Whoever wrote the article is generalizing. I, personally, do not secretly want a man to take control of me. Sorry, but with me, a relationship is a 50/50 things. Are there certain things I look for in a male? Yes, but that differs from woman to woman. We are not a herd of sheep. Furthermore, I find the thought of 'Conditioning' a woman to be what you want them to be disgusting. I'm sorry, but changes in a relationship should simply be discussed. It might just be the way they worded things, I don't know.
I'm not that big of a feminist but that just looks like manipulation and guilt tripping, and even blurs into the area of abuse. It completely forgets the bit about honestly and openness in a relationship.
The conditioning part is a really crap advice from ANY culture (yes, including Middle Eastern ones). I know many couples that has a male that acts like that naturally (my partner is one of them). There's a minority chance that it will play out as the article says but there are also times where we just ignore it, or even do something to make them more angry.
We like men who are in control, mostly of themself rather than that of others.
Despite the cloak of Machiavellian wisdom, female mind manipulation borrows from the restraint of Confucius, the quiet ruthless practices of Sun Tzu and the meditation of Zen.
Okay, that's a little pompous. Sounds like he took parts of his college philosophy textbook and threw it into a blender and maybe he skimmed the opening lines of Wikipedia pages. This is the intellectual equivalent of the emperor's new clothes.
Quote:
How can a man and woman foster a lifetime commitment on trust and respect when one is out to manipulate the other for personal gain and satisfaction? Simple. She must never know your intentions or methods to influence her mind.
Quote:
If you bend your woman to your will and she is oblivious to the fact, did you even manipulate her mind in the first place? Think about it.
First, the author asks, "how can you have a healthy relationship if you're out to manipulate each other?" Then he promptly tells you to go do just that and what could destroy your entire relationship. How's this good advice? Maybe you shoulduse all of that energy and time trying to make a healthy relationship? You know, one's that not based on lies, deceit, and that stuff.
The author's running straight for the logical fallacy of assuming the outcome. That's not even close to a reasonable way to approach any ethical question. Ethics isn't dependent on the circumstances (whether someone finds out or not) but the values. The author's approach to justifying his actions isn't simply illogical, immoral, but stupid. As a general rule if the way you justify whether or not something's ethical is whether or not your found out, it's wrong. Victimless crime is still a crime.
If I murder your grandmother and no foul play is found did I murder someone? If I cheat on my partner it's cool if they don't find out, right? What if I hide a camera in the woman's locker and they never find out?
Okay, I'm not going to drag this issue deeper into a dark ally and beat it with ethics xD.
Quote:
Condition your woman
I think the other just got Classical Conditioning and Operant Conditioning mixed up. Pavlov's Dogs is a illustration of Classical Conditioning, which this isn't. Also, emperor's new clothes and this guy has no idea what he's talking about.
Quote:
I'll let you in on a secret: Women want men who take control, not men who are control freaks.
Uhuh, let's ask them maybe?
Quote:
A woman who displays the latter will do anything for her man. She will be a whore in the bedroom, a good mother to his children, a partner in business or in crime, and a fierce defender to his detractors.
So women are simple minded tools and like wrought iron they are ready to be bent for your will, happiness, and whatever else? You know what's great about this article? It's the author. No, sorry, I meant "all this brain damage." I don't know how I could get those things confused.
I don't find this advice being helpful towards any sort of a meaningful relationship. Every relationships going to be a different, sometimes a little and sometimes a lot. You need openness, honesty, and trust something this article seems to disregard and replace it with deceit and trickery. Machiavellianism comes from the Prince, "which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power." Politics, not healthy relationships. The Prince was a political treatise, not some book on relationship advice. We want different things in a relationship yes, but trickery is not the way to find it.
Finally,
Quote:
Be a real man and apply the advice in this article in order to manipulate the mind of your woman and gain control in your relationship. Remember; manipulation is neither cruel nor wrong if you love her. It is wise.
Manipulation is unfair and immoral. Love does not suddenly make something moral. Manipulation is putting your wants and interests above another. You cannot manipulate out of love; only selfishness. Everyone wants something different from a relationship. If you want that, that's perfectly fine. The author though is forcing that on his partner, regardless of what the person may or may not want using manipulation and trickery. That's wrong. If the author brought that up with his partner and talked about it honestly and respectfully that'd be a totally different deal. The author's selfish and wants what he wants regardless of what the other may or may not.
Manipulation is disregarding others personal rights and going against the free will of a individual. Manipulations meas that you control the person. Good leaders don't manipulate, they persuade, influence, and lead. That doesn't mean they tell everyone everything. It means they give information in context. What the author suggests is not leadership nor is it persuasion, it is manipulation. I don't think this is a argument over semantics either, what the author suggests is clearly manipulation (which has negative connotation, dictionary) and not somehow mixed up with influence and persuasion. The author is selfish, thinking of his wants before his partners. Kind of like, "if I'm happy she'll be happy too, right? Because I know what's best." The author spends the entire article attempting to justify and support mannipulation which is, regardless of how you swing it, wrong.
Last edited by Admonish Misconstruction; 08-06-2012 at 02:34 AM..
Sounds like he took parts of his college philosophy textbook and threw it into a blender and maybe he skimmed the opening lines of Wikipedia pages. This is the intellectual equivalent of the emperor's new clothes.
This made me laugh. XD
Quote:
Originally Posted by admonished nonsense
I think the other just got Classical Conditioning and Operant Conditioning mixed up. Pavlov's Dogs is a illustration of Classical Conditioning, which this isn't. Also, emperor's new clothes and this guy has no idea what he's talking about.
I took Intro. to Psychology last semester so in a way I beg to differ, though my example would do nothing to help the article being cross examined. (And the cobwebs that have formed in that part of my brain over the summer are fighting me at the moment.) But most likely you're right.
Thank you, A.N., for you've not only stated your view but supported it very well.
Quote:
Remember; manipulation is neither cruel nor wrong if you love her. It is wise.
...while this quote makes most twitch, I...I can't keep myself from agreeing somewhat. Soldiers on the battlefield follow the commands of their superiors. Not only because they'll be punished if they disobey- and come out of the battle alive- but because they trust their commanders. They have no choice but to do as they are told, there is no time to think twice.
I think back to a lot of things I've learned about M/S via experience and then my own research. (Though I still need to do some natural observation at one point; I like to think of it as an internship.) Even if the sub/slave thinks otherwise, she obeys her dom/master because she trusts him. In order for that relationship to work there must be a total power exchange. Some don't go to that high a level but, if the two are in sync, it is a beautiful thing to witness.
Also, I've talked to my pastor about this- my father some as well. For Christians, a woman submits to her husband out of love. In doing so, she allows the Lord to work through him. Because, Biblically, a man is the head of the household. This does not mean he demeans her or demands immoral activities. If he does this, she is free to disagree and not obey. And it's not like she's not allowed to argue- a woman can argue all she wants. But she must have the wisdom of when to speak and when to stay silent, as do men.
Perhaps the writer's word choices are a bit...harsh. But isn't he right in a way?
And, readers, if any of you are experienced doms/masters or subs/slaves, could you put in your viewpoint? I'm very interested in what you have to say in that context.
...while this quote makes most twitch, I...I can't keep myself from agreeing somewhat. Soldiers on the battlefield follow the commands of their superiors. Not only because they'll be punished if they disobey- and come out of the battle alive- but because they trust their commanders. They have no choice but to do as they are told, there is no time to think twice.
The relationship and bond between a commander and his/her soldiers is very different than a romantic relationship. Joker One is a wonderful book that illustrates the relationship between officer and soldier. The book is written about Donovan Campbell and his platoon that was deployed in Ramadi, Iraq. I don't mean to be rude, but I do not believe a soldier their officers is a good example to use. A commander should never use deception, once a commander's soldier's smell this out (which they will) the officer will lose all respect and credibility and will unable to lead his men effectively because they will no longer trust them. I believe that last part is true of a relationship as well.
In a relationship if you're untruthful the lose the ability to trust your partner and that makes it very difficult for the relationship. Instead of working towards bettering your relationship you're actually putting yourself several steps back, having to regain the trust (which can take a long time) and sometimes that simply utterly destroys relationships. Betrays of trust, whether be adultery or whatnot ruins a relationship. The author tries to promote the idea of going behind your partner's back and changing how they think all the while doing this to promote what you want. This is huge risk and a huge betrayal of trust. Not worth it.
While a romantic relationship is victim to endless battles it's far removed from the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, World War II, and so on. You fight different types of battles and you fight them in a very different way with very different weapons.
Quote:
I think back to a lot of things I've learned about M/S via experience and then my own research. (Though I still need to do some natural observation at one point; I like to think of it as an internship.) Even if the sub/slave thinks otherwise, she obeys her dom/master because she trusts him. In order for that relationship to work there must be a total power exchange. Some don't go to that high a level but, if the two are in sync, it is a beautiful thing to witness.
The way the author uses manipulation it's, as the dictionary states: "to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage." The author repeatably puts forward his agenda without the approval of his partner. This is not trust, but selfishness.
Quote:
The topic at hand is as a result, how to manipulate women and get your way.
This is an example of selfish love for ones self and a total disregard of personal freedom. The author disregards his partner's opinions and condones it poorly. This does not equal trust or respect.
I don't know much about the M/S relationship but from what I have heard and read that trust and respect is pivotal. In marriage counselling, relationship books, psychiatrists, counselors, and son on trust and respect of pivotal; the lack of two will destroy a relationship.
Quote:
How can a man and woman foster a lifetime commitment on trust and respect when one is out to manipulate the other for personal gain and satisfaction? Simple. She must never know your intentions or methods to influence her mind.
Quote:
With wily deceit
Quote:
If you bend your woman to your will and she is oblivious to the fact, did you even manipulate her mind in the first place?
(I think I already discussed why this is immoral and a really poor defense)
Quote:
[women] resist deception with maddening ease.
Quote:
In our [men/me] quest to carve a better life
Quote:
not only will you scare her straight
Quote:
reward her with affection and attention when she warrants
Quote:
Women want men who take control
Quote:
defender to his detractors.
Quote:
article in order to manipulate the mind of your woman
Again, I don't believe there's an arguments of semantics, the author does not mean influence or persuade, it is manipulation, "you're going to do what I want regardless of your personal opinions, your objections, or anything else. Because I'm a man and know what's right." The author is supporting lying, trickery, going behind your partners back, manipulation, objectifying a women, threatening, selfishness, and misogyny.
Quote:
Also, I've talked to my pastor about this- my father some as well. For Christians, a woman submits to her husband out of love. In doing so, she allows the Lord to work through him. Because, Biblically, a man is the head of the household. This does not mean he demeans her or demands immoral activities. If he does this, she is free to disagree and not obey. And it's not like she's not allowed to argue- a woman can argue all she wants. But she must have the wisdom of when to speak and when to stay silent, as do men.
First, submission is different than manipulation. Submission is something one chooses to do themselves. I think what you're describing is far removed for numerous reasons, some being quoted directly out of the author's article above. The Christian "Golden Rule", treat those how you want to be treated, seems to be in disagreement as well. I don't believe the Bible or God would condone the actions the author represents in this article.
While we probably disagree, and that's fine, about the subject of the role of a man and a women from a Biblical perspective I think there's a wide difference between submission, out of love and respect, than what the author suggests. The author objectifies woman, which I don't think should or is condoned by modern society.
Quote:
Perhaps the writer's word choices are a bit...harsh. But isn't he right in a way?
Sorry, I cannot agree. The writer's verbiage is objectifying of women, demeaning, deceitful, selfish, egotistic, and basically really wrong.
Last edited by Admonish Misconstruction; 08-06-2012 at 07:45 PM..
*nods* After studying your points, Admonished Nonsense, I must agree with you on this. Good argument, very good.
I hope I didn't come off mean, sometimes I come off a little harsh >.<.
I believe every relationship must be built on trust and respect, so I don't want to seem like I have something against M/S or anything. Each of us wants/needs something a little different.
I hope I didn't come off mean, sometimes I come off a little harsh >.<.
I believe every relationship must be built on trust and respect, so I don't want to seem like I have something against M/S or anything. Each of us wants/needs something a little different.
You didn't come of harsh, no worries. ^_^
---------- Post added 08-06-2012 at 10:40 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonsensical
So many words... @[email protected] I'm too lazy to read right now, but the conditioning bit reminded me of this.
Bleh. I was going to bother you with some long, lengthy response, but it seems like admonished nonsense pretty much cleared the whole thing up.
But yeah... All this is is a way to justify why it's okay to manipulate people. Admittedly...I've used tactics exactly like this before when dealing with people who seemed prone to aggression. It calms them down quickly and gets them on your side, but it's certainly not the most honest thing to do... If they're particularly close to you, it's just plain unfair and it doesn't make a truly healthy relationship.
Quote:
Your woman may not be a "stronger enemy" or even an enemy at all. There are times however, when she may prove to be a stubborn and formidable adversary.
First of all, if at any moment you'd consider your partner an "enemy" or "formidable adversary", WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU MARRY THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?? It sounds like a breeding ground for stress.
If you plan on spending your life with someone, you shouldn't feel the need to control them to get them to do what you want. It's good to be understanding and loving in a relationship, but not if your intentions behind it are so malicious. It makes relationships needlessly complicated and yes, it is a nasty move to pull, showing absolutely no respect whatsoever for the other person.
Your woman may expect you to bark orders at her, criticize her or become angry when she upsets you. But you choose to remain quiet, cast her an intense gaze and speak in a soft tone.
If I was dating a man that so much as THOUGHT of daring to do that to me I would leave him and probably find a way to make his life miserable from the sidelines for awhile. He is not God. I will not bow down to his ass just because he thinks his glare is almighty. That's bad communication right there.
Quote:
I'll let you in on a secret: Women want men who take control, not men who are control freaks. The difference is important. Control freaks are narcissists who put their desires and needs first. Men who take control are protectors and leaders. The satiation of their desires and needs are the natural result of the effortless and invisible control they wield. Men who take control take care of their women. They treat them like royalty. They shelter them from harm. They love them and they are loyal. But with a stern voice and demeanor and an unflappable charisma, they engender passionate loyalty in return.
I don't do control of ANY sort. I know when I'm being controlled, and, like I said before, if a man thinks he knows more about how I should be controlled than I do, I will leave him, or yell his ears off, period.
I fully expect a relationship where we are both strong, where we both have to take "control" sometimes. If he's having an off day and needs me to take care of him, well then I'll do it and won't in any way think he's less of a man. I'll take everything off his shoulders and do it. I'll be the strong one, and I won't feel like he's lesser than me because I'm strong anyway. In turn, I expect the same thing if I need some time to relax. We both should be strong, highly respected, people, and in that regard we will deserve each other.
I think a lot of men have severe psychological issues because they think they always have to be the man and need to control everything, including their women. In truth, men are just as weak, and just as strong, as any woman. They need to relax and realize that being a man has nothing to do with control, and everything to do with kindness and the strength to do what's right.
I hate sites like that. If any guy were to try that with me he'd end up with a swift kick to a place that isn't nice. >>; Granted, some women like that control but I'm not one of them and I don't put up with any kind of mind games. It's horrible advice to go to sites/magazines like that and things like Cosmo.
I think a lot of men have severe psychological issues because they think they always have to be the man and need to control everything, including their women. In truth, men are just as weak, and just as strong, as any woman. They need to relax and realize that being a man has nothing to do with control, and everything to do with kindness and the strength to do what's right.
I couldn't really concentrate on the point with wordings like "not only will you scare her straight, you will gain immeasurable respect and obedience"... Seriously..?
I don't want to be controlled neither be the controller. I want to hear opinion, evaluate things on my own and make the call without being guilt tripped or pushed. I'm also willing to give the decision making away from myself too as long as I get to express what I think.
If one can't deal with the way their partner is thinking I find it weird for them to want to stick together. I believe that relationships should be equal unless it's clearly the wish of both participants that they want to make it uneven in a way or another.
Put it short, I find it disturbing that a man (or a woman) would intentionally seek for a way to manipulate their partner like the article describes - even if they told openly about it.
Well if the article was left sexless and simply used "submissives" instead of "women" and "dominants" in place of "men", do you think it would apply?
And you make a good point, thank you.
Nope. Even in s/m relationships, I control my partner within the limits in which he is comfortable being controlled. I command my partner because I know he trusts and respects me enough to obey me. I don't manipulate shit.
Nope. Even in s/m relationships, I control my partner within the limits in which he is comfortable being controlled. I command my partner because I know he trusts and respects me enough to obey me. I don't manipulate shit.
Oh my GOD you just made my day!!!! 
