Upgrades From Performative

Euripes: He is not a lover who does not love forever.

Just as an exercise in brain growth, take this word, "forever", and let's apply it, and see how many places it lands, in reality. If you love forever, then, your love is timeless, yes? So, let's get "always" out the way, so we can attack the idea "the same." If you love forever, it also means that, you love, in all times, the same.

For example, if we were talking about some sweet, manly husband love, "He is no lover, who does not love, in all times, the same." Wow, so, is Euripedes actually telling us, that the quality of a husband's love, has to be the same, inside and outside of having sex, or, he is no husband? Whaaaa How do you love the same as when you're having sex, when you're not having sex? 

Do the same thing, with the word "One." They used to have an old saying, "It's all one." And, what that meant, was that you absolutely loved what was going on, as well as loved everything that COULD go on, the same. "It's all one, to me." And, if you make that statement, to communicate meaning, what you are saying, is that you love it all the same. So, it doesn't matter what happens, you love it all, equally. In other words, there is nothing that can happen that would be more. There is nothing, that would be less. INTERESTING.

Which is actually how you communicate to someone else, "You are not my love slave." That's how you ACTUALLY empower everyone, to be free, in whatever they decide to so, is, if it's actually true, for example, say if you're that husband, It would ACTUALLY have to be true, that sex is not more, and, no sex, is not less. 

Or how about this one: a husband, must love everyone the same. Otherwise, you're no lover, according to Euripides. How paradoxical! Love everyone the same. And yet, how can you love everyone the same, and still marry only one person? Hmm????? Riddle me THAT, Batman. What if sex isn't love?  It's just marriage? In which case, can you really perform sexually, and call that LOVE? No. You cannot. 

You see, when men break themselves out of the slave paradigm, and set themselves free, they stop viewing women as being in the way of loving women. And, they shift their focus, to seeing women as the way to love. (Both love women, and, the way to love, as in, "at all") Then, instead of asking himself what value he is obligated to plug in, where, he asks himself, what value exists because we exist?

Bible: Say of your brother, "My people." Say of your women, "The One that I LOVE."

In other words, what is the big power struggle, for men who rape themselves to perform? Permission. Permission. Permission. In other words, he refuses to acknowledge a woman giving herself in marriage, as "The One I GET TO love." And, because he cannot acknowledge that a woman giving herself, is a gift of permission to love, he never makes it all the way to the really good part: the one, where he asks himself, what would his experience of LOVE be like, if there were no women? He may get wise about getting consent, but he may never get to a place where he sees that her existence, is his possibility made actuality. In other words, she is not in the way. She is the way. She is the enablement. Without that one, there would be no one to love, there would be no such thing as love. 

If it is TRULY all one, to you, and nothing would be better, or worse, what else are you communicating? You are communicating "I love EVERYTHING we do, equally." You are making a statement, that refers to loving an entire person, all in one go. Brave new world eh. 

And, if women exist to be loved, and make love possible, then, what value would that be, without someone who can take that possibility, and make it a reality? Wow. This ALMOST sounds like we could come full circle, and set a value to the existence of men. Hmm. Too far? Too good? Dial it back a bit? Ok. Let's look at ownership. Insecure people love that shit.

What do you think, of calling a woman, "My LOVE"? As in, the possibility of my love, made real. What could that mean? Is that actually a statement that values both men, and women, all the same, all at once? In ONE GO?

 The thing that would not be possible, apart from both your existence making it possible..... simply by existing........ Hmm. that sounds suspiciously too much like valuing and nurturing to me. That sounds too much like validation, and attestation. 

That would certainly destroy the security, of men and women who are insecure, if men spoke with the voice of the witness, as opposed to the participant. "Does that mean you don't love me? Does that mean we are not one? Oh, the humanity. How can you be love, and also be a witness to love, at the same time? It's GOT to be one, or the other right?" **commence hand wringing ****sky falls down ******chicken little says "I told you so."

Elliot Alderson: "I would love to be one of them: you know, the naive; wrapped up in illusion."

Maybe we shall leave those power struggles for another day. Hmm? One baby step at a time? Yes? 

HERE is how you can identify a rape-values marriage. It's all very simple. They negotiate "Don't have to love" for women, but not for men. And, they negotiate "Get to love you" for men, but not for women. When you see those two dynamics in operation, you can correctly identify that as two slaves practicing rape.