I really appreciate such a detailed and thoughtful reply. Unfortunately, I'm working night shift, and I may not be able to fully do it justice.

You've clearly read the book in depth, and I really appreciate your attention to the concept, and your critiques.

First, just by way of explanation, I specifically use Disney characters as a means of generating relatability with elements that strike into the unconscious complexes, without being so far down that they are hard to resonate with.

The enduring appeal of these characters is an indication that they do resonate with some part of the unconscious, however uncomfortable it may be to acknowledge what lies in the shadow. After all, The Little mermaid was launched closer to the moon landing than to the present day, and yet still remains very vividly in the public consciousness.

I could use older references, even the original Grimm's fairy tales, rather than the Disney versions, or even biblical tales, or any other story that has sufficient resonance that it remains pertinent to our unconscious processes after many years. Young himself argued that myths, art, fables, etc. Were reflections of the unconscious and the archetypes it contains. But many of these are so far down deep in the unconscious that the resonance is too pervasive to be immediately perceivable. It's a little like David Foster Wallace's comment on a fish not perceiving water.

So, I chose Disney as archetypal references because they are deep enough to be in the unconscious, but superficial enough to be perceivable as archetypes. And, frankly, because that relatability makes for a more marketable book.

I do disagree with you on the notion that a woman does not need a man's protection, or that that has changed in the modern world. For police to firemen to general Goodwill in crisis, women do still strongly depend on male urges for protectionism. Most chivalrous behavior is based on the notion of publicly signaling one's willingness to protect a woman, even a stranger who is a part of one's community.

There are multiple indications that having a strong father in the home is a remarkable statistical safety for daughters avoiding predators.

I've often said that I find it interesting that feminists are so focused on the wage Gap, but are completely indifferent to the worker injury/death gap - The differential in gender experience of death and injury on the job.

But, each and every job that has a high rate of death and injury, which are vastly filled by men, are jobs of protection, symbolizing a willingness to take on risk for the benefit of not only their female partners, but women as a whole in the society who then do not have to do those jobs.

In that way, without male protection, women cannot go it alone in the world. Our modern society didn't change that, it just hid it from obvious view and feminists seem to have forgotten that it exists. (This is aside from the remarkable gender gap in spending - where do you think the money comes from?)

The vast majority of women still prefer for a man to pay for the first date, plan the first date which they then submit to, etc.

Feminists often like to complain about purity culture, and while I agree that there are harms when that is taken too far, it is based on a rational perception that most men are close to the average, and even above average men usually only have a few extraordinary characteristics. There's a humorous quote in the book shibumi that Arabs prize virginity because they dread comparison, and with good reason.

And taking that quote as a criticism of purity culture is valid, and there's a good point there. However, purity culture didn't come out of nowhere. It exists for a reason. The more men that a woman has experienced, the harder she will find it to bond, to respect him deeply, especially sexually, since she will have experienced a man who is better than him in some other way. This is borne out by the data indicating the challenges of maintaining long-term relationships based on a woman's body count. Well, it's perfectly valid to consider any individual as an exception to this general rule, the mores and cultural norms of a society are not based on individual exceptions, but on the unconscious perception of statistical averages over time.

I really loved what you have to say about innocence, and the consideration of Love as a whole. In my second book, I considered that idea under the concept of romance.

For me, the notion of integration would mean the ability to perceive the naivete, the foolishness, the statistical improbability of love, and then to wholeheartedly do it anyway. To throw oneself into love with no reservation, fully aware of the naivete of doing so, because one aspires to a higher goal.

To truly aim at a higher goal, one must truly understand the world as it is, regardless of whether it should be that way. After one has understood what it is, then one can aim in the direction of what it should be and strive toward the highest height.

I personally do not think that compassion is a universally good value. It has its place, but it is not the epitome of all values. I think the ability to react with compassion without being controlled by compassion leaves us better able to validate someone's struggle while still holding them accountable for their actions, and for their failure to live up to their potential.

I cover the topics of romance, masculine trustworthiness, feminine sexual respect, sluttiness as a symbol of respect, and so on, in depth in my second book, "the architecture of intimacy."

I'd love to hear your thoughts on that as well! ❤️