Let's examine closely, and be wary of illogic.
It'd be nice to assume that the phrase 'getting one's needs met' means fulfilling biological needs like getting enough clean air, water, food, and environment (no harmful chemicals); and getting enough sleep, sunlight, and shelter from weather. But it doesn't. The Credo's starting premise is 'I want to keep a relationship with (another human)', so that is the meaning of 'getting needs met'. But is it reasonable to keep relationships?
I ask you, are not relationships inevitable and automatic for anything that exists? That is, if at least two things exist in the entire Universe, there is automatically a relationship. So, there is no logic in wanting to keep a relationship: as soon as a finite thing exists, relationship is. Relationship just can't be possessed.
Relationship surrounds everything like a Universe-sized umbilical cord, so that every thing is in relationship with everything else. Because all things are in relationship with each other, then things are not separate, so all things are one, so there are no relationships, so there can be no attachment.
One must value thinking way, way more than affection, to see the illogic in Credo.
If the above reasoning doesn't convince you, look at the claim that relationships offer mutual benefits of friendly support. But is it really friendly? Suppose a person is in relationship with another person, meaning, a lot of their time and energy is invested in making that other person feel fulfilled and satisfied in life. Now, suppose it doesn't work. Suppose the person is ungrateful, or doesn't value the attention. Our first person is probably going to feel resentful, because their need for a relationship isn't met. How is there going to be a win-win situation for a one-sided attachment? So, it should be blatantly obvious that relationship means egotistical relationship.
These 'friendly' relationships are egotistical contracts to value one specific relationship over all others. That itself is an act of great unfriendliness to everyone and everything else. So, conflict is inevitable, and so is the use of power, because attachment to one person, or thing, is in conflict with the boundless interrelating of Nature itself.
Attachment is about trying to hold onto a mirage, not seeing that reality has no inherent boundaries to support such clinging. Can anything be more disrespectful to others?
If you read the Credo as the speech of a relationship-addict to one who does not need relationship, you will see this disrespect.
The Credo is a statement of unreasonable belief. This is not an excellent document; it's not given to hardened abusers but to ordinary people with garden-variety emotional dissatisfactions. It is an example of unthinking, and plainly unconscious of what's ultimately true. Call me a complex thinker if you like, but I think it is very simple and obvious that it is only a credo, meaning, a statement of belief, because it contains no reasoning at all to support the notion that wanting to keep relationships is healthy, or necessary.
I'd just like to remind that Woman's psychological traits do not exist unless unreason has destroyed one's awareness of how the Universe really is. It's only when things are believed to exist inherently, that Her ideals and values are flourishing.
The final exposition is now at hand. I warn the reader that it contains disturbing material. But these things must be revealed, if the temple of Woman is to be thrown down.