>>14867618>No it's not, it takes strength and discipline to do those things.You know, this don't explain too much
>And these women create food, as well as nurture human life, which are definitely skills needed for survival.So do men, and they also bring the materials needed to make all that possible in the first place. It's not exclusively female. What's your point here?
>Most women back in the day didn't have careers, but they were stronger than fat women with desk jobs these days.If you're talking physical, jobs were more labor intensive back in the day. If you're talking mental, I agree.
>Submitting to the true nature of male sexual dominance, fully giving her body to a good man, having babies, and executing natural feminine duties in a way that is not being a pushover or being weak, but using good discernment, discipline, and being free.Hmmmmm so a (sex) servant that has control over the contract instead of the master? Dunno about this, that's basically what most modern women are and they're a mess. You probably know how it is out there. Besides, isn't this basically "I will be frail under my conditions. As long as he keeps pleasing me, I'll let him do as he pleases with me" or something along that line? That's strength? I think I see what you mean now, but this type of relationship is easily exploited by both sides. I see some of the appeal, but hardened Texan girl still takes the cake for me.
>There is no better feeling than having sex with a man who want to get impregnated by.What in the. How is this relevant?
>A man whom you don't view the essence of his masculinity as beneath you or threatening to you.Power dynamics should always be shifting, but cooperative. Depend on the man too much and you'll find yourself helpless in troubling times. Hardened Texan girl wouldn't have that problem, no sir.
