Clip title: ***Double Domme Chastity Humiliation*** Chastit..

Clip title: ***Double Domme Chastity Humiliation*** Chastity is one of my favourite parts of femdom. If it were up to me, chastity would be a regular part of the vanilla world as most of the world's problems can be easily traced back to male ego. You don't have to dig too deep to find that behind every major geopolitical conflict is a collection of men having a dick-size contest. Very delicate issues are being handled by male leaders who have more interest in proving they are stronger and more dominant than their 'competitor' than the broader interest of the people they are meant to serve. This is not to say that a world run by women would be conflict free, but women aren't socialized to rely on violence and destruction to prove a point, nor is it in our interest to appear more dominant than another woman. Because of the way we are socialized in early childhood, we learn the value of collectivism and of nurturing interpersonal relationships, including relationships that are difficult. Interpersonal aggression does happen among women as it does for men. But not only does female interpersonal aggression take a less violent form, but our feminine ego isn't at stake when a conflict presents. As such, we don't see conflict as a zero sum game but rather an opportunity for a pareto optimal outcome. That is, we have a vested interest in fostering an outcome that can be mutually beneficial, and we don't feel at a loss when our 'competitor' has any sort of gain. By contrast, for a competitor to walk away from a bargain with any sort of benefit is intrinsically considered a loss for many male political leaders, even if they also gained in the transaction. And when I say it's a loss I don't necessarily mean the leader himself views it as a loss; there are countless examples of male political leaders whose *modus operandi* is to lead with diplomacy, negotiation, and balance. But if you did a careful content analysis on leadership styles and public opinion, you'll find that such leaders are perceived as weak negotiators. Conversely, you'll find that male leaders who take an approach to destroy their 'competitor' are valorized (until years later when we have the benefit of hindsight to survey the path of destruction that followed, only at which point do we recognize the danger of aggressive masculinity in politics). For this reason, men who *are* diplomatic, who *do* value pareto optimal outcomes, who *don't* proscribe to gender norms that assign value to male aggression and unleashed dominance are going to be selected out of politics because they appear too soft. And I guarantee you at the political core of each major geopolitical conflict, such men are notably absent. I therefore frequently find myself wondering what would the world be like if we locked the dicks of all men who enter politics. Dicks are a primary source of masculine ego, not for any biological reason (although there are consistent empirical connections between the male sex hormone testosterone and violence). Rather, we socialize men to believe their dicks are god's gift to this earth and a representation of their masculine status. So what would happen if we *removed* the cock factor from men's identities... if every man in politics felt dickless and knew his male opponents were the same. In statistics, we call this controlling for a variable.. we assess if holding a factor constant makes any difference on an outcome of interest. Would locking all the cocks up lead to fewer major conflicts? Put another way, how much of our world's conflict can be attributed to dick size competitions occurring among male political leaders? There's only one way to find out...