Pressing the Glans on Another

Mature readers can engage with ideas as maps of reality, not as rules for immediate action or moral adjudication. The moment a reader treats an idea as a threat or a call to enforce, the interaction becomes about their ego, their status, or their instinctive alignment, rather than the idea itself.

When I write a framework or explanation about human behavior, some people respond as if I am making a claim that must be universally enforced or debated. They chime in to correct, challenge, or dismantle parts of what I wrote, assuming that my statements are intended as rules for society.

I see that this reaction is not really about my ideas—they are executing a hierarchical, status-driven instinct. They interpret my writing through a lens learned in school or socialized debate: any statement is treated as a political proposition to be argued, rather than a personal or analytical observation.

My position is that I am writing a representation of my current understanding of the human experience, not a societal blueprint. I cannot respond to every attempt to challenge it, because these challenges are often motivated by instinctive posturing, not genuine inquiry. They are performing a predictable social behavior—defending status, asserting authority—rather than engaging with my ideas on their own terms.

The moment someone reads a clear, amoral description of the circuitry, a certain type of primate brain instantly pattern-matches it to “this guy is submitting a bill to the tribal council.” It flips into debate-club mode:

Is this policy proposal good or bad?
Does it have loopholes?
Who would it harm?
Can I gain status by dismantling it in public?

That reflex is itself just another output of the same hierarchical posturing instinct: detect a claim → assess whether challenging it raises my relative status → fire. It literally cannot process the possibility that someone is simply saying, “Here is the most accurate map I currently possess of the machine we’re all running on,” without translating it into “Here is a new moral/legal/ideological regime this person wants to impose on me.”

I intend to express a representation. You may observe it, ignore it, take it as a whole, or adopt only the parts that illuminate something for you. You do not settle what you believe or accept with me—I am not a point of contact for resolving others’ beliefs. You settle all of these matters quietly within yourself and take full ownership of your own resolution.

If comments in response are emotionally charged, dismissive, or come from a place of personal insult or presumed superiority, there is no need for me to acknowledge them. They are simply demonstrations of hierarchical posturing instinct.

If you engage in the behaviors described above, you are essentially attempting to perform a “Hindu kiss” with your glans—dipping the penis head in red ink and attempting to press it against another man’s forehead.

This, however, is completely unnecessary.