, build up independence, and for the same get female attention and female love. It is not only unnecessary to choose, but also encourages one another. Do you want women to love? Become more successful in society. While for a woman the situation looks different: choose - either success or love. Not very fair, right? It is no wonder that from the analysis of such reality, many women come to the unpleasant conclusion that men are enemies. Isn't the enemy the one who benefits from your weakness? There are, however, other women. They believe that only weak men are looking for female weakness, who want to look strong so easily, doing nothing, but relying only on the consent of women to play along with them. Instead of choosing a strong woman and becoming stronger, naturally striking her imagination, they walk and whine, reproaching women for being unfeminine, and looking for a woman next to which any little girl will look like a strong man. Both conclusions, frankly, contradict reality. If men enjoyed the weakness of women, they would not look dreamily at the stars (and did not like great ballerinas, for example), would not lose interest in their dependent housewives, would not abandon sick wives, and, in general, grace would reign in the personal lives of most women., because let's be honest: most women are still quite weak: they have few resources, less money than men, their hands are frail, their brains are also not so powerful, and their spirit cannot be called mighty. Is that the heroines of women's TV series, who went through all the circles of hell and came out as winners, having received, in addition to all the prizes, a loving and beloved man - the crown of everything. That is, even in TV shows, it is not weak women who receive the love of men, and in life it is completely unclear on what basis they receive, but those who do not receive say that this is because of strength. How do you sort out this confusing topic? First of all, let's carefully read that part of the already mentioned poem by Robert Rozhdestvensky, in which he, in fact, explains why he needs a woman's weakness:

I will become special.

I will take it out of the burning house

you sleepy.

I will decide on everything unknown

for everything reckless -

I'll throw myself into the sea, thick, ominous, and save you!..

This will be commanded by my heart

heart

ordered …

But you

stronger than me

stronger

and more confident!"

Imagine that you need to save someone. Let it be a friend, relative or, God forbid, a child. If you have ever tried to save someone, you know that this business has an effect only in one case, when the person being saved recognizes you as a rescuer and obeys you. If he looks at you like a goat at a new gate and sends you through the forest, it is impossible to save him. You can stun with a heavy object, of course, and save, but it is difficult to fight its resistance. Therefore, most rescuers are well aware of the main condition of salvation - the victim must hand over guidance to you, voluntarily or because of his complete helplessness. If the victim does not recognize your power, it is impossible to save her. You can try to manipulate in order to save her, but this is almost the same as stunning with a heavy object, that is, violence, just not over the will, but around it. That is, the very role of a brave knight and a noble protector suggests that the one who is protected and saved is weaker than the one who saves her. In general, this is reasonable. If she is stronger, then there is no need to save her, she herself will save anyone. Is not it? In this case, it is better to save someone who is in need. And if no one needs it, thank God. What happens when one person is not weaker than the other, but wants to be saved and protected? It turns out a tale about a cunning Fox and a stupid Wolf. Remember how Lisa was afraid that the Wolf would demand compensation from her for the fish she had eaten and its torn tail, so she smeared the dough on her head and pretended to be a victim? And when the Wolf was dragging her on him, she slowly sang "the beaten unbeaten is lucky." Something like this in the popular mind looks like a bitch who is much stronger than a man, but wants to ride a horse. It is to such people that Rozhdestvensky turns his speech, although he makes a knightly gesture, pretending that it is exclusively his desire - to look strong, and she already feels good. In fact, everyone knows very well that women often demand custody and protection from men. But it is impossible to defend someone stronger than you. Not only is it unnecessary, but impossible, even if you want to. It is impossible to defend the fact that in fact is weaker, but considers itself much stronger and looks downward, and this is precisely the main clue of the paradox described above. Very often a woman is not strong, she expects protection and help from a man, but at the same time she does not want to admit that she is weaker. And this is contrary to the very principle of protection and assistance. You cannot look down on the person whose help you are accepting. Either you admit your weakness (not in everything, but in what you ask for help), or you do not receive help. This is not necessary in order to flatter the pride of the rescuer, but in order to make the rescue process itself possible. To save by overcoming resistance is to rape. You can save only the one who puts control into your hands and therefore obeys you. With any other, you can only cooperate on an equal footing, recognizing his will to do as he wants. That is, when a woman makes it clear to a man that she does not consider him stronger than herself, but at the same time expects that he will protect her and become a knight, she either invites him to become her servant, recognizing her mistress and carrying out her orders, or calls on him to violence, so that he would prove his strength to her, breaking her resistance and skepticism. Neither the first role (servant) nor the second (rapist) usually suits men, although they often find themselves against their will in the first role, and in the second, and more often - alternately, because from the role of a servant they are very tempted to jump into the role of a rapist (remember slave uprisings and proletarian revolutions), and from the role of the rapist to the role of the servant (out of guilt), and this is a vicious circle. To get out of the vicious circle, people in a pair must quite clearly define for themselves where they are equal partners, and where are the weak lady and her knight, and follow the rules. The rules are that in the space of equality and cooperation, there are no weak or strong, and in the space of knightly games, a lady does not look at her knight as another, even stronger knight, otherwise he will not be able to chivalry, but will be able to treat her as a rival but not as a weak lady. And you can't mix these spaces: one is for business, the other is for pampering. Is it possible to discard the games of ladies and knights altogether, while keeping the sexual space alive and saturated? So far, for many it is quite difficult. Yes, there are agenders and homosexuals who manage in sexual and romantic spaces without a clear division into M and F, but their sex is often associated with a hierarchy, albeit more complex and sometimes more subtle. There are people with experiences of sex without hierarchy, and these experiences are almost always associated with transcending gender roles or mixing gender roles. Since everything is very difficult in sex and projections work, a person can enjoy identifying with a partner and simply dissociating from himself, as well as going beyond his social personifications, that is, imagining himself as someone else and experiencing an impersonal experience. That is, sex is such a complex and diverse system that persons may not participate in it, which means that no gender roles can often be traced, even if people are heterosexual. Nevertheless, while the games of strong knights and weak ladies are necessary for many, and for many it is they that are associated with sexuality. Those who permeate the hierarchy with fear and disgust very often block the sex channel. Blocking the sex channel is not at all the same as sublimating sexual energy. Sublimation is good. This means that sexual energy is free to accumulate, but is transformed into creative energy and is spent on more significant things than simple physical satisfaction. At the same time, a person looks sensual, filled with strength, and, as a rule, has sympathy for the sexual side of life, in any case does not feel disgust and contempt. When the channel is blocked, this sphere seems repulsive to a person, which often gives his appearance dullness, and disgust to his facial expression. Energy does not accumulate, the resource is frustrated, which most often has an adverse effect on the general condition, although not always.

15
15

That is, it is not worth giving up playing games in the strong and the weak, if these games are the ones that charge you with sexual energy. Do not think that these games themselves can make you weak. Many believe that women's sympathy for sexual submission can cause them to agree to a subordinate role in society, to refuse resources and their own supports. In fact, this is not the case. It's like thinking that taking care of beauty can interfere with work, when this work already exists, and concern for health - creativity, and cite the example of beauty addicts who do not have a single business thought in their heads, and their whole head is busy with trifles., or refer to dull, rosy-cheeked athletes, opposing them to stunted artists with ardent eyes. Yes, addiction interferes with the development of other resources, since it absorbs all attention and energy, but the harmonious pumping of the resource excludes addiction. As "you can be an efficient person and think about the beauty of nails" so you can be a strong personality and combine this with female sexuality. Difficulties arise with the very separation of sexual and personal space. And this is the main difficulty for women. Studies of many people who are seriously addicted to BDSM practices show that men and women have, on average, one obvious difference. Women are almost not interested in the gaming space, and women generally agree to play only for money or, hoping, to translate gaming relationships into real ones. That is, if a woman obeys in practices, and if a woman dominates, she wants this to be a reality. She does not need a "session slave", but she needs a man who is really in love and is ready to do anything for her, otherwise she will not be able to enjoy her role as mistress, she does not need a "play dominant", but needs a man in whom she could really see someone who wants to obey, otherwise she will not be able to enjoy the role of a concubine or a sex slave. There are exceptions to this rule, but there are very few exceptions among women. But as for men, the situation is reversed. Most male practitioners separate the thematic space from life and dive there in order to throw off the personality, and not in order to validate it. This is especially true for men practicing the lower role. Almost none of them wants to be a "real slave", except for sexaholics, for whom sexual space is the main thing in life. The rest do not consider themselves slaves, achieve success in their careers, and just play sex slaves. As for the men who practice the top role, there are quite a few of them who want "real submission" from a woman, but still less than among women. That is, many "upper" men, like women, use the Theme not as a parallel space into which one can dive, be not oneself, and emerge back into life, but as something that supplements and even replaces this life. In life, such men, most often - almost no one, but in the Topic - Real Dominants. The above analysis allows us to judge that the impossibility of dividing the space of fetishes associated with hierarchy in sex (albeit not as obvious as in BDSM, where the hierarchy is specially hypertrophied, maximized according to the archetype principle) is related to a lack of resources. And the correlation is close to 100%. That is, the more successful a person is in society, the better he shares his sexual role and his person, the less successful he is, the more he seeks compensation in sex. In the lower role, such a person can seek relief from anxiety and responsibility; in the upper role, such a person is looking for nourishment for his sense of importance and self-affirmation. Realized people seek in sexual practices to transcend the boundaries of the individual, and not to solve personal problems. When sex is used as a way to solve some kind of personality problem, it often turns into evil or is blocked. Sex cannot be used for such needs, it is pure energy. It is for this reason that the talk of women that they are too strong to be truly sexy is untenable. On the contrary, they lack the strength not to be afraid of losing it from the transition to the sexual space. It is clear that not all women have fetishes associated with submission, just as not all men like to dominate in sex (many, very many, will be happy to be submissive if they do not fear that this will alienate a woman, these "male secrets" are known to almost everyone sexologists). But if a woman has other fetishes, she usually does not complain that she is too strong to feel like a woman, she perfectly feels strong and sexy at the same time. But women, whose fetishes are associated with helplessness and male domination, can really fear that the strength of the personality will interfere with the realization of sexuality. But this is true only when the strength of the personality is insufficient, and any game of subordination poses a threat to identity. This is clearly seen in the analysis of successful men who consciously choose submissiveness in their sexual life (this also applies to bisexual and heterosexual men). They are completely devoid of all the side effects of such practices, unlike unrealized men and practicing the like. The latter are often carried over, all their complexes are exacerbated, they lose their self-control and self-confidence, go beyond boundaries, experience severe kickbacks, even real traumas, they are characterized by self-loathing after sessions, hatred of partners, revenge, shame, attempts at suicide. They assess their masochistic inclinations as a kind of vice or even fate that drags them into the abyss, dismembers their personality, and this fate is often projected onto a woman, due to which women are declared witches (most of active misogyny is from here). Such men struggle with themselves and with their sexuality, often attack women, and almost always use substances. Their weak ego, in unsuccessful attempts to gain at least some external and internal resources, perceives sexual addiction (and such masochism is, of course, addiction, obsessive attraction) as an enemy, and this is really an enemy. Successful men with a lot of resources look very different. Sexual practices are never addiction to them, they never prevail over them, but are a way to relieve tension and get a charge from sexual trance. Such men very easily separate play and reality, and play has no influence on reality, except for a positive one. They control what is happening well. They like to play boys, pages, slaves, dogs, pigs, and God knows who else, depending on what daring roles give this personality pleasure. It never looks like a mania, the significance of this is always insignificant, although a very substantial pleasure can be obtained, but sensual pleasure, reflected, does not affect the upper personal strata. That is, the secret of separating play and reality (Shadow, person and self, according to Jung) is only in the amount of resources. They are the ones who make these transitions real, safe and free. Moreover, when we are talking not about such cardinal transitions, as in the case of the lower role in BDSM, but in very small differences between strength in social life and "weakness" in sex. This transition is all the more not a problem. Therefore, the complaints of women that it is difficult for them to feel like women, being strong, are doubtful. Their reason is most often that the sexual space itself is not of interest for women, they try to use it to extract additional benefits, which are more difficult to extract by claiming equality (as it would be difficult for Fox to deceive the Wolf without pretending to be a victim). But this situation changes as soon as a woman really has enough resources. In this case, the woman manages to divide the sexual and social space, without prejudice to both. And I also know a lot of such female examples, although much less than male ones. Author: Marina Komissarova

Recommended: