Klaus Schwab, impresario of the World Economic Forum, released a manifesto in the run-up to this year’s annual meeting at Davos, Switzerland, in which he called for a contemporary equivalent to the postwar conferences that established the liberal international order. “After the Second World War, leaders from across the globe came together to design a new set of institutional structures to enable the post-war world to collaborate towards building a shared future,” he wrote. “The world has changed, and as a matter of urgency, we must undertake this process again.” Schwab went on to call for a new moment of collective design for globalization’s alleged fourth iteration (creatively labeled Globalization 4.0).
Schwab is not the first to make this kind of appeal. Since the financial crisis, there have been repeated calls for a “new Bretton Woods”—the conference in 1944 at which, in Schwab’s words, “leaders from across the globe came together to design” a financial system for the postwar era, establishing the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in the process. It was the moment at which U.S. hegemony proved its most comprehensive and enlightened by empowering economist-statesmen, foremost among them John Maynard Keynes, to lead the world out of the postwar ruins and the preceding decades of crisis. Under Washington’s wise leadership, even rancorous Europe moved toward peaceful and prosperous integration.
This is a story with wide support in places like Davos. It’s also one that deserves far more scrutiny. Its history of the founding of the postwar order is wrong; more important, its implicit theory about how international order emerges—through a collective design effort by world leaders coming together to reconcile their interests—is fundamentally mistaken. What history actually suggests is that order tends to emerge not from cooperation and deliberation but from a cruder calculus of power and material constraints.
Bretton Woods may have been a conference of experts and officials, but it was first and foremost a gathering of a wartime alliance engaged in the massive mobilization effort of total war. The conference met in July 1944 in the weeks following D-Day and the final Soviet breakthrough on the Eastern Front. As a wartime rather than a postwar meeting, disagreements were minimized. Though the conference was about the future order of the international economy and though the aim of the talks was to link national economies back together, the building blocks were centralized, state-controlled war economies. The Bretton Woods negotiators were government officials, not businessmen or bankers. As they had done since the collapse of the global financial system in the early 1930s, central bankers played second fiddle to treasury officials. The Americans who were bankrolling the Allied war effort called the shots.
The basic monetary vision of Bretton Woods was to create order by establishing fully convertible currencies at fixed exchange rates, with the dollar pegged to gold. But the tough conditions of the Bretton Woods monetary architecture set by the United States proved far too demanding for war-weakened European economies. When Britain, the least damaged economy in Europe, tried to implement free convertibility of pounds into dollars, its attempt collapsed at the first hurdle in 1947; the social democratic Labour Party government in London quickly moved to stop the subsequent drain of precious dollars by reimposing exchange controls and tightening import quotas. Meanwhile, the grand design for a free trade order embodied by the Havana Charter and the International Trade Organization fell afoul of the U.S. Congress and was thus stopped in its tracks. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was its cumbersome and slow-moving replacement.
The talk of a connection between the present and the Bretton Woods moment is legitimated perhaps above all by the claimed continuity of the IMF and the World Bank, which were duly set up in December 1945. But beyond institutional titles, this supposed continuity is largely false. Within a year of the founding of its key institutions, almost the entire global agenda of Bretton Woods was put on ice. Already in 1946 the Soviet Union absented itself from the formation of the IMF and the World Bank.
With the Cold War paralyzing the U.N. institutions that had originally been intended to frame Bretton Woods, what emerged under U.S. hegemony was a far narrower postwar order centered on the North Atlantic. The Marshall Plan of 1948 was not so much a complement to Bretton Woods as an acknowledgement of its failure. For true liberals in both the United States and Europe, who hankered after the golden age of globalization in the late 19th century, the resulting Cold War economic order was a profound disappointment. The U.S. Treasury and the first generation of neoliberals in Europe fretted against the U.S. State Department and its interventionist economic tendencies. Mavericks such as the young Milton Friedman—true advocates of free markets in the way we take for granted today—demanded a bonfire of all regulations. They insisted that rather than exchange rates being fixed, currencies should be allowed to float with their value defined by competitive markets. In the 1950s, Friedman could be dismissed as eccentric.
The reality of the liberal order that supposedly came into existence in the postwar moment was the more or less haphazard continuation of wartime controls. It would take until 1958 before the Bretton Woods vision was finally implemented. Even then it was not a “liberal” order by the standard of the gilded age of the 19th century or in the sense that Davos understands it today. International mobility of capital for anything other than long-term investment was strictly limited. Liberalization of trade also made slow progress. The gradual abolition of exchange controls went hand in hand with the lifting of trade quotas. Only when these more elementary limitations on foreign trade were removed did tariff negotiations become relevant. GATT’s lumbering deliberations did not begin making major inroads until the Kennedy round of the 1960s, 20 years after the end of the war. And rising global trade was a mixed blessing. Huge German and Japanese trade surpluses put pressure on the Bretton Woods exchange rate system. This was compounded in the 1960s by the connivance of U.S. Treasury and U.K. authorities in enabling Wall Street to sidestep financial repression and launch the unregulated eurodollar market, based in bank accounts in London.
By the late 1960s, barely more than 10 years old, Bretton Woods was already in terminal trouble. And when confronted with demands for deflation, U.S. President Richard Nixon reverted to economic nationalism. Between 1971 and 1973, he unhitched the dollar from gold and abandoned any effort to defend the exchange rate, sending the dollar plunging and helping to restore something closer to trade balance. If our own world has a historic birthplace, it was not in 1945 but in the early 1970s with the advent of fiat money and floating exchange rates. The unpalatable truth is that our world was born not out of wise collective agreement but out of chaos, unleashed by America’s unilateral refusal any longer to underwrite the global monetary order.
As the tensions built up in the 1960s exploded, foreign exchange instability contributed to a historically unprecedented surge in inflation across the Western world. We now know that this era of inflationary instability would be concluded by the market revolution and what Ben Bernanke dubbed the “great moderation.” But once again hindsight should not blind us to the depth of the crisis and uncertainty prevailing at the time. The first attempts to restore order were not by way of the market revolution but by the means of corporatism—direct negotiations among governments, trade unions, and employers with a view of limiting the vicious spiral of prices and wages. This promised a direct control of inflation by way of price setting. But its effect was to stoke an ever-greater politicization of the economy. With left-wing social theorists diagnosing a crisis of capitalist democracy, the trilateral commission warned of democratic ungovernability.
What broke the deadlock was not some inclusive conference of stakeholders. The stakeholders in the 1970s were obstreperous trade unions, and that kind of consultation was precisely the bad habit that the neoliberal revolutionaries set out to break. The solution, as U.S. Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker’s recent memoirs make embarrassingly clear, was blunt force wielded by the Fed. Volcker’s unilateral interest rate hike, the sharp revaluation of the dollar, deindustrialization, and the crash of surging unemployment dealt a death blow to organized labor and tamed inflationary pressure. The Volcker shock established so-called independent central bankers as the true arbiters of the new dispensation.
They put paid to what Margaret Thatcher referred to as the “enemy within.” But the global victory of the liberal order required a more far-reaching struggle. The world of the market revolution of the 1980s was still divided between communism and capitalism, between first, second, and third worlds. The overcoming of those divisions was a matter of power politics first and foremost, negotiation second. The United States and its allies in Europe raised the pressure on the Soviet Union, and after a period of spectacularly heightened tension, Mikhail Gorbachev chose to de-escalate, unwittingly precipitating the union’s collapse.
The truth is that the postwar moment that the Davos crowd truly hankers after is not that of 1945 but the aftermath of the Cold War, the moment of Western triumph. It was finally in 1995 that the Bretton Woods vision of a comprehensive world trade organization was realized. A sanitized version of this moment would describe it as a third triumph of enlightened technocracy. After Bretton Woods and the defeat of inflation, this was the age of the Washington Consensus. But as in those previous moments, its underpinnings were power politics: at home the humbling of organized labor, abroad the collapse of Soviet challenge and the decision by the Beijing regime to embark on the incorporation of China into the world economy.
Since 2008, that new order has come under threat from its own internal dysfunction, oppositional domestic politics, and the geopolitical power shift engendered by truly widespread convergent growth. The crisis goes deep. It is not surprising that there should be calls for a new institutional design. But we should be careful what we wish for. If history is anything to go by, that new order will not emerge from an enlightened act of collective leadership. Ideas and leadership matter. But to think that they by themselves found international order is to put the cart before the horse. What will resolve the current tension is a power grab by a new stakeholder determined to have its way. And the central question of the current moment is whether the West is ready for that. If not, we should get comfortable with the new disorder.
makati1 on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 6:19 pm
East up! West down. Simple, yes? LOL
Davy on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 6:52 pm
Anyone honest and with a brain can see the EastDown WestDown! Those who are blind and uneducated and peddle emotional agendas think otherwise.
Simple, yes? LOL
Davy on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:00 pm
df41.ch
Davy on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:04 pm
Here is some AsiaUp news:
“Shocking New AP Report Shows WHO Actively Covered Up For China’s Lies”
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/shocking-new-ap-report-shows-who-actively-covered-chinas-lies
“On Tuesday, as the US heals from a long weekend of violence and unrest, the AP has published a new report based on the details of a never-before-reported internal call where WHO higher-ups discussed what to do about China’s obstinance, fearing a re-run of SARS. The recording reveals that Beijing didn’t immediately cooperate with the WHO, as the WHO had previously claimed, but instead dragged its feet, much to the consternation of several top officials at the UN-linked NGO. Not only did the CCP deliberately suppress critical info about the outbreak in Wuhan (identities and other patient-related data), but Beijing also withheld a map of the virus’s genome for roughly a week after researchers finished mapping it, among other transgressions (Remember when the WHO praised China’s decision to swiftly map and share the virus genome as unassailable evidence that Beijing cares about accountability?) When China finally released the information to the WHO, they apparently only did so because a team of Chinese researchers had shared the information with another third party…After all, while we might not possess any direct evidence that the novel coronavirus leaked from a biolab in Wuhan, it’s now become abundantly cleared that Beijing lied, and people died, and the WHO failed in its mission to safeguard the public health of the most vulnerable nations.”
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:05 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:00 pm
df41.ch
More from the lunatic on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:09 pm
Davy on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 6:52 pm
Davy on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:00 pm
Davy on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:04 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:05 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:20 pm
More from the lunatic on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:09 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 6:52 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:00 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:04 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:05 pm
makati1 on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:25 pm
Delusional Davy, YOUR brainwashed opinion does NOT reflect the real world. But then, the real world is not allowed access to Amerika, only propaganda. Not too long ago, China was the US’ best buddy. Now that China is surpassing the US in most everything but bullshit. it has become enemy number one.
What happened to Russia? That was all the news until recently. Change of propaganda because there is nothing the US can do to Russia without losing everything in a nuke war? Soon, Amerika will realize that there is nothing they can do to hurt or stop China either. Amerika the loser!
Ah, Amerikan hypocrisy! Exceeded only by its lies and bullshit. So many negatives about Amerika in the news today. Nothing positive.
GO TRUMP! Take Amerika Down! GO FOR IT! LOL
makati1 on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:27 pm
BTW: if you think that the mega multinational corporations are going to give up China and a market 4 times that of the 3rd world US, you are more deluded than even Trump.
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:31 pm
“Delusional Davy, YOUR brainwashed opinion does NOT reflect the real world. But then, the real world is not allowed access to Amerika, only propaganda.”
Davy is right on this one, Mak, You are dead wrong.
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:32 pm
“BTW: if you think that the mega multinational corporations are going to give up China and a market 4 times that of the 3rd world US, you are more deluded than even Trump.”
That is what they are doing, Mak, or have you missed the economic news?
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:36 pm
New Russian policy allows use of atomic weapons against non-nuclear strike
MOSCOW — President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday endorsed Russia’s nuclear deterrent policy, which allows him to use atomic weapons in response to a conventional strike targeting the nation’s critical government and military infrastructure. By including a non-nuclear attack as a possible trigger for Russian nuclear retaliation, the document appears to send a warning signal to the U.S. The new expanded wording reflects Russian concerns about the development of prospective weapons that could give Washington the capability to knock out key military assets and government facilities without resorting to atomic weapons.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/06/02/new-russian-policy-allows-use-of-atomic-weapons-against-non-nuclear-strike/
Davy on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:43 pm
That is what we have India lined up for. China isn’t even cheap anymore, our companies need higher profits. Modi is playing ball, infact we just invited him as part of the “Five Eyes”, India is now the Sixth Eye, keep track of China. They are already scaring China off from the border dispute. If China doesn’t want to be our cheap factory, India is more than happy to do so. With the semiconductor ban and our alliance securing the South China Sea region, China will be handicapped and blockaded; effectively contained. India is more than happy to take that place.
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:47 pm
I was wondering what happened to the Brics and the Bric Bank. Mak, has there been any new news on that front with your AsiaUp stuff?
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:48 pm
Mak, since you have your hand on the heartbeat of Asia have you heard anything on the gold backed petro-yuan? Remember how exciting that was a few years ago?
Davy on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:53 pm
Mak,
quick question, if you give an answer make sure its the honest real truth… : so hypothetical if you were in long-distance that forced physical separation for very long while and anyways eventually your long distance guy proposed that you could go all the way to the threshold with another man but without crossing over (penetration) and say you accepted that proposal/arrangement… then one night while you were sad/ lonely/ drunk/ depressed/ and horny came home with a random local guy and proceeded to share a bed together under the cover of satin sheets with clothes off and both completely in the nude and then he eventually started the prep and sequence of intercourse with you and going down to business etc, and then the very instant and moment the mushroom head/tip of his enlarged and rock hardened manhood was about to fully penetrate into your womanhood (lets say he had been teasing you and building up to the moment by using the his tip of his mushroom head and fervently massaging your aroused and enraged flowerly womanhood entrance for a long while by then, getting you fully lubed, wet and ready for the act) and at that precise moment you remembered your promise to the long-distance guy, despite your body craving for D, — nevermind the fact that by now your womanhood is quivering and undulating uncontrollably in a torrid of insatiable lust, your aroused vulva and surrounding edifices buckling like a wild horse, and your clit pulsating and throbbing with imminent need for that kind of wanton intimacy — do you think you could still fight it off at the precipice of surrender or would you give in and let it happen and feel guilty later on?
Hypotheticaly whats your breaking point? pretend your long distance guy wanted you to test your loyal and to be in a situation in which you shared bed with another guy completely nude and extremely easy to slip up, at what point in the process does it reach a point of no return for you? if you would share with me your thought process and/or deliberation and decision making on that…
Duncan Idaho on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:54 pm
“We are serfs ruled by obscenely rich, omnipotent masters who loot the U.S. Treasury, pay little or no taxes and have perverted the judiciary, the media and the legislative branches of government to strip us of civil liberties and give them the freedom to commit financial fraud and theft.”
More from the lunatic on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:55 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:20 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:31 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:32 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:36 pm
Davy on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:43 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:47 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:48 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:55 pm
annon,
… then one night while you were sad/ lonely/ drunk/ depressed/ and horny came home with a random local guy and proceeded to share a bed together under the cover of satin sheets with clothes off and both completely in the nude and then he eventually started the prep and sequence of intercourse with you and going down to business etc, and then the very instant and moment the mushroom head/tip of precipice of surrender or would you give in and let it happen and feel guilty later on?
Hypotheticaly whats your breaking point? pretend your long distance guy wanted you to test your loyal and to be in a situation in which you shared bed with another guy completely nude and extremely easy to slip up, at what point in the process does it reach a point of no return for you? if you would share with me your thought process and/or deliberation and decision making on that…
quick question, if you give an answer make sure its the honest real truth… : so hypothetical if you were in long-distance that forced physical separation for very long while and anyways eventually your long distance guy proposed that you could go all the way to the threshold with another man but without crossing over (penetration) and say you accepted that proposal/arrangement
his enlarged and rock hardened manhood was about to fully penetrate into your womanhood (lets say he had been teasing you and building up to the moment by using the his tip of his mushroom head and fervently massaging your aroused and enraged flowerly womanhood entrance for a long while by then, getting you fully lubed, wet and ready for the act) and at that precise moment you remembered your
promise to the long-distance guy, despite your body craving for D, — nevermind the fact that by now your womanhood is quivering and undulating uncontrollably in a torrid of insatiable lust, your aroused vulva and surrounding edifices buckling like a wild horse, and your clit pulsating and throbbing with imminent need for that kind of wanton intimacy — do you think you could still fight it off at the
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:56 pm
Moar from the lunatic on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:55 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:20 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:31 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:32 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:36 pm
Davy on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:43 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:47 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:48 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:58 pm
I am obscenely rich and loot the U.S. Treasury, pay little or no taxes and have perverted the judiciary, the media and the legislative branches of government to strip us of civil liberties and give them the freedom to commit financial fraud and theft.
Davy on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:58 pm
My Dearest Mak,
Do you believe love conquers all? In your view, does a true and perfect love make life seemingly all worthwhile? This may come as a surprise, but I would like to know if given the chance and the choice, could you potentially open your heart to the possibility of being with a partner who is unable to give you that kind of physical comfort that most couples take for granted?
It would seem that you deeply cherish the sort of close-knit interpersonal interactions, probably because it offers a more compelling alive dynamic and likely because it may also be too emotionally draining to attempt to nurture those sorts of personal collisions with more than a handful of others. Not sure if you heard of Dunbar’s number, but essentially there is a hardcoded upper cognitive limit to the number of meaningful relationships humans are capable of carrying on at any one time. But more than just that, though, when it comes to dyadic interpersonal romantic relationships, I once read about something called “village theory” in which it states that once a woman has fallen in love a few times she uses up her “slots” and cannot truly love as deeply ever again. So I believe it underscores the importance and priority that should be ideally placed on finding the right one and that doing so carelessly diminishes both the value of such experiences and the ability to experience deeply and love fervently.
You don’t have to feel obligated to reply, but I would still really appreciate it if you could hear me out on what I have to share and keep an open mind before you came to any final conclusions.
Just imagine for one moment that hypothetically your man was unable to give you pleasure through traditional intercourse due to an accident that robbed him of the functionality of his manhood and thus his ability to have penetrative sex with his lady… Would this single but (understandably) critical defect come between your love for him and inevitably become an insurmountable obstacle in your relationship? I wonder.. would you continue loving him despite his unfortunate setback? Or would you invariably grow resentful of his condition and as your pity for him fades you eventually distance yourself from him as the full implications and the realities dawned upon you?
I’m sure some girls would deeply miss that longing for the wild rage of intercourse, and still there are other women who could never sacrifice the experience of becoming pregnant nor the intimate bonding and maternal joys of giving birth to her own biological children… But what about you? I know it is different for each woman and I want to know what would you do, and what are your personal views?
Could engrossing late night conversations, fervent cuddles, heated kisses and passionate touches and lots of laughter and a friendship-set-on-fire truly substitute and make up for the inability to ever “do it” with your future boyfriend or husband? If he was always very kind and loving towards you and did everything he could to make you a very happy woman in every other way, would this be “enough” for you to make that sort of heavy sacrifice? Might you consider being completely emotionally and physically faithful in a relationship that was otherwise perfect in all other ways but devoid of vaginal sex? I don’t mean to be crude or judgmental at all, but could you see yourself as such a strong, loving, patient, graceful and enduring woman? I am well aware there are other methods to please a woman, namely through the use of hands and stimulation in other ways, etc… but what would you do if you missed and craved that primitive act and how could you possibly reconcile or sublimate that itch, longing and such natural instinctive urges and desires?
Is something like this a total deal-breaker or could you possibly give someone like him a chance to date you or at least get to know you better as a person and a friend to see if feelings would develop or emerge down the road? Lastly, if you were to reflect on the true nature of love, do you think a perfect and unconditional love could overcome the lack of such physical comforts … or is there an unconquerable limit to even the most real, kind, patient and fervent love? Honestly, what do you think happiness, life and love is all about? Would you be willing to look past the temptations of the flesh and other carnal desires… and instead to seek to transform into a higher plane and greater mode of discovery, exploration and enjoyment of a more intense, alive, aware and expansive love and existence.
I’m guessing even if you aren’t still a virgin that you haven’t really been with a lot of guys. Fear of sex aside, if you are one of those girls who want to wait until after marriage to have sex – or even if its before marriage but after you have already identified the guy as whom you want to spend the rest of your life with – then I’m sure you would tell yourself if the guy whom you were seeing truly loved you enough and genuinely cared about you then he would understand, he would have patience and he would take it slow and respect your boundaries. Especially if you are the type of woman who believes in true love and that there is a man out there for you whom you’re meant to meet, perhaps someone whom you’ve never met yet, then it would be somewhat disloyal for you to completely give yourself to this other guy who just so happened to come before the guy you were ultimately meant to end up with, in a way depriving your future husband of what was meant to be the one most precious gift you could ever give him.
On the other hand you seem like the kind of woman who enters into a relationship with purpose, conviction and intention, and in a sense I would imagine that there is a part of you that wonders maybe this is it, maybe he is or will be or become the right one for you over time and that you just didn’t know it yet. In such a case, holding back too much can actually be detrimental. Because men can also be sensitive too, and when you do end up with him, even years or decades later he’ll think back to when he was still beginning to date you, the early stages of your relationship together and always remember how cautious you were, how you were so conservative towards him and the relationship, and how you put up all those walls and boundaries and I think as a man a part of him will always wonder if you had merely settled for him simply because the man of your dreams that you were trying to be loyal to, whom you secretly held on to, had never showed up.
So it is a delicate balance when dating someone of having to ride between giving too much too quickly and not giving or sharing enough of yourself, of not really letting it in.
In the context of a long term and loving relationship that had the expressed mutual intent of leading towards marriage is it then conceivable that you might over time come to feel safe enough and build enough trust and respect with this one other person to be okay with sharing a bed with him at night? I’m not talking about sex but rather that of simply sleeping together and the act of falling asleep together and waking up in the morning together. And consequently, if you loosened those boundaries and he later proved to have respected them would you furthermore consider sleeping together with less articles of clothing, eventually completely nude and naked without any other physical barriers or hindrances of any sort, be it clothes or bed sheets, and with full body skin to skin contact. I think it could be equally as compelling if not in some ways even more intensely so, to grow to trust someone deeply enough to sleep with him in the nude, spooning and cuddling, with him perhaps even allowed to caress your breasts, or to pet you wildly, or make love to you with his fingering of you, enjoying your wetness and female essence, all the while not actually crossing that unspoken line, not breaking that barrier or boundary or threshold of no return… indeed all of this in totality could be more intense than that of the act of physical intercourse and sexual penetration itself.
I feel this way because something like this is perhaps the best way a woman can invite and entice a man to love her, a way for her to give him the gift of her vulnerability, her femininity and her captivating essence while still maintaining her dignity and purity, and having respect for herself by not going all the way until she was absolutely sure she was ready to completely let go and surrender.
Love,
Davy
More from Davy, the lunatic on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 8:01 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:55 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:56 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:58 pm
Davy on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:58 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 8:02 pm
My Dearest annon, I’m sure some girls would deeply miss that longing for the wild rage of intercourse, and still there are other women who could never sacrifice the experience of becoming pregnant nor the intimate bonding and maternal joys of giving birth to her own biological children… But what about you? I know it is different for each woman and I want to know what would you do, and what are your personal views? I’m guessing even if you aren’t still a virgin that you haven’t really been with a lot of guys. Fear of sex aside, if you are one of those girls who want to wait until after marriage to have sex – or even if its before marriage but after you have already identified the guy as whom you want to spend the rest of your life with – then I’m sure you would tell yourself if the guy whom you were seeing truly loved you enough and genuinely cared about you then he would understand, he would have patience and he would take it slow and respect your boundaries. Especially if you are the type of woman who believes in true love and that there is a man out there for you whom you’re meant to meet, perhaps someone whom you’ve never met yet, then it would be somewhat disloyal for you to completely give yourself to this other guy who just so happened to come before the guy you were ultimately meant to end up with, in a way depriving your future husband of what was meant to be the one most precious gift you could ever give him.
It would seem that you deeply cherish the sort of close-knit interpersonal interactions, probably because it offers a more compelling alive dynamic and likely because it may also be too emotionally draining to attempt to nurture those sorts of personal collisions with more than a handful of others. Not sure if you heard of Dunbar’s number, but essentially there is a hardcoded upper cognitive limit to the number of meaningful relationships humans are capable of carrying on at any one time. But more than just that, though, when it comes to dyadic interpersonal romantic relationships, I once read about something called “village theory” in which it states that once a woman has fallen in love a few times she uses up her “slots” and cannot truly love as deeply ever again. So I believe it underscores the importance and priority that should be ideally placed on finding the right one and that doing so carelessly diminishes both the value of such experiences and the ability to experience deeply and love fervently.
You don’t have to feel obligated to reply, but I would still really appreciate it if you could hear me out on what I have to share and keep an open mind before you came to any final conclusions.
Do you believe love conquers all? In your view, does a true and perfect love make life seemingly all worthwhile? This may come as a surprise, but I would like to know if given the chance and the choice, could you potentially open your heart to the possibility of being with a partner who is unable to give you that kind of physical comfort that most couples take for granted?Just imagine for one moment that hypothetically your man was unable to give you pleasure through traditional intercourse due to an accident that robbed him of the functionality of his manhood and thus his ability to have penetrative sex with his lady… Would this single but (understandably) critical defect come between your love for him and inevitably become an insurmountable obstacle in your relationship? I wonder.. would you continue loving him despite his unfortunate setback? Or would you invariably grow resentful of his condition and as your pity for him fades you eventually distance yourself from him as the full implications and the realities dawned upon you?
Could engrossing late night conversations, fervent cuddles, heated kisses and passionate touches and lots of laughter and a friendship-set-on-fire truly substitute and make up for the inability to ever “do it” with your future boyfriend or husband? If he was always very kind and loving towards you and did everything he could to make you a very happy woman in every other way, would this be “enough” for you to make that sort of heavy sacrifice? Might you consider being completely emotionally and physically faithful in a relationship that was otherwise perfect in all other ways but devoid of vaginal sex? I don’t mean to be crude or judgmental at all, but could you see yourself as such a strong, loving, patient, graceful and enduring woman? I am well aware there are other methods to please a woman, namely through the use of hands and stimulation in other ways, etc… but what would you do if you missed and craved that primitive act and how could you possibly reconcile or sublimate that itch, longing and such natural instinctive urges and desires?
Is something like this a total deal-breaker or could you possibly give someone like him a chance to date you or at least get to know you better as a person and a friend to see if feelings would develop or emerge down the road? Lastly, if you were to reflect on the true nature of love, do you think a perfect and unconditional love could overcome the lack of such physical comforts … or is there an unconquerable limit to even the most real, kind, patient and fervent love? Honestly, what do you think happiness, life and love is all about? Would you be willing to look past the temptations of the flesh and other carnal desires… and instead to seek to transform into a higher plane and greater mode of discovery, exploration and enjoyment of a more intense, alive, aware and expansive love and existence.
On the other hand you seem like the kind of woman who enters into a relationship with purpose, conviction and intention, and in a sense I would imagine that there is a part of you that wonders maybe this is it, maybe he is or will be or become the right one for you over time and that you just didn’t know it yet. In such a case, holding back too much can actually be detrimental. Because men can also be sensitive too, and when you do end up with him, even years or decades later he’ll think back to when he was still beginning to date you, the early stages of your relationship together and always remember how cautious you were, how you were so conservative towards him and the relationship, and how you put up all those walls and boundaries and I think as a man a part of him will always wonder if you had merely settled for him simply because the man of your dreams that you were trying to be loyal to, whom you secretly held on to, had never showed up.
So it is a delicate balance when dating someone of having to ride between giving too much too quickly and not giving or sharing enough of yourself, of not really letting it in.
In the context of a long term and loving relationship that had the expressed mutual intent of leading towards marriage is it then conceivable that you might over time come to feel safe enough and build enough trust and respect with this one other person to be okay with sharing a bed with him at night? I’m not talking about sex but rather that of simply sleeping together and the act of falling asleep together and waking up in the morning together. And consequently, if you loosened those boundaries and he later proved to have respected them would you furthermore consider sleeping together with less articles of clothing, eventually completely nude and naked without any other physical barriers or hindrances of any sort, be it clothes or bed sheets, and with full body skin to skin contact. I think it could be equally as compelling if not in some ways even more intensely so, to grow to trust someone deeply enough to sleep with him in the nude, spooning and cuddling, with him perhaps even allowed to caress your breasts, or to pet you wildly, or make love to you with his fingering of you, enjoying your wetness and female essence, all the while not actually crossing that unspoken line, not breaking that barrier or boundary or threshold of no return… indeed all of this in totality could be more intense than that of the act of physical intercourse and sexual penetration itself.
I feel this way because something like this is perhaps the best way a woman can invite and entice a man to love her, a way for her to give him the gift of her vulnerability, her femininity and her captivating essence while still maintaining her dignity and purity, and having respect for herself by not going all the way until she was absolutely sure she was ready to completely let go and surrender.
Love,
JuanPee
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 8:02 pm
More from JuanP, the lunatic on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 8:01 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:55 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:56 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:58 pm
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 7:58 pm
REAL Green on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 8:04 pm
Quit Fermin around on Moms computer Davy.
Its passed yer bedtime child
Davy on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 8:05 pm
Dear Makky:
Sometimes its possible to lose interest or fall out of love without having already discovered someone else first, but other times it could be that you were still in like/love but merely by happenstance bumped into someone whom you evolved and developed even deeper feelings for. In the second case, where would you set the boundaries or draw the lines between allowing it to naturally form to see if something that intense or deep actually happens, or… vs more immediately rebuffing and nipping it in the bud before its even allowed to kindle and start at all? There seems to be a wide range or spectrum of actions that can start off really innocent that could lead towards some outcomes. A lot of relationships, perhaps even the most ideal of ones, take hard work sometimes and giving up or giving in too easily could be regrettable, yet on the other end of the spectrum there might geniunely be times where allowing the heart to override second-order constructs like loyality, commitment etc might in the long run be the best outcome for everyone involved. (ending up with someone whom you didn’t feel THAT strongly for, esp. if you discovered someone else whom you feel like you did feel that much more strongly for, wouldn’t really be doing anyone any favors). Hypothetically if push came to shove and you were to slip up, would it be more emotional aspect or physical aspect first? or put another way, which aspect are you more susceptible
what do you think about dating a guy long term who refrained from intercourse before marriage. Say its been a few months and you feel completely natural and trusting when around him, so much that you are comfortable sharing a bed together (sleep/cuddle) bare under the sheets, basically with no other articles of clothing between you and him. Lets say he was enthusiastic about satisfying you in every way leading up to the final act but just not including it… is that a compromise you could ever consider? I actually think establishing that kind of want and creating that sort of sustained build up could make things that much more alive, intense, lasting, but perhaps you don’t agree. btw hypothetically how long could you realistically go without any physical intimacy before it became overwhelming or overbearing.
Yours,
Davy
l on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 8:13 pm
supertards
pls love supremacist muzzies more
muzzie threw molokov cocktail
no mention of muzzie. it’s a muzzie but it’s not a muzzie.
confused?
#me2bro
Duncan Idaho on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 8:52 pm
Lots of pigs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUUgthmzCgU
JuanP on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 9:38 pm
Washington lied, people died! Same old, same old! Exceptionalism at its best! LOL!
I AM THE MOB on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 10:00 pm
Those that knew, corny virus wasn’t a thing. Now, it proves it correct.
Just flu brah..
makati1 on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 10:01 pm
LOVE? Been there, done that. Very over rated. An honest partner is much better.
Cut and paste word salads I do not read.
makati1 on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 10:02 pm
The gold backed petroyuan is still there, but not making the news. Gold is the new future. I hope you have some. China has more than they publish by multiples.
Duncan Idaho on Tue, 2nd Jun 2020 10:18 pm
The Cowardly Liar takes a walk
https://digbysblog.net/2020/06/the-cowardly-liar-takes-a-walk/
Davy on Wed, 3rd Jun 2020 12:29 am
“Washington lied, people died! Same old, same old! Exceptionalism at its best! LOL!”
Welcome back juanPee! It’s bin a REAL Long time since you made a comment. Stik around for a while. We enjoy squabbling like a widdle catholic schoolgirl with you. Old freind, and make beleive ex-lover.
Abraham van Helsing on Wed, 3rd Jun 2020 12:38 am
“LOVE? Been there, done that. Very over rated. An honest partner is much better.”
Arranged marriages, also underestimated.
Just look at prince Harry, the love puppy of Meghan Markle. Has sacrificed everything. His country, his family, his army buddies. Now he is promoting darkie interests, because of his obsession.
The purpose of marriage is off-spring, saving your genes for your “afterlife”.
Indeed a friend is for life.
https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/SK-A-102
William II, Prince of Orange, and his Bride, Mary Stuart, Anthony van Dyck.
Arranged marriage between the Dutch William II (14) and Maria Stuart of England (9). They didn’t love each other but had a mutual respectful, friendly relationship. Their marriage resulted in William III, the creator of Great-Britain and making the world safe for Protestantism, to close the door to the Middle Ages for good and an intermediate stage to finally get rid of the Christian brain rot and return to classical values
Abraham van Helsing on Wed, 3rd Jun 2020 12:54 am
The Cowardly Liar takes a walk
https://digbysblog.net/2020/06/the-cowardly-liar-takes-a-walk/
Come on duncan, admit that at least YOU scored a free flatpanel over the past week, before we kick your sorry ass into Transapalachia/Haiti-2.0, where you belong and remove your presence from the white world once and for all.
I like you nevertheless, as our useful idiot. You are exactly the required human IED, we in Europe need to blow the place up for us and roll-back WW2 and even “1776”. People like umpire dave don’t have what it takes to run a first world society.
COLLAPSE!
ROFL
He wants to live an African life, complete with goats and all. That’s why he loves the third world invasion: it lowers standards. Umpire dave hate standards and therefore hates Europeans.
Abraham van Helsing on Wed, 3rd Jun 2020 12:58 am
Who needs “Grand PBM Armies” if you have duncan at your disposal, the US fifth column.
And once we get rid of ZOG, we get rid of this as well:
https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/12/1/7200
Abraham van Helsing on Wed, 3rd Jun 2020 1:07 am
BoJo has gone insane:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8382097/Boris-Johnson-willingly-offer-THREE-MILLION-people-Hong-Kong-refuge-UK.html
“Boris Johnson says he would ‘willingly’ offer all THREE MILLION people from Hong Kong visa-free refuge in the UK if China erodes human rights in the former British colony”
This is even too much for the Brexiteers, who otherwise have no love lost for white people:
Stephen J B, Vancouver, Canada, 5 hours ago
So, Britain can find housing, education, jobs, food, health care, schooling, welfare, etc, for three million extra people, that’s the size of Wales, total madness.
Pro: 2321
Con: 280
(Funny to hear this from a Canadian though, they are world-class chink importers, like 300k/year, turning Vancouver into a perfect beachhead for Chinese expansionism. The Anglo “elite” offers itself on a silver platter and solves a lot of problems from continental Europe. In Eastern Europe a dark guy can’t walk in the street without running the serious risk of becoming beaten up, entirely Darwinian-correct).
SocialRevolutionComing on Wed, 3rd Jun 2020 7:28 am
About 50 couples tie the knot in person, with masks and safe distancing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j16xOT5ZXg
COVID Hoax propaganda continues none stop. I envy people that can function in such environment of total propaganda. I cannot. I am not surprised to see suicides increase. The only people that will be left on earth if this continue are leftist loser that cannot build anything or fix anything. It will be or it is already of devolving society and future.
This is your daily dose of COVID hoax propaganda coming from Singapore. Propaganda is global and probably coming from this location
https://www.weforum.org/contact-us/office-locations
This is guy in charge of it
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/klaus-schwab
SocialRevolutionComing on Wed, 3rd Jun 2020 7:48 am
From the World Economical forum or globalist mouth
Now is the time for a ‘great reset’
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/
* We can emerge from this crisis a better world, if we act quickly and jointly, writes Professor Klaus Schwab.
* The changes we have already seen in response to COVID-19 prove that a reset of our economic and social foundations is possible.
* This is our best chance to instigate stakeholder capitalism – and here’s how it can be achieved.
Go read the whole thing
SocialRevolutionComing on Wed, 3rd Jun 2020 7:57 am
Notice that the middle circle used to be caled COVID-19, it is now called The Great Reset.
https://intelligence.weforum.org/topics/a1G0X000006OLciUAG?tab=publications
SocialRevolutionComing on Wed, 3rd Jun 2020 8:21 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j16xOT5ZXg
Asians people are really ugly now. Short, no muscle tone. no facial symmetry, face ugly and lack smoothness.
SocialRevolutionComing on Wed, 3rd Jun 2020 8:35 am
It is important to watch international news to get a better view of what is happening in the world.
Gravitas: #BoycottChina trend gains traction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnmZUjWLTH8
Asshole JuanP socks on Wed, 3rd Jun 2020 9:57 am
SocialRevolutionComing said It is important to watch international news to get…
SocialRevolutionComing said https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j16xOT5ZXg Asians…
SocialRevolutionComing said Notice that the middle circle used to be caled COV…
SocialRevolutionComing said From the World Economical forum or globalist mouth…
SocialRevolutionComing said About 50 couples tie the knot in person, with mask…
claes on Wed, 3rd Jun 2020 12:34 pm
Pinkoil has become a forum of reality deniers. You really don’t take a stand on the presents days really harsh problems.
But I’ll join you anyway any day.
Sleep thight and don’t drink too much, ’cause maybe tomorrow they will be standing out side your door.
Asshole JuanP sock on Wed, 3rd Jun 2020 12:56 pm
claes on Wed, 3rd Jun 2020 12:34 pm
claes on Wed, 3rd Jun 2020 2:17 pm
now, ain’t that cute.
claes on Wed, 3rd Jun 2020 2:33 pm
Or maybe it’s pankoil.com in Texas… Nah, just joking
claes on Wed, 3rd Jun 2020 2:39 pm
Wonder if some where there is a site called punkoil.com, selling cannabis oil ? Really there could be.