<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Vulnerability</title>
	<atom:link href="http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/23/vulnerability/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/23/vulnerability/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2015 20:23:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bachelor Nation &#124;</title>
		<link>http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/23/vulnerability/comment-page-5/#comment-92140</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bachelor Nation &#124;]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2015 19:38:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://therationalmale.com/?p=3597#comment-92140</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] I covered this reprogramming effort in Vulnerability: [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] I covered this reprogramming effort in Vulnerability: [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Isolationists &#124;</title>
		<link>http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/23/vulnerability/comment-page-5/#comment-90581</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Isolationists &#124;]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2015 01:23:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://therationalmale.com/?p=3597#comment-90581</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] I touched on this in Vulnerability: [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] I touched on this in Vulnerability: [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bear</title>
		<link>http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/23/vulnerability/comment-page-5/#comment-83326</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[bear]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2015 01:45:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://therationalmale.com/?p=3597#comment-83326</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Keep the vulnerability for your guy friends -never for your girl. She does not want to be your emotional tampon]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Keep the vulnerability for your guy friends -never for your girl. She does not want to be your emotional tampon</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chester</title>
		<link>http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/23/vulnerability/comment-page-5/#comment-73114</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chester]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:08:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://therationalmale.com/?p=3597#comment-73114</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rollo:

&quot;Notice how the emphasis is on “emotional” support. This is characteristic of a feminine-primary mental point of origin. No where is “material” support or protection security mentioned because “emotions” are the only valuable commodity worth mention or valuable in an egalitarian exchange – not a complementarian balance of mutually valuable support.&quot;

Could it be that there is no other type of support a woman would provide to a man anyways. Even in a complementary relationship, what woman would provide material support or protection to a man? Most men don&#039;t even see it as a possibility. If a woman does provide material support, it is very temporary and the man will have to pay it back with interest unless he is the &quot;alpha&quot; who fucks her without any type of commitment.

All that is to say that &quot;emotions&quot; are the only commodity any specific woman has to offer. Sex and children you can have with most woman. You don&#039;t need to &quot;love&quot; her or be in a relationship with her because she is &quot;special&quot; to you]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rollo:</p>
<p>&#8220;Notice how the emphasis is on “emotional” support. This is characteristic of a feminine-primary mental point of origin. No where is “material” support or protection security mentioned because “emotions” are the only valuable commodity worth mention or valuable in an egalitarian exchange – not a complementarian balance of mutually valuable support.&#8221;</p>
<p>Could it be that there is no other type of support a woman would provide to a man anyways. Even in a complementary relationship, what woman would provide material support or protection to a man? Most men don&#8217;t even see it as a possibility. If a woman does provide material support, it is very temporary and the man will have to pay it back with interest unless he is the &#8220;alpha&#8221; who fucks her without any type of commitment.</p>
<p>All that is to say that &#8220;emotions&#8221; are the only commodity any specific woman has to offer. Sex and children you can have with most woman. You don&#8217;t need to &#8220;love&#8221; her or be in a relationship with her because she is &#8220;special&#8221; to you</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/23/vulnerability/comment-page-5/#comment-72494</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2014 14:39:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://therationalmale.com/?p=3597#comment-72494</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Vulnerability done RIGHT is very attractive done wrong very unattractive. This texts explain in detail how to do it right and what is the wrong way to do it and why it works:

http://authenticmanprogram.com/new/downloads/AMP_POI_TrainingManual.pdf]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Vulnerability done RIGHT is very attractive done wrong very unattractive. This texts explain in detail how to do it right and what is the wrong way to do it and why it works:</p>
<p><a href="http://authenticmanprogram.com/new/downloads/AMP_POI_TrainingManual.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://authenticmanprogram.com/new/downloads/AMP_POI_TrainingManual.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J.J.</title>
		<link>http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/23/vulnerability/comment-page-5/#comment-72101</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[J.J.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:58:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://therationalmale.com/?p=3597#comment-72101</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rollo, thank you for your reply. I just want to point out that the extract I cited from that report implies that women have always been expected to provide emotional support - traditionally:

&quot;Previous blueprints for romantic relationships emphasized separate roles for men and women (Cancian, 1987). According to this traditional idea of relationships, women were responsible for providing emotional support to their partner, but men were not.&quot; 

This report indicates that support from women is dwindling and emotional support from men is increasing. My issue is with men being asked to give up any expectation of support, because apparently it is / has not ever truly the case that they were proving such support and this is what I am refuting. What I explained earlier on was that this is &quot;a duty&quot; (perceived as a duty by some) which women would like to absolve themselves from.

Yet no matter how we rationalise it - mutual support, albeit in different ways, is the foundation of relationships. Your opinion that this need on the part of men is due to the feminisation of males, I disagree with, but I respect your opinion and this is your blog. This is a human need. 

If I don&#039;t need any emotional support I would simply remain single, and / or GMOW (Which I am doing - no problem). 

If I am purely meant to be a support system (basically, a host for a parasite) for a/any woman - with little to zero benefits, except for a bit of sex now and again - if I&#039;m lucky - I would be... nothing less than a host for a parasite. I don&#039;t and I won&#039;t host parasites.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rollo, thank you for your reply. I just want to point out that the extract I cited from that report implies that women have always been expected to provide emotional support &#8211; traditionally:</p>
<p>&#8220;Previous blueprints for romantic relationships emphasized separate roles for men and women (Cancian, 1987). According to this traditional idea of relationships, women were responsible for providing emotional support to their partner, but men were not.&#8221; </p>
<p>This report indicates that support from women is dwindling and emotional support from men is increasing. My issue is with men being asked to give up any expectation of support, because apparently it is / has not ever truly the case that they were proving such support and this is what I am refuting. What I explained earlier on was that this is &#8220;a duty&#8221; (perceived as a duty by some) which women would like to absolve themselves from.</p>
<p>Yet no matter how we rationalise it &#8211; mutual support, albeit in different ways, is the foundation of relationships. Your opinion that this need on the part of men is due to the feminisation of males, I disagree with, but I respect your opinion and this is your blog. This is a human need. </p>
<p>If I don&#8217;t need any emotional support I would simply remain single, and / or GMOW (Which I am doing &#8211; no problem). </p>
<p>If I am purely meant to be a support system (basically, a host for a parasite) for a/any woman &#8211; with little to zero benefits, except for a bit of sex now and again &#8211; if I&#8217;m lucky &#8211; I would be&#8230; nothing less than a host for a parasite. I don&#8217;t and I won&#8217;t host parasites.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J.J.</title>
		<link>http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/23/vulnerability/comment-page-5/#comment-72099</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[J.J.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:33:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://therationalmale.com/?p=3597#comment-72099</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@ kateandluca / myrealitle


&quot;I just want the conversation to end there. I don’t want to have detailed discussions about all of the potential obstacles, mistakes, and hazards of his path. (Today so and so gave me a dirty look and then x,y,z happened and now I feel crappy). This minutia sucks the life out of me.&quot;

Fair enough - as someone else here suggested I think you should tell him this, because he doesn&#039;t realise that he&#039;s doing it (sharing too many details) - explain this to him - it&#039;s preferable to communicate it to him - rather than allowing it to fester and eventually to cause you walking away, without trying to solve / resolve it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ kateandluca / myrealitle</p>
<p>&#8220;I just want the conversation to end there. I don’t want to have detailed discussions about all of the potential obstacles, mistakes, and hazards of his path. (Today so and so gave me a dirty look and then x,y,z happened and now I feel crappy). This minutia sucks the life out of me.&#8221;</p>
<p>Fair enough &#8211; as someone else here suggested I think you should tell him this, because he doesn&#8217;t realise that he&#8217;s doing it (sharing too many details) &#8211; explain this to him &#8211; it&#8217;s preferable to communicate it to him &#8211; rather than allowing it to fester and eventually to cause you walking away, without trying to solve / resolve it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Teach Your Children Well &#124;</title>
		<link>http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/23/vulnerability/comment-page-5/#comment-72039</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Teach Your Children Well &#124;]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2014 05:33:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://therationalmale.com/?p=3597#comment-72039</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] post because it encapsulates precisely what I was describing towards the end of my post on Vulnerability, that our modern normative social consciousness is one that is defined by a female-correct, [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] post because it encapsulates precisely what I was describing towards the end of my post on Vulnerability, that our modern normative social consciousness is one that is defined by a female-correct, [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
