>>18449
>you want to be safe but not actually know it, otherwise you are still in control.
You've tortuously reiterated my exact point. It isn't about losing control, it isn't about losing the safety. It's about losing the knowledge process attached to the safety. It's about not needing to check that you are safe.
Since you exist and are bounded in an unsafe world, it isn't possible either to check that you are safe conclusively nor to retain any apparent safety without the process used to obtain it. In the ideal, where you are not yourself changed, the safety process is by nessecity out of your hands (it's carried out by the absolute).
In the special case of the midwit, they act out in a cargo cult kind of way the relative helplessness that relying on the absolute in this way entails. N.B. that relying one someone else to keep you safe and relying on someone else to intercede with the absolute on your behalf to keep you safe is more or less the same thing - it is, at least, the same thing to the onlooker.
>lots of people want to hurt cute people, simply because they are cute
Zero people want to hurt cute things because they are cute. People want to hurt imitatively cute things for not being cute in relief to cute things. It's a values war kind of thing, it's about affirming what is and isn't cute. Remember that the cute thing that prevails is subverting the entire strength of arms of everyone under it's sway, it's a very concerting thing to be confronted by a false idol for. See also: how YHWH et al. treats the icons of other gods.
>cant tell you how many times ive seen these types of people want to have a dominant female control them, how would you explain that?
Well there's two things to address here.
>(in terms of a non-cute person wanting that)
It's a product of my aesthetics to call it cute. You could call it blessed or whatever, it happens to line up more with my personal philosophies. If I wasn't a(n auto)gynophilic nijikon lolibitch rper I'd phrase it differently.
>cant tell you how many times ive seen these types of people want to have a dominant female control them
See: cargo cults and cult leaders. The "thing to be worshiped" is interceded with on your behalf by "person associated with thing that you worship". The fags hiring 'queens' etc. do so because their value system positions those women as what I'd call 'cute' and so relates them to the abstracted power of the cute. There isn't an actual coherent line of reasoning going on here; it doesn't actually line up. But they have some idea that by surrendering to a (representative of a) higher power they can find ultimate safety, and the women is associated with the things they choose to value.