Why I want Women Extremely Humiliated and Humbled

In the end BDSM is all about female humiliation for me. So long as a female is sufficiently humiliated and treated worse than garbage, I will like it. If she is not humiliated, I just cannot like it, no matter how pretty she is.

I liked BDSM for a long time, but withing BDSM certain practices hold much more appeal to me than others. Anything that humiliates women and puts them down is an instant win for me. Even some mild non-BDSM like practices like girls licking each other's assholes or girls stacked on one another appeal to me. On the other hand, even if it is BDSM but a female looks too proud, I just cannot like it. Other things like women licking feet or toilets, drinking urine and more all appeal to me.

It comes to beauty standards too. Sure, I like certain things like short, slim, petite body shape, medium tits, black hair and generally Asian women, but these too are fundamentally less important than humiliation. Replace a humble Asian with a proud one and it does not work anymore. On the other hand, I like even old and fat women, so long as they are humiliated in a very extreme way. I liked a few girls, one would normally consider ugly, just because they were very humble and self-deprecating. 

That is why I prefer Japanese to Chinese, Japanese are humble and Chinese are proud. Japanese culture emphasizes humbleness and women there are exceptionally humble in demeanor, attire and manners. For example Kimono limits how far, they could move their legs, much like pencil skirt. It's there to restrain and humble them down. There are other particularly Japanese cultural rituals, like for example woman pouring drinks for a man, that emphasize humbleness. Also, there is plenty of bowing down before superiors. Bowing is a humble act women should do all the time. Chinese or Koreans are not like that, their culture emphasizes other things. Chinese generally try to look the most souped up possible. Meanwhile Korean traditional dress with above waist skirt is just ugly.

Generally, I prefer when woman is dressed in a way that humbles her down. Not in the meaning of plain simple dress, but in a meaning that lowers her status in some way. That is why I like maid outfits; maids are servants who are below those whom they serve. Lingerie, but not all lingerie, also mostly reduces woman status, it makes her fit into uncomfortable and impractical clothes all for male visual enjoyment and amusement. So is playboy bunny suit. On the other I detest clothes that emphasize high status and pride in women, something like business suit, large fur coat or tiara are things I hate most.

What also works is reducing woman to some small, humble animal. I like it when women crawl on all fours and wear a collar and a leash. In addition to playboy bunny, cat ears, pluggable tails all work. A pony girl is also a very sexy idea. On the other hand, things that reference predatorial animals, like leopard prints or tiger stripes do not appeal to me, as predators stand on top of food chain and women should be put down.

The reason for these tastes is probably the fact that my mother was very proud and entitled. She would never pass the opportunity to point out how great of a person she is and how that entitles her to respect and what not. I hate her with passion. That is why I prefer traits that are opposite of that of my mother. A typical psychological paradigm where man chooses his wife to either be like his mother or completely opposite of his mother. In that regard humbleness is the key trait because it's the opposite of pride. 

Thus, of all female traits there are, humbleness is the most important. A good female is a humiliated female; a female reduced to the level or garbage and treated as poorly as possible.

Relationship for Money

I have been writing a lot about what makes people attractive to each other. Many of it stir a lot of controversy, which only proves that I hit the spot. Some claimed they saw examples that contradict what I was saying, because someone was in a relationship for different reason. Exception that proves the rule I could say, but reality is that a lot of relationship are not based on love but on financial interests and the like. A guy can have a wife for money and a, secret or not, lover on the side for love. Then they have to put an appearance and pretend they love their wife even if they actually do not. So here is my article about relationship for money.

To begin with, as much as I would not want to quote Beatles on that, but money cannot buy love. They can create a relationship based on financial interest where one side buys attention and pretence from the other side for money or other material benefits, but its not love. No matter how much money one spends on such relationship, no matter how many sweet lies, affirming love, the other says both privately and publicly, none of it will ever make it true. The one who is in it for money will only stay for as long as money keep coming their way. When money stops so does the relationship, a cruel truth that sometimes becomes apparent far too late and may even led towards dramatic consequences. And even when relationship is still underway, the one who is in it for money may be physically there, but their heart and often mind certainly not, they are there with the one they truly love.

Relationship for money look a lot better on the surface than what they really are underneath. It's like clock where one only sees clockface and two, maybe three arms, but its countless cogs and gears underneath the clock face that actually make all that work. What people around them, friends, colleagues, relatives, their children and sometimes even one of the partners see is but a surface, a happy loving couple with kids. Some envy one of the partners, thinking just how they manage to get such an awesome guy/girl despite being so mid? The person in question either faintly smiles, trying to hide the truth or proudly puffs their chest, rubbing into their friends just how much better they are for having such an awesome partner. The partner too plays their part and talks and act like they love them just the way they are like in Bruno Mars songs. Idyllic...

Hardly so. Underneath all that awe and envy inspiring glitter are the real mechanics that actually make it work and a lot of them are not pretty. Think of Akio Ahtori from Revolutionary Girl Utena who got his job of School Principal for marrying owner's daughter. Money and status for faking love and family to a girl he does not really like. In fact his story illustrates the whole thing a lot better than many other media or characters. A 'price charming' of women's dreams, he is actually a devil of sorts. Most people do not like this character, but most will still go for someone like him in real life. Trophy wives and husbands are variations of this basic type. And do not forget he also has Anthy on the side.

In real life a rich guy, a president of some big company, who wants to marry out his spoiled 'princess' daughter may as well do exact the same thing and offer a prospecting husband a job of vice president at his company in exchange for marrying his daughter and playing role of loving husband for her. A sinecure fake job that pays a lot of money for his real job: pampering spoiled daughter of his benefactor. Sure its about what she wants but only to a level, its really about what her dad wants, so nothing too extreme like tying up his daughter no matter how much she wants it.

Exact details of this arrangement will be discussed behind closed doors only between the father in-law and son in-law or between two fathers from both sides. Each individual arrangement varies in exact terms and such but generally the more one side can and willing to pay, the more they can get from the other side. A very rich guy can really make his daughters life like that of a fairy tale princess. Someone with less money will have to settle for less. 

Needless to say for free this does not happen. Idea that some guy can get attracted to a boss girl in a suit because her managerial job appeals to him on emotional level, so he would save or borrow money to buy her expensive gifts and such is pure fantasy for female romance novels. In real life for every $100 spent on gifts for such a girl, a $200 is given to him by the dad in-law, $100 for gift itself and a second $100 is a renumeration for the trouble of making his daughter happy, something to spend on himself and feel it was worth the trouble. Exact amounts vary but you get the point, do not argue that someone did for a quid instead.

Since its a rather informal deal, a certain rapport between parties are needed. Both sides should be able to trust each other to play it well for it to work. Far not every two guys will be able to agree on a deal like that due to personal disagreements, personality clash and the like. Father in law might think that prospective husband does not have what it takes to care for his daughter properly and reject him. Someone too manly or strong-willed to respect his daughter is unlikely to be approved for the role. On the other side, a Potential husband too might find prospecting father in-law to be untrustworthy and either unable or unwilling to reward him sufficiently enough. Fathers doing it for their daughters so they might want to minimise the rewards the husband gets as much as possible, but that would make it a bad deal for a husband so they might refuse.

Speaking of rewards, they may include on a job sexy secretary for the future son in-law as an informal lover. A secretary he would actually find attractive and would fuck every day instead of actually working. Well his real job begins when he gets home, to pamper his spoiled wife and take care of domestic things. See Beth from Rick and Morty for an example, she literary said that family is her job and she is currently working when her husband asked her what she feels about him. Thus when he goes to his nominal sinecure job, its to rest and have fun instead. A sexy secretary can be replaced with a submissive Thai prostitute instead. Each arrangement is different after all. Aside from a lover, money they pay should be enough for various hobbles, booze and other ways to have fun.

Once again each such arrangement is different so even if you seen some Joe Shmo did this for a brass razoo and a pack of chewing gum, it does not mean a Joe Shmo of your choice will do it for the same amount. This is already an irregular arrangement so instead of rules that govern it like minimum wage, penalty rates and awards, there are informal deals that vary and can sometimes include some unusual exchanges.

And do not forget, that changes in socio-financial situation can topple this whole house of cards complex backroom deals. Rich dad losing his money somehow or any other complications and the paid husband is over. While women do mix business and relationship, most men tend to not. So, while some gold digging wives may actually stay, a guy would certainly not. For him is purely about money and if money stopped so does the relationship. Of course a lot of drama ensured, a relationship where one is in it for emotions and another one is for money, is bound to be full of misunderstanding and frustration. If you paid for electricity for 10 years and suddenly stopped, eventually an electrician will come to disconnect your property. You would look mad if you tell him something like "we were happy for 10 years together, how could you abandon me now?" Yet in for money relationship such emotional ploys are commonplace, regardless of which the outcome will be the same. Things can go sour very fast.

Many of these arrangements are sort of half-half situations, where guy a least somewhat likes his bride or wants family/children so father-in-law need only to somewhat sweeten the deal to make it work. The same will not work if the potential husband is completely indifferent or actually dislikes his prospective wife as more rewards are needed to win someone like that over. In some cases it can be completely impossible as what prospective husband wants/asks either too much or unacceptably a lot for a potential husband-in-law.

Finally can money glue together a couple where one actively dislikes the other partner. That is not low key dislikes (mid, meh), but hating with passion everything about them. I would say no. Fundamentally strong hatred would lead towards attempts to either minimise the contact with the partner or get rid of them completely, via poison, freak accident and such. Ultimately it is unsafe for both parties as things can go very ugly.

Its the same with deals where husband was somehow coerced into a relationship. If he does not feel he is getting enough he can always turn from loving and caring husband into cold, uncaring wife beater. The above mentioned poisoning or accident is also possible. Things could go sour if the guy was too young when he signed up for the deal and father in-law managed to sign him up for cheap. Such too good to be true deal will likely turn sour when husband will realize he is not getting enough and that might either get to ugly re-negotiation or ugly family spat.

A deal like this can leave woman completely oblivious towards real feelings her husband has about her. Some might suspect that he is cheating or lying when he says he loves her, but few would really understand what really is going on or what her daddy did and paid to make it all happen. That is why marriages like these end when father in law dies and there is no one to uphold his side of the deal and provide husband with his due rewards.

Theoretically a woman can negotiate her own deal with a potential husband, but few women really understand men enough to be able to do so. Since women do not values money as much as men do, most would instead will try various non-material things to win guy of their choice. Absolute majority of such efforts will not move him an inch and a fair quarter will make him hate her instead of falling in love with her.

A reverse of this arrangement when a guy pays for a woman, hoping to win her with gifts. It also often ends up in disappointment. Women typically do not see such gifts as essentially attempt to buy her with money and often reject the guy in the end by sating she only sees him as a friend. A lot of guys later lament over wasting so much time and money for nothing. That said it still works more often for guys rather then above-mentioned solo efforts for girls.

And a final note, money can buy relationships, but it cannot buy love. Guys will always look for soft sweet, cute little thing just as girls always look for gregarious muscular chads. There are exceptions, but they only confirm the rule. Even gay men who prefer other men instead of women, actually prefer these men to be soft sweet cute and little rather than big and macho. For women its either moe or forever alone. Everything else it a lie.

Children are out of Control and Parents are to Blame

I never particularly liked children, but it recently occurred to me that it might be not because the children themselves are so bad, but because of how parents raise them.

Children are traditionally viewed positively by society and so it parenthood. People are praised and sometimes even rewarded for being parents and taking care of children. At the same time, they are given certain leeway when it comes to things like behavior or noise their children make. That is done on assumption that it's hard to make children behave and that parents should not be blamed too hard if their kid does something wrong. They of course assume that parents do their best to educate their children on how to behave in a society and minimise trouble to people around them.

However, what if these assumptions are not correct. What if parents do not parent in good faith. What if instead of teaching children to behave they actually secretly encourage their disturbing behavior. Parents know their kids can get away with being noisy and obnoxious and deliberately encourage them to behave as insufferable as possible. Society at large does not blame the kids themselves up to a certainty age and even if they blame them, they never assume that parents would parent in bad faith and deliberately encourage kids to misbehave. Parents knowing they will not be blamed, will feel completely safe to miseducate their children.

Why would parents do that, many reasons actually. One simply projection of their desires to disturb society and upset the applecart onto kids. They wanted to do it but could not, now they tell their kids its alright because society at large assume kid would only do that if they did not know better. Second is desire to annoy as many people as possible. Some just cannot sit idle when they see someone just chilling, so they want to disturb them, either out of spite or just because seeing people chilling somehow annoys them. Finally, they might relish the idea of using parental privilege of sort, they know parents are forgiven for noise and misbehavior and they want to rub it into other people's faces. Kind of like "I have kids and it makes more special and superior to you, so suck it up and suffer as my kids annoy you to no end" type of behavior. There could be other reasons too.

Recent spike in very loud and very unruly kids made me think that parents are indeed parenting in bad faith and only encourage this bad behavior. Yes, sure sometimes kids make noise if they are hurt or something like that, but when they just screech like some kind of monster all the time, that is not normal. There must be something much more sinister than casual 'kids will be kids' behind such behavior.

I hope that government will notice this post and will look into children behavior as well as what causes it. Psychologists might be able to talk to kids and find out more about what motivates them to behave in such an anti-social way. Schools and kindergartens can be places to conduct such an investigation.