Inner Knowing vs Practical Doing [Part One]

It’s funny how I always find myself back at the beginning.

I started my spiritual path as a Buddhist and Taoist, which gradually evolved into New Age Spirituality, and eventually Eclectic Paganism–but it always game back Buddha’s Middle Way. Well, actually, I wouldn’t say it’s a strictly  Buddhist thing–the essential philosophy of Middle Way is that of balance, or the moderation between two extremes. As far as spiritual paths go, that seems like the grand scheme of things.

But of course, I shouldn’t assume that everybody’s path to spirituality is so generalized, because it’s not. I identify it as a Buddhist thing because it was packaged in Buddhism when I first encountered the idea. I remember watching one of the old television series in Taiwan, Journey to the West, which is a heavily Buddhist themed epic about the Monkey King  who goes on a pilgrimage with a Buddhist monk in order to retrieve a collection of sacred texts. If you’re familiar with Buddhist myths and lores (which are fascinating, if you’re into myths and lores and that kind of thing)–the human incarnation of Buddha experiences an epiphany about the Middle Way after going through two extremes: extreme pleasure and extreme austerity. He asks the Heavens if his insight is correct, and releases a wooden bowl into the river.

“If I am right, let it go against the river currents. If I am wrong, let it drift aimlessly as it should.”

And of course, the bowl swims upstream in delicate swirls, confirming Buddha’s profound insight which became one of the philosophical pillars that shaped Buddhism.

But I digress. Although, in many ways, I went through an experience similar to Buddha in Buddhist myths. The difference is, I went through one extreme, dug too eagerly and too deeply on one end, and felt the balance shift and crumble.

Self-knowing has always been my primary way of–how should I put this without sounding disgustingly sophisticated and surreptitiously obscure?–well, self-knowing has always been my primary way of existence. What I mean by that is that I like to make inner journies towards self-knowing and self-understanding; that is my way of dealing with things in general. That’s how I deal with negativity or positivity, and that’s how I process and make sense of my life and experiences. For instance, the way I deal with insecurities since I became aware of my insecurities is to seek even more self-awareness. I ask myself: “Why?” And I try to get to the bottom of things. Why am I feeling this way? Why am I reacting this way? What’s buried deep down in my psyche that is causing me to feel insecure like this? I get to the bottom of it, I expose myself, and I release the pent-up emotional energies that come from “not knowing”.

In short, I am profoundly and at times frustratingly internal. If you practice self-awareness or have the habit of remaining self-aware, you’ll know what I mean. Ultimately, it’s good for you, but like everything else, there is such a thing as “too much self-awareness”. The fact remains that no matter how empowered and liberated I feel from getting in touch with my feelings and my psychological roots, I do not manifest them into the external world. In other words, there is a profound lack of action that accompanies my profound abundance of inner-knowledge. In other words, I exist in a peaceful bubble of Zen and “spiritual enlightenment”, but I have failed to participate in the world around me and address the problems that are occurring outside of my perfectly balanced internal universe.

Basically…I am a practiced thinker, but not much of a doer. Right now, I am tempted to ask myself: “Why?” For the most part, I think it’s because that was how I coped with my social anxieties and my self-esteem issues in my past. It gave me all the excuse I needed: Kim, there is no need for you to deal with others. You just have to deal with yourself. 

This had so much appeal back then because, truth to be told, I was incredibly shy and I didn’t want to deal with people, period. I told myself that as long as you remained positive and self-aware, you could be free. To some extent, I did become much more comfortable with who I was because, indeed, many of the self-esteem issues I was experiencing were internal.

The problem was, like any kind of relationship–if it’s social in nature, it is a two-way street. You can’t become a perfect and seasoned driver expecting other drives to not hit you by accident, or understand your driving attitudes completely. The problem was, in the end, I still needed to deal with people.

That was when I discovered that in addition to regular, healthy doses of Inner-Knowing, I also needed some serious Practical Doing.

[To be continued]

 

To racial slur or not to racial slur?

The problem with racial slurs is that speaking them gives them both presence and existence, while not speaking of them seems to be some kind of negligence. So which one is better? Is there a solution to this conundrum? Or is there a lesser evil?

And what about racist jokes? While self-deprecating humour provides an immunity of some kind, what about people outside of that circle of immunity? While it is safe for you to make a coloured joke as long as you yourself can be identified as the respective colour, are you really just generating humour? Or are you contributing to the flux of ideas about race and separation?

If you’re just making a racist joke or using a racial slur between an intimate group of friends, and for the sole purpose of laughter, are you still being racist? You probably don’t have any intention to be malignantly racist, but do you subject yourself to insensitivity and ignorance through using those racial terms for fun?

But once you decidedly classify those racial terms as racist and avoid using them–aren’t you empowering them as racist terms by recognizing the fact that they are racist–and you are simply avoiding the problem?

So what are we to do, then? We aren’t able to decontextualize ourselves form culture and history, and therefore we cannot simply choose to detach our conversations from the universal definitions that everybody recognize. Words have meaning, and because of this they have power–this is why I am having a headache because I believe we should be responsible for what we say.

But meanings shift and change throughout time. Apparently, “picnic” was a racist term referring to lynching black people, and “gyp” refers to a filthy Eastern European immigrant. And, the phrase used as a celebratory outcry “hip hip hooray” actually had everything to do with hunting down and killing Jewish people.

The racist associations for those words and phrases are obviously obsolete. Nobody would deem you insensitive or racist if you propose to go to a picnic, or if you cry “hip hip hooray” at the end of your son’s soccer game.

Does this mean that we simply have to “go with the times” and just adapt to whatever culture and trends that ensue, or do we simply “wait it out” until words like nigger, chink, white trash die out or transform to something unoffensive? Are we ever going to live in a society where most derogatory terms have everything to do with our differences?

Unless you’re talking about fuck, shit, and variations of fuck and shit–those are quite universal, no? In the kingdom of fucks and shits we are all equal. Funny how that works, huh?

It seems that discussions about derogatory terms and swear words always end up here: like many things, they simply reflect our culture. If anything, those racial slurs are effective because racism exists. What empowers them is the fact that racism exists, and what makes the attempt to address them awkward is because people who want to put an end to racism also exist.

And I think it’s okay to be awkward once in a while. I think we all need to be challenged from time to time in order to expand the boundaries of what we know–so that we can learn and grow together as people. I think the more we face that awkwardness, that means we are getting closer and closer to the problem. Feelings of awkwardness means we are confronting those awkward spaces around us, and that can only mean that we are making the distances between us smaller and smaller.

I suppose there is no absolute solution to this problem (then again, nothing does). So let us continue to be awkward, let us be pushed out of our comfort zones, and never stop questioning the things around us.

(Stares at blog title. Wink.)

 

The Question of “God”

There is a part of me that always erupts when I encounter religious discrimination. I have met two or three disrespectful and chauvinistic individuals throughout my life–and thank goodness our dealings with each other ended as soon as I expressed my disinterest regarding to becoming a convert of their religion. Imagine if you have to deal with this everyday at extreme levels–because of your faith, your race or ethnicity, your sexual orientation–because of who you are.

Increasingly, I am having trouble with mainstream religions because I have never seemed to be able to resonate with faith-systems that consists of a singular authoritarian deity. Having a supreme being on top of everything inevitably implicate a hierarchy–and knowing what can a sense of hierarchy do do an individual, I do not think that is the best way to connect and associate with God.

What is “God”? Is there a God? What is the nature of God? People agree to disagree. I am not going to launch into a detailing and exploration of God, but I do want to talk about my personal thoughts on the pursuit of “God”. I place “God” in a spiritual context, and not a religious one. There is a clear distinction between religion and spirituality, a line that most often ignored by the majority of faith-seekers. For me, I believe religion to be system that an individual can identify with and is able to utilize various aspects of that religion to pursue spirituality. A religion is not absolute; it is like a philosophy, a way of life, it is man-made. It is also a reflection of its geography, demographic, and culture. On a macroscopic level, a religion is as intimate and as simple as someone’s favourite band. Because of where you were born, because of your social and cultural background, because of the way you are raised, and because of a myriad of other factors–you are accustomed to certain sound progressions and certain musical layers, you are attracted to certain genres because of who you are, and you find your way to a particular band that fascinates you and in turn, comes to define your taste in music.

Religion is part of your identity. If you were born in China, you are more likely to become a Buddhist, you are more likely to resonate with the ideas of Buddhism, because Buddhism is deeply rooted in your culture and language. If you were born North America, you are probably going to be exposed to Christianity or Catholicism, because they are deeply rooted in your culture and language. Your faith does not define what kind of person you are, but your words and your actions do. Your interests, your passions, and your choices do. Religion does not dictate your identity; religion is part of your identity. And just like your favourite band, your religion, your faith, or your spiritual path is simply part of your identity. It is what you can identify with, it’s what interests you and what speaks to you on a personal level, and it’s what you feel to be true for you that gives it meaning and makes it valid.

I can recite passages from the Bible, go to church, dress in the robes of a monk, or offer incense to a deity–it doesn’t matter what I do, because if those rituals do not resonate with me on a personal level–if I don’t feel the authenticity in my actions, if I don’t feel them to be true for myself–then doing anything is completely meaningless.

For a religion, or God, or a spiritual path to be true, you have to believe it to be true. True is not equivalent to “real”. True is more of a emotional response; it is something that pertains to your identity, your desires, your attitudes, your experience. And what is true for you may not be true for others. For example, I am a huge fan of Coldplay, and I am sure many others love Coldplay, too. But not everyone likes Coldplay, and that’s fine, because everyone is different. For example, if you believe in Jesus, and of course, many other people believe in Jesus, too. But not everyone can connect with Jesus’ teachings, and that’s fine. It’s not for everybody, because we are all different and each of us unique.

What is true for you may not be true for others.

Just because you don’t like Coldplay, it doesn’t mean you should hate on Coldplay, and anybody who loves Coldplay. Also, not being a fan of Coldplay does not make you any better or worse than somebody who is.

Just because you don’t resonate with Jesus’ teachings, it doesn’t mean you should hate on Jesus, and anybody who lives by Jesus’ teachings. Also, not believing in Jesus doesn’t make you any better or worse than somebody who does.

God, is a very personal thing, and the pursuit of God (or lack thereof) should be treated as such–personal, and deserving of respect and privacy. It’s nobody’s business. You can be very open and social about it, or you can be quiet and reserved about it. What’s true for you may not necessarily be true for others–and that’s the beauty of truth. It is unified in feelings, emotional connection, and personal judgement, though different in presentation and detail.

When you try to enforce that you feel to be true in a disrespectful or unethical way unto another, against their will–

Well, let me just say–you are either a clueless ignoramus or an impertinent asshole.

Story of my life

The act of waking up consists of a tedious internal struggle in which your resolve is put to the test, while you forsake all integrity as you squirm in the comfort of your sheets and mumble to yourself, “Five more minutes.” When you finally haul your ass out of bed, twelve snoozes later, you decide that since you’ve slept in for more than an hour already, what’s another half an hour? So you go back to sleep, completely and utterly shameless.

Disney and Girl Power!

I don’t think I’ve watched enough Disney films made in the past years to solidify this conclusion, but I really want to talk about what I’ve noticed from watching the Tinker Bell series. There is always a soft-spot in my heart for animated films–or should I just say that I friggin love animated films in general? Yeah, I love animated films in general. Anyway. I watched Tinker Bell and The Pirate Fairy a few days ago, and I’ve made an amazing discovery about the portrayal of girl-relationships in Disney films. Needlessly to say, even if you are just slightly familiar with the gender dynamics in traditional fairy tales, you will know that for years the lesson for girls in these fairy tales are: do your duty, be good, and a handsome prince will rescue you and make your dreams come true. This, of course, is predicated upon the fact that women/girls are objects to be acquired by an eligible bachelor. I don’t want to go too deep into the issue–but you get the point. It’s always the beautiful princess waiting for the prince in shiny armour to come to rescue them, and usually there is the inevitable girl-on-girl drama that promotes “girly” competitions and eliminates the possibility of girls ever becoming good friends together. There’s always the evil stepsister, or the “mean girl” that picks on the innocent girl protagonist, blah blah blah, and the list of the stereotypes goes on.

However! I am noticing a positive change in recent Disney films. Instead of promoting values that involve girl-on-girl rivalries and  the true love’s kiss as the ultimate solution–the princess films nowadays seem to be promoting what I deem is an important theme: acceptance. And they are also breaking traditional female stereotypes and upholding gender equality. This is such an exciting discovery. Take Tinker Bell, for example: initially, Tinker Bell is disgusted by her given talent as a Tinker (which involves craft, woodwork and metalwork and all kinds of architectural and down to earth handiwork that are typically classified as “boyish”), and is overcome with sadness and envy as she yearns for other fairy powers that are “prettier” in nature, such as light-bending, the ability to grow flowers and plants, swift-flying, and water-bending.  However, eventually, she overcomes these negative sentiments and accepts herself and her talents as she proves herself to the fairy world. A female protagonist who is proud of being a Tinker! This is totally breaking the stereotypical assumptions that “girls have to be girly”.  In The Pirate Fairy, the focus of the story shifts between Tinker Bell and a newly introduced character, Zarina, who is also portrayed as an adventurous, innovative, and slightly rebellious spirit who is not afraid to explore the limitations of fairy rules and fairy magic and exert her talents. In the beginning, she is rejected by the fairy society as well–same as Tinker Bell (I think I failed to mention that her daring adventures to the edges of Neverland has made her a constant figure of public disapproval). After causing a tiny plant to grow into a disastrous tree and destroying her workplace, she is “fired” and no longer a fairy dust-keeper. Devastated, she packs up her things and leaves, becoming a pirate fairy who plots to steal all the magical blue dust for a ship of pirates (led by the young James Hook) who seem to appreciate her talents. Tinker Bell and her friends, each with their unique fairy talent, goes after her in attempt to recover the blue dust and the outcast Zarina. In short, after everything is over and the bad guys are defeated, Tinker Bell accepts Zarina, forgives her for her past faults, and welcomes her back to fairy land. Thinking back now, my head is exploding with fireworks because there is not even one negative female stereotypes in these two films! You know, such as the evil stepmother and the bitchy mean girl who picks on the protagonist. (Actually, I think there were some girl drama in the first Tinker Bell film…but as I recall, it was resolved peacefully and still centred around the theme of acceptance.)

Of course, Tinker Bell series is still saturated with “girliness”, but in a healthy way that does not overshadow the characters and the themes of the film. Jokes about hair and fashion actually punctuate the film in a delightful way to generate humour. I’m kind of a tom-boy, so that means a lot coming from me, haha. All in all, I think Disney is doing a wonderful thing in sending these positive images and messages to girls who will grow up watching these films. My generation grew up watching beautiful princesses unable to help themselves in their circumstances, waiting for their prince to rescue them. But the few films I watched are anything but: they are telling girls that recognizing your talent and yourself with confidence is the right thing to do–and as girls you don’t have to compete with each other, you accept each other as individuals, and it is friendship and your own values that are worth fighting for–not for the hand of a handsome prince! And also, don’t be afraid to break the norms, and don’t be afraid to be yourself.

Ah, *tear*.

Too much of an idealist

No, I don’t think I will ever be able to stand dogma, bigotry, or chauvinism. Every time I hear about religions persecuting homosexuality, every time I encounter somebody blatantly misogynist, every time I come in contact with variations of some kind of supremacist crap, I am slightly angry at the world, and my heart bleeds a little because it doesn’t matter what I say to these people. They are who they are. It will be inaccurate to say that I am completely unaffected by ignorance. I am human. I have my feelings and my ideals. Sometimes they don’t necessarily want to agree with each other.

How can you posit your views to be absolute when it’s so ostensibly wrong? Everybody is entitled to their opinion and their piece of mind, but shouldn’t it be a general rule that anything that violates the basic respect, freedom, and existence of another is utterly intolerable and unforgivable? How can you justify evil, prejudice, violence, or other forms of physical or social atrocities with God? With a seemingly superior argument? With status? With wealth? With whatever absurd reason that prevents you from questioning your ethics? No, you cannot possibly claim your ethics are determined by a higher power–you determine your own ethics and embrace anything that affirms those sets of ethics and rejects anything that denounces it. Persecuting homosexuality can’t be from God. The “inferiority” of women can’t be the will of Nature. In fact, how can anyone claim to understand the forces of nature?

In short, it just makes me so incredibly angry that such people exist. Evildoers who justify their actions in the name of God. Bullies and abusers who justify their crimes in their false sense of righteousness. I don’t think I will ever be able to come to terms with that there are ignorant people in the world. I know it, of course I do. But every time…every single time…I think to myself: Are these people real? How can they even exist?

I call myself an idealist, but is it not sad that wanting basic human rights that we all deserve is considered “idealist”? I want people to stop saying “that’s so gay” when they are describing, thoughtlessly, something negative. I want people quit using the R word and stop saying “hell yeah we raped that team” as if “raping” is such a glorious act of triumph. I want people to stop their “oh I’m not using it in an offensive way” bullshit. I want homophobia gone. I want racism an sexism and classism gone. I want everything shitty gone from this world.  On an intellectual and perfectly rational level, I know that will never happen. But those are my idealist sentiments, and I can’t stop having them…but maybe, that’s a good thing. Feeling angry, indignant, makes me feel like I still haven’t given up on this world yet.

Can you be a pessimist and an optimist at the same time?

“Waaaah waaah, nature is sexist! Why should man fuck and woman be fucked?”-A Discussion via Youtube Comment [Part II]

[Continued from Part I]

Me: From your perspective, we should just all be animals, then, and forsake progress of any kind. If that’s how you define humanity, then I have nothing to say. 

Celsian hyalophane

 It’s not your fault that you did not understand it. Don’t blame yourself. Your foolish interpretation did make me laugh though.

Me:  No, that’s exactly what you’re saying. I think progress, at least in terms of gender, is about overcoming our biological and reproductive imperative which in many ways contributed to the existing structures of gender, and become “better” as people, in which sexual relationships between individuals are safe, mutually respectful and rid of the gender power dynamics. You’re saying we should honour that biological imperative and treat it as natural, even though that’s the way we’re built, if it just comes down to women should be fucked by men just because they are women and don’t have a penis and have less sexual authority and they should compete for men’s attention to be fucked–isn’t that extremely materialistic and animalistic?

Celsian hyalophane

No, it is called evolution. How can I possibly debate with and hope to convince an addle-head who, owing to her egocentrism, simply cannot help but completely disregard the fundamental concept of human beings?

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?

This is what you’re saying – “Waaaah waaah, nature is sexist! Why should man fuck and woman be fucked? Waaaah waaaah, this hurts my ego soooo much. I feel like crying. I have an idea, let’s all turn into non-humans. Let’s turn into machines. That way the sexist nature won’t be able to find us. To the ones that state otherwise – We’ll shame them by calling them animals. Waaaah waaaah (Sobs)”

Just because you’re too naive to comprehend , does not mean you can go around nullifying evolution. Go pester someone else.

Tharian Landar @ Celsian hyalophane: ”Addle-head”, ”retard”, ”egocentrism”, ”stupid”, ”naive”; evolution has not done you very well, has it?

You, the savant on evolution that you are, must understand that ‘emotional’ beauty has served our pragmatic ethics and societal progress much more than objectification, which is the result of a warped notion of physical beauty.

Evolution would not exist if we were to be drooling primates, as you would have us, debasing ourselves to our primal needs and tendencies. The discussion is not about how sex is conducted, yet you seem to base all of your arguments on that strawman.

The interesting thing about human beings and their predilections is that we must adjust to our ever-changing social-cultural paradigm. Now, if we have people that take an argument as the one stated above and twist into ”let’s turn into machines,” then I fear our future.

Me: For one, I think I have remained fairly calm and polite throughout this entire discussion. I am responding to your ideas and I have never made any comments towards your person whatsoever. You have been the one who is ostentatiously and continuously condescending. I don’t think you have the right to accuse me of being egotistic. Also, it’s funny how you deny the fact that female objectification exists but you are objectifying women this whole time. I am not nullifying evolution. I am simply stating I believe that progress is consisted of overcoming our materialistic impulses and advancing towards a more emotionally and spiritually aware society where the basis of culture is equality and respect.

Celsian hyalophane @ Tharian Landar So justified derogation is somehow a manifestation of de-volution? In that case, righteous anger and wrath must be antiquated, right? You sir, are a genius!

“Emotional beauty”, I am curious my friend, which planet do you descend from? You surely do not belong to earth, that much is for certain. What the hell, pray tell, is “emotional beauty” moron? Illustrate it with examples.

“Drooling primates” And this is how I know another birdbrain has joined the conversation, who not only does not have any qualms about misrepresenting his opponent’s rationale, on the contrary, seeks to do so on purpose, which begs the question, it is a strawman troll? The discussion is only about how sex is conducted. You would think the title of the damn video would give you a clue.

“we must adjust to our ever-changing social-cultural paradigm” What are these “social-cultural paradigm” that you speak of?  That since the society now is increasingly female oriented, and since men and women are supposed to be “equal”, men compensate by being anally fucked by women wearing strap-ons to even things out?

Why, why do psychoneurotic fuckwits reckon that they have the authority to corrupt both sociology and biology in the name of  “gender studies”? Unfathomable.

 Celsian hyalophane @ Me: Why do you insist on using words erroneously that you do not understand? To sound smart, isn’t it? Well, don’t. Those of us who understand the words, find it silly. “Materialistic” is the desire of goods, man-made materials. That is not even remotely pertinent here.

“Emotionally and spiritually aware” (Laughter), please dear, try to think clearly. You come off as muddle-headed and disorientated. “Respect”, again, not even close to being germane. What the hell has “respect” got to do with anything here? Intercourse is about sex. Are you saying that men who penetrate women don’t have respect for them?

Please, just read your own comments, or make someone else read it, and explain it to you how asinine you sound. I was impertinent precisely because you are wasting my time with nonsensical twaddle. Don’t. When you persist, you leave me with no other choice.

Me: I don’t think you’ve paid attention to anything anyone has said in this discussion. You’re just in love with your own voice, aren’t you?

Celsian hyalophane

If it helps assuage your grief, and makes you feel better darling, you go ahead and keep telling that to yourself. It hardly impacts anything.

Eugenio José Martínez Ramos @ Celsian hyalophane I understand what you are trying to tell us. I respect your opinion, but I will stand for many things I said.  

Eugenio José Martínez Ramos @ Me:  There is no point in arguing, both of you think differently and it will remain the same no matter how much you argue. And I believe you should never attribute others personality matters when trying to state some point, it is really unnecessary. Sorry if I misspelled something, havn’t practiced in a while

Celsian hyalophane @ Eugenio José Martínez RamosI understand mate. That is fine. I was already aware that you won’t be entirely convinced, however, I do hope that on some level, I made you reconsider things and deliberate on them. That was my actual intention, to make you rethink about it yourself, and only then reach a conclusion. In the end, that is what matters.

Tharian Landar @ Celsian hyalophane ”Justified derogation” implies that you already think it is justified, hence acknowledging your own bias. More importantly, your derogation is pointless and therefore I don’t really put much value on its justification or lack thereof.

With ‘emotional beauty’ I mean the factors that cause attraction bar the physical.

I quote you: ”Understand what that means?? It means if you are against man fucking a woman, you are against human nature, you are against evolution, you are against heterosexual sex.”

Sounds pretty much like an argument based entirely on the physical and literal conduct of sexual intercourse, whereas the discussion is about the psychological and socially cultural backdrop, that being the paradigm where a myriad of things are valued consciously and subconsciously.

Every paragraph you wrote involves insulting the one you speak to. Now, Eugenio José Martínez Ramos comes along and says ”I understand you,” before which you fawn with: ”I understand mate.”

Read it and, in your own words, reconsider things and deliberate on them, because this will be my last post, for yours are not much to ponder on.

Me: @ Eugenio José Martínez Ramos Yup, I realized that from the very beginning. The only reason I kept going was for the sake of generating discussion, since I think that this topic needs more conversation around it. As for attributing personality, that’s an unfair accusation. Throughout this entire discussion I have never once insulted the person I was talking to. On the other hand, if you’ve been following our discussion, I have been talked down to, condescended towards, and called addle-headed, stupid, egotistical, and naive–which is fine by me; I’m not really affected by it. Other than that last remark about the person I am arguing with, “you’re in just in love with your own voice”, I have never said anything negative.

This is my last post as well. I think enough has been said on this subject. There’s no point continuing this discussion anyway…now it’s just going in circles. 

Celsian hyalophane @ 

Tharian Landar: Yes, justified derogation, when the preceding circumstances evidently validate it. If it was the initial, and gratuitous, then it would have been unwarranted.
“your derogation is pointless and therefore I don’t really put much value on its justification” This is called bias. What you’re doing is called projection.

“I mean the factors that cause attraction bar the physical” Have you tried listening to your own balderdash? Trust me, it would be wearying even for you.

The physical attractiveness comes exclusively from physical traits. The emotional appeal, comes from emotional traits. The emotional aspect comes after. The emotional connection, or “chemistry”, is the only redeemable point that you may indicate, and even that is so trifling, that to predicate your entire argument upon it, is put simply, ludicrous. You seem to be inflicted with severe confirmation bias, wherein you tend to aggrandize and magnify the diminutive instance, just so that you can counter the monumental significance  of that which is essential, that you for some reason are unable or unwilling to deal with.

“psychological and socially cultural backdrop” Now read this carefully – When A has a designated function AAA, and B has a designated function BBB, when these 2 meet, it is inevitable that any and every such circumstance entails these very designated functions, diverging from which, you are only trying to delude not only yourself, but others as well. Keep in mind, by functions I do not mean “gender roles” but the functions that dictate the dichotomy.  The discord is, in part, due to the moderately dysfunctional state that we’re in where masculinity is being denigrated, and females (note – not femininity) are being glorified at the masculine expense, such that serves to make them not just equal, but indeed, as females being dominant.

A person with such mindset is susceptible to experience some conflict, which is understandable, however, this individual must not make his own conflict, the basis of justifying his endeavours to hoodwink others along with him.

The things that are valued “consciously and subconsciously” as you put, are the very aspects that are the integral constituents of the ones that possess them.

“you wrote involves insulting” Wrong. If you were conscientious, indeed, if you had an iota of integrity, you would have actually read the person’s argument that I responded to in such manner, wherein you’d have realized that it wasretaliation of the initial insult, not the initial insult. Thus your last claim is rendered invalid as well.

“before which you fawn with” Do unto others as you would __. More often than not, if someone is polite to me, I strive to be polite to them.

“This this will be my last post” Well, it was about time. Good day.

[End. A follow-up reflection post is coming up!]

“Man fucks – And woman gets fucked. Why are you against heterosexuality?”-A Discussion via Youtube Comment [Part I]

Yesterday , I watched a Ted talk by Ran Gavriel: “Why I stopped watching porn.” He gave an emotionally moving speech about the cultural influences and gender issues surrounding pornography. While I do feel his presentation lacks some solid research and statistical evidence,  and he also generalizes quite a bit–I can resonate with his ideals and what he is trying to convey. I then came across a few comments attacking him for being a “man-vagina” (or, a feminist). This is not surprising, because I have encountered many people who are not aware of the constructions of gender and they tend to jump to conclusions. I decided to join the discussion, unwilling to let all the one-sided and anti-feminist comments dominate the comments section. 

I, by chance or fate, have encountered anti-feminism in its most extreme manifestation. Initially, I was (naturally) a bit frustrated,  because every time I come across someone who so blatantly hates on feminism, I think to myself: how can such people exist? There was really no point continuing the discussion, because there is nothing that can be agreed on between us. I decided to keep going, because I know these comments are being read, and I might just reach someone. In retrospect, I’m glad I kept going because at least I have attempted to balance the scale of the conversation by leaving a piece of myself there.

Here’s a transcript of the conversation that took place. It started with a comment by Alunogen Carnelian, and it evolved into a conversation between me and Celsian hyalophane. For the sake of organization, my comments are in bold, and are not indented. Also, I have left out some comments from others that have been inserted into our conversation.

Alunogen Carnelian

In all likelihood, this man-vagina suffers from some mental disorder. I would not be surprised, in the least, if someone told me he is gay. I have not watched the video in its entirety, but I can still challenge this white knight eunuch to debate me if he has the balls. He won’t. Because he knows he will get his ass kicked. 

He should stick to licking women’s boots instead of spouting bullshit on youtube, and stupefying and corrupting others along with him.

Me: Some are his valid points are that sexual objectification exists in porn and it is unhealthy because they perpetuate negative stereotypes of sex and promote unhealthy sexual relationships with others and with self. Also, abuse and sexual exploitation and human trafficking exist in the pornographic industry. Having that said, I do feel that his argument is very one-sided. While I resonate with his ideals he doesn’t support them much with actual evidence and statistics. He generalizes too much and fails to address that there are sexual workers choose this profession for themselves and also as their form of free sexual expression and empowerment. 

Celsian hyalophane

I give you credit for the latter part of your argument. About the former – 

There is no such thing as “objectification”. It is made-up feminist bullshit, that emanates from their contorted, delusional heads.

What is an object?

You walk into a shopping mall. You see a shirt. You can buy that shirt and have absolute control over it. The shirt is now under your authority. You can do whatever you want with it. You can wear it, you can tear it apart, you can burn it as well. The shirt did not/does not have any control, any authority. 

The shirt is therefore an object.

When woman appear nude in the media, do men have any control whatsoever over them? Can they buy them? Can they do anything that they want with them?

No, they cannot!

Do the women not have absolute control over what they are doing? Yes, they do. They willingly, out of their own volition agreed to appear nude, in exchange for money. They chose to do so, because they have absolute authority over themselves. They are not under anyone’s control. Get it?

The nude women, therefore, are not objects. They have absolute control over themselves.

Objects do not have control. Objects do not have authority. Women do. The “objectification” claim is thus, horseshit.

There goes another retarded feminist argument out of the window. Do not fall for feminist stupidity.

Feminist falsehoods are dangerous, in spite of what one would think ought to be their obvious character as such, by reason of the psychological fact that you only require to repeat a lie often enough, provided you are uncontradicted, in order for the aforesaid lie to be received as established truth by the mass of mankind--

The Fraud of Feminism – Ernest Belfort Bax

Me: Sexual objectification does not mean, on an individual level, the women have no control over their body. Sexual objectification refers to the kind of representation women are subjected to in pornography, and also mainstream media-. Images of sexualized female body are everywhere to be “consumed” by the mind, as an “object’. It is true that we all have our individual will and women can choose not to be involved with porn–but that does not mean exploitation does not exist. What women (and men as well) do not have control over is the cultural imposition of sexualized body images of women with no regards to their personal identities. 

Once again, the “objectification” does not mean the actual “physical” objectification of female bodies. It’s talking about the representation and images of the female body. Please understand this properly before you make any criticism. 

And also, if you say such a thing about feminism–isn’t it the same way about patriarchy? Or anything, for that matter? Nothing is absolute, and anything that is not absolute can be challenged and put into a conversation. 

Celsian hyalophane Many types of porn are giving the impression”

Google – Femdom porn. Right now. The content will blow your mind.

It is much more prevalent than what you are referring to.You don’t see me whining about that, do you?

In addition, in femdom, you will find men, being urinated (peed) at, and eating the shit, the feces of women!

In addition, you will find men, licking women’s boots, and are serving women asslaves.

Again, it is much, much more prevalent than your porn.

In addition, women almost never do that even in the kind of porn you referred to! Not even remotely close to anything as degrading as what men are doing in femdom porn.

Do you see me whining about it?

Now, about your claim, do you know that it is human nature, that evolution designed it this way that – Man fucks – And woman gets fucked.

Do you know that, in any kind of, heterosexual porn, you will always find the man as the one fucking, and woman as the one being fucked. No, it is not “objectification”. Stop disseminating that bullshit. It is human nature!

Understand what that means?? It means if you are against man fucking a woman, you are against human nature, you are against evolution, you are against heterosexual sex

Why are you against heterosexuality?

Think about this – If you were making heterosexual porn, what would you do? You will obviously make the man fuck the woman, won’t you? So if some mangina or a feminist calls you “sexist” and claims “objectification” bullshit, what would you say?

Stop listening to delirious “gender studies” frauds as the one in the video. He is doing this for money and fame. He knows that it translates to fame for him to appeal to the emotions of the populace. So he does precisely that.

[The following comment is directed at me] Understand something before trying to purport that you understand that thing. You are concocting hogwash. It’s not your fault, of course. Let me explain -

Women are the limiting factor in reproduction. This limiting factor will abide by what? Why, Intersexual selection, of course!

This translates to women striving to become as desirable as possible. Which means that it is ingrained in a woman to present herself as a sexually desirable entity. This dictates her worth.

When women are showing their bodies, they are doing so precisely for the aforementioned reason. They are desirable specimens, and by exuding their physical attractiveness, they seek fulfilment.

Why do you think they put on ornaments and decorations upon themselves? Lipstick, make-up, mascara (and other things that I do not know about)?

Decoration is for objects. If women decorate themselves, that makes them __?

Nevertheless If, and only if, they are forced to do so, without they own free will, it is unacceptable. However, when they do so out of their own free will, they are exercising their right! Who are you to condemn them?

Secondly, tell me, what other way are you to depict physical beauty in?

How else would you represent physical beauty of a human, if not through human physical body parts?

How else would you exhibit human sexuality, if not through sex? i.e Man penetrating woman – sexual intercourse?

In a burkha?

Are you out of your mind?

No, it is through their bodies. Just like they already want to do themselves. There is not a single testimony that corroborates your assertion, apart from retarded feminist abstract notions. It’s all in their heads.

Like I mentioned, please rid yourself from feminist delusion. Feminist stupidity is ruining our society.

Me: From your perspective, we should just all be animals, then, and forsake progress of any kind. If that’s how you define humanity, then I have nothing to say. 

[To be continued]