Comments by "Sammy B" (@sammyb1651) on "The trap of understanding: considerations are concessions" video.

@ephraimwinslow Additionally you're supposed to anticipate those needs, rather than react to them when prompted. This is because failing to anticipate them would require the woman to list them, which would expose her as being the incredibly demanding/selfish person she is. It would also be exhausting for her to have to do (the act of constant listing "needs"). They'd far rather it be exhausting for the man instead.
17
Interesting concession. But I sense it tinkers around the edges. Would you go further and admit the more substantive point that women have significantly greater wants/needs/demands than men do and consequently drive a pretty unfair bargain ab initio? As a younger man I always wondered why women constantly complained about how awful men were but then always leapt from man-to-man in relationships. It didn't make any sense if the complaint was actually true. Ultimately I realised it wasn't true and that women were the net beneficiaries of relationships (ie they received more from them than they put in), they were just much harder to please and constantly looking to trade up. Obviously if men were so bad women would stay single, but very few do. In fact very few can tolerate ANY appreciable period of single adult life. You live and learn. I certainly have. It's good to be able to see through female BS.
16
@VodPJ24uEgkkZT You forgot to add that the heroine is quite plain. But the billionaire badboy is tamed by her anyway because he's "deeper" than that and can see her inner beauty. And by "inner beauty" please read: neurotic, fragile, constantly needing validation and various other traits that are frankly useless to anyone (but which she regards as making her "quirky and unique"). And thats "quirky and unique" because they apply to her but they'd be an absolute liability if they applied to him. etc etc etc.
11
Change needs to begin with two different, gendered words for the emotion "love". The love that a man has for a woman and the love a woman has for a man. It is NOT the same thing and people need to understand it is NOT the same thing. Having the same word confuses things terribly and has done forever. It's needless. Love of man for woman - honour/duty based, compounding with age Love of woman for man - highly conditional, feelings based, not compounding with age. Also the adage...women fall in love easily, however they also fall out of love easily. Men have to "get over" love. We have to start being crystal clear about these critical distinctions. It's only women who benefit from the confusion.
7
Practically all heterosexual relationships are men ministering to women's myriad needs in some way or other. Women position themselves at the centre of the relationship and make the relationship about them. Apparently everyones s'posed to be okay with that and if you're not you're either "weird" "insecure" or (the catch all) "misogynistic".
2
@marcusmcgraw3519 It's shorthand tbh. There is some conditionality to it (arguably 'attractiveness' is a factor) but it's such an order of magnitude different as to be wholly distinguishable and hence distinct. The female conditionality is performative. The many, many things a man has to do/continue to do as a performative burden. The male conditionality is not. Women do not have a performative burden to discharge. In as far as they say the do, typically it's things they're doing for themselves/to make other women envious rather than for the pleasure or benefit of a man. Straight facts and not apologetic for saying so.
2