A friend wrote a post saying she won’t be offended if a man talks to her. She won’t feel like due to the patriarchy, he thinks he’s entitled etc. I completely agree with her, and I find it depressing that this even has to be said. This patriarchy-bashing and man-hating has reached a level of complete insanity.
Men talking to women, men holding the door, men asking you out, being a little determined – so what? Get real people. Masculinity is a REAL force in the world – if you choose not to honor it, you’re living in a fantasy land. Cuckolding entire sub-cultures won’t do you any good; it won’t help you find a balanced relationship. If you want a man who is strong enough to handle you, then stop squandering male expression at every turn.
Unfortunately, both conservatism and liberalism are responsible for this particular modern disaster.
For the record, I’m not anti-religion. However, there is a tendency in some religions, especially more conservative sectors, to want women to cover up. In some cases, forcing them. This is across the board – Christianity, Islam, Judaism. There are sectors that care less about this, and then more extremists and orthodox who cover people up – in some cases, they cover up people of both genders. But there’s a strong focus on ‘modesty’ for women and not being presented as a sexual object, which of course brings to light the problem that it’s ASSUMED that men will otherwise do bad things, think bad thoughts etc; if we present in a sexy way. This makes a sexy woman, or a woman AT ALL – into a kind of ‘taboo.’ Which makes it exciting, titillating, sinful – to get just an inch closer to her and then go home and whack off.
Personally, I’m a married woman very in love with my husband, who is my soulmate. Anyone that has seen his picture would understand why there is no way in hell that I’d want anyone else, and I mean that on every level; superficially, he looks like a supermodel; more deeply, his intelligence and sensitivity is palpable. I am completely loyal to him, and him to me.
Yet both of us enjoy being admired for our beauty, our sexiness. We both encourage each other to wear whatever we want in public. If others want to admire us that’s fine, but we are also compassionate and don’t play games with others or with each other, so we make it clear to anyone we talk to that we’re married and monogamous.
Yet beyond that, why not be admired? It’s a basic human instinct. Knowing I can go out in sexy clothes and the world can be my stage, is a motivator for going to the gym, eating healthy; it also makes it FUN to go out. Usually we go out together.. we have no desire for a ‘separate social life’ – so we make an appearance as a pair. But on occasions where we must be separate, like around work, why not come home with stories about people who admired our beauty? Why not feel good about ourselves?
It’s a human instinct to want to admire others’ beauty and be admired. Some people feel this less than others, which is perfectly fine, but for those of us who get a thrill and connect on the basis of beauty and mutual admiration, and who see life as an art; why not indulge it? This kind of thing – for those of us who want to do it – DEMYSTIFIES the appeal of sexiness, of womanliness – and shows how it’s human. It demystifies the sexual undercurrents in conversation, since there’s literally nothing wrong with lusting a little as long as boundaries are set. Healthy desire leads to inspiration and excitement; breaks the monotony. Honoring the desire to be sexy makes for a more honest psyche, where people aren’t ‘cheating and being freaks behind closed doors’ due to all the repression they force themselves into every day.
If someone WANTS to be modest, let her. Let him. I don’t care. But making cultural rules about it, will never work. There will always be people with high sex drives, with soulful styles, who want to sing like the birds even if they are taken, just because that song and dance is beautiful and beauty is inspiring. There are people who just enjoy being looked at. There are people who are not monogamous. So what?
(I already anticipate the response: STDS! Pregnancy! Yes, these are real issues. I am saying this assuming that in a world with less oppression, there would be MORE focus on how to be RESPONSIBLE about sex, rather than shoving it under the rug and pretending it doesn’t exist, only to have people cheating the system behind closed doors and finding themselves infected and pregnant with unwanted children, which is the real outcome of sexually repressed sub-groups and societies. There are individuals who are pious and are exceptions to this; but forcing it on a wide scale clearly does not work.)
On a wide ideological scale, conservatism represses femininity (in both men and women), whereas liberalism represses masculinity (specifically in men), thus resulting in a need for women to fill that role in lieu of seeking to love and to nurture. To be clear, men also want to love and nurture. But if men are not allowed to aggress, then the average man will devolve into a dependent pussy sucking your titty. That is not fulfilling for any of us.
Conservatism says “men shouldn’t cry” and “women should be modest,” repressing unbridled emotional display and beauty. Liberalism says “men shouldn’t aggress” and “women should not need men,” oppressing very obvious parts of our nature too. It is fine for ANYONE to assert their will, man or woman alike; and if men are socially not allowed to do this, then women end up feeling undesired or unfulfilled by men who aren’t working, aren’t asserting themselves, etc. As for the men, the suicide rates speak for themselves: they feel cuckolded, uninspired, unwanted, ineffective, creepy. Women, this is not good for you either – especially if you’re hetero – but even if you have sons, friends, brothers, coworkers who are male. An emasculated society is a limp world that can’t get momentum, can’t assert, can’t individuate. Having assertive women won’t make up for it, because these women still have an instinctual desire to find lovers, no matter how loudly they insist they ‘don’t need no man.’ Look deeper. Beyond that, if men in society are squandered due to being told they can’t assert their will, can’t “manspread” and sit comfortably, must squash their balls to avoid female wrath – society will have weak links and will perish.
Sexless women and emasculated men are not ideals. It’s fine if individuals express this way, but praising it as some ideal is not the solution to social problems; it is more problematic than human nature itself. People cry, desire, flirt, ask each other out, assert their will, aggress.. your social constructs will not stop them. At best, you will push these acts deeper behind closed doors, where they will come out in extreme ways (rape, cheating, whoring, etc).
All the extreme constructs do is create more divides, oppression, repression and hatred between people, as they identify more and more with this sector or that, in opposition to one another. To speak for myself, I am not “a white, middle class, chronically ill, Jewish, female, cisgendered, bisexual, right-or-left-leaning American,” I’m fucking Erica Xenne, and I will express as such. If all you can see is a statistic, that says more about you than me.
In this world of categories, ideals and constructs, I find that exploring my own nature is paramount. These rules and games will never tell me who I am, nor will they contain me; I have always known this. If you explore who you are, and you express who you are and observe what happens, you learn a lot about the world and it’s easier to see the trends for what they are. That is my theory anyway. Subjectivity and individualism do not necessarily begin and end with serving the self. If you know who you are and assert it, the world shows its true colors in your wake.
“What if we were never taught as children to associate what we saw, heard or felt with anything particular? What if we weren’t taught to tell time? What if we were allowed to develop our natural impressions of everything around us? How would it be? What if our faculties were much more psychically in tune instead of logical?”
The way culture pans out is a direct result of human nature. Part of being psychically in tune with our nature is feeling the need to create structures and distinctions. Language was what set us apart from Neanderthals and allowed us to survive longer, since their vocal cords were not shaped properly to allow for complex language to develop. It was language which allowed us to accumulate knowledge like “how to build a fire” and pass it down over generations, so that newborn generations wouldn’t have to start over and could acquire more skills. This is what allowed the human species to survive, since physically we are not equipped to defend ourselves and could be taken down by most animals half our size.
Thus language (structure, distinctions, knowledge) was a staple of human society and we built on it, making bigger borders and structures to protect ourselves from predators. Our ancestors did this for us, which now allows us to be born into a fully built house, use money our parents made to buy food, and go to the hospital to get medicines that were created by previous generations so we don’t die every time we get sick. This allows people like me and you to sit around on our computers in our safe haven, protected by walls that shield us from the elements and from natural predators, with access to food and medicine to allow us to survive, and sit around thinking about what it would be like if we knew nothing. The truth of it is, we would not be here thinking about that, if we had to think about surviving; and if people did not use language to build up cumulative knowledge and apply it, then survival is what we would be thinking about.
That said, I have often wondered if people just stopped talking about race, if racism would disappear within a few centuries. Distinctions like that are pointless, nonsensical and result in holding the species back from reaching its potential. If we didn’t have so many wars we would have more money for space programs to expand, but warring over territory and borders makes sense, as much as it seems we should be past it by now; because species who survive are the same ones who build up power and take down the weaker ones. Racism, however, is nonsensical. It is not natural either; children aren’t racist. It’s an absolutely learned behavior, socially conditioned.
Telling a person that ‘stress’ causes their illness only stresses them out more. It’s a load of garbage.
I’ve had a chronic illness for years and “trying to avoid stress” never once helped my symptoms. Working out to expend energy, following the protocols and making sure to get enough sleep, did. I was at my healthiest when I lived in a poor area in NYC in a high stress environment with high stress work and running a band (managing, promoting, booking, writing, rehearsing) ..singing through my whisper. Every second of my life was taken up by work, band stuff, gym and diets, which I engaged on hyper drive in order to squeeze out any ounce of voice I had left. Sitting on my ass making time pass “less stressfully” always makes my health worse by comparison.
World-wide studies confirmed that the secret to long life is a sense of purpose. As MLK said – If you can’t fly, run. If you can’t run, walk. If you can’t walk, crawl. But either way, you’ve got to keep moving forward.
When it comes to lust, most people cant touch the outermost edges of my extremes. I wouldn’t suffer anyone to endure that fate. Some people need more sex than I, but my lust still knows no bounds.
It’s not just about the body – it’s about a need to own the person completely; to conquer his soul. To possess, rule and infiltrate every fucking inch of his mind, body, heart; even his dreams and his past. To have him do the same with me. I want absolutely no pebble unturned, no corner of his mind that I can’t reach, no lost memory that I haven’t ravaged for everything it’s worth. I need to be King, Queen, Princess, Prince and people to him. He is my dominion and I am his.
Lust is even more dangerous perhaps, for me, than those who are purely physical. Because the physical will never approach the depths I need to infuse in order to feel even a drop of satisfaction for a mere moment and then hunger for more. The universe is not big enough to compete with the lengths I will go to in order to reach every fucking corner of every past life and every future life; to completely own him. Limits, boundaries, ‘good ‘ and ‘bad,’ dirty… none of this has any place in this world.
I don’t care as much if we make love to other people under certain conditions. His body and mine can play together. But his soul will be devoured down to the last grain until there is nothing left between us but øne.
I don’t have a lot of ‘scholarly knowledge’ about the Bible. Nonetheless, I view the Bible as a collection of tales that were rehashed from Sumerian tablets and other works which were likely rehashed from even older works (humanity may be much older than we realize, evidence is showing). The rehashing and same themes & names among many stories over time is rather obvious, but the question that piques my interest is: why? What kind of control over the mind do ideas like “original sin” — or sin at all — allow? Is this a tool that governments and institutions have used to control our minds?
It is beyond obvious to me that the crushing of sacred darkness is a ploy by the powers that be– at any given time in history – to enslave us.
Those who are awake can understand – and embody – the idea that there is no shadow without light. Different people may play a different archetypal role in this balance – so this is not to say that everyone’s personal balance should be the same. But anyone who opens their minds’ eye can see clearly that shadow and light both give form to things. Night and day give rhythm to things. It is insane to try to crush one or the other in oneself, or even worse, in the whole of humanity. To dictate where “everyone” should fall on that scale is to open up a huge pocket that isn’t being filled, leaving space for terrible evil to balance out the light that is being forced on us and translated to repression. When everyone must only focus on the light, they repress the dark, and that space of sacred darkness still needs to be occupied in the cosmos and in human consciousness — so what fills it? — something really fucking horrific that balances “the light.” This is why those of us who can see, will not aim to repress darkness in ourselves and others.
I have a tendency to repress light in myself– such as love, forgiveness, giving, compassion — I have worked hard on that. I have naturally very strong compassion to the point where I feel the feelings of others at times. I once was told “You have strong mirror neurons.” When watching a movie, I am the characters for that time period. But I learned early on to close my heart to real humans and open it only to music, characters and my own creative work, because otherwise it would get crushed – especially after I lost my voice, which was the direct channel through which I could deliver messages from the aether I live in. I was isolated and otherworldly, and I went through a deep, powerful process to reconnect. This is what Erica Xenne’s white dress is about in Erosia: sacred light. Prince Ruby Valentine is the darkness, and the two illuminate each other and give each other form.
*Disclaimer: I am not a Bible scholar or a Historian. I am simply sharing ideas about what I recently put together, due to light researching, and my reaction to it.*
A few thousand years before the Bible was written by humans, a different set of humans wrote very similar stories about our origin, using many of the same names. These people were called the Sumerians. People have recently been translating the Sumerian tablets. The biggest difference in the story is the fundamental stuff: the Sumerian tablets claim humans were created by aliens called the Annunaki who came here to mine gold in order to save their dying atmosphere, and mixed their own DNA with that of Homo Erectus. The God Enki was the most empathetic one, who gave the humans knowledge, but his brother Enlil & the other Annunaki did not want the humans to have knowledge because they needed to use them as slaves to mine gold. The Bible was a tale written by the winners of a war, who portrayed Enki as the devil and Enlil as God, but all the wrathful horror stories written about the bible’s “God” were about Enlil in the Sumerian tablets, who was hated by many humans.
As crazy as that might sound, the Sumerian tablets also contain a lot of accurate details about outer space, all of the planets in the Solar system, the atmosphere, Mars, the Moon, etc; and the information checks out completely , scientifically. There is no way they could have known this without any form of space travel.
So to me, it’s not about whether or not I “believe” the stories about our origin – it’s more that I find the tablets interesting because it begs the question: how did they know these highly accurate details about outer space?
The Bible is utterly uninteresting because it is simply a rewrite — it was propaganda created to paint Enki in a bad light. However the way they went about it was quite implausible; they claimed the God in the Bible was omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent; yet they also demonstrated many evil acts committed by this God. The Sumerian tablets, at least, have a story that is internally cohesive; even if much of it is likely fictional.
It makes no difference to me if we were created by the Big Bang, God, Evolution, Aliens, or the dreams of psychics, as I will continue to live my life the exact same way regardless, even if any of these theories, or another one altogether, was proven to be true beyond doubt. I won’t buckle to a God that created me but won’t accept me the way I am. I’d rather get cast to Hades or Hell or the nearest black hole.
But I do find a lot of holes in the tales we are told about our past, so I enjoy introducing new theories and watching people come up with holes in those. What I find interesting is that given the evidence, this is a strong case, hard to refute, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.. it’s just interesting that people are generally more willing to accept tales with much bigger glaring holes in them.
Having opinions about people — a topic that has been on my mind recently.
People often have opinions about other people. Like what they just did was rude. What a jerk! Etc. I often don’t have the same type of knee jerk reactions, because for me there’s a wider perspective and context.
Let’s use an example: my accountant doesn’t say hello or goodbye. He just gives you the numbers and hangs up. Others might call this rude but I call it sensible and economical – he saves several seconds each phone call by doing this. Add that together and you have a lot of time saved on the job. People might think it’s funny that he doesn’t know how to “human,” but I disagree. He “humans” by making a living and setting his own terms.
We live in a society where it is considered normal to watch tv, smoke, get drunk, have several kids we can’t afford. So in order to have a negative opinion about someone who hangs up the phone too fast, a lot of presumptions need to be made about my mindset. For me to hone in on someone who is doing something you don’t see every day, and say that it’s “rude,” I’d have to start with the basic premise that the things people do every day are “not rude,” or, “compassionate.” Smoking is not compassionate to anyone in the room. Drinking is not compassionate toward your loved ones. Watching tv is a waste of life and it makes ones’ skills at “humans” much weaker, as it subtracts time that could be spent talking to people face to face.
So for me to make snap judgments about people, let’s put this in perspective.
A guy is defensive on the internet. What a jerk! I should hate this moron! Ok, hold up: We are all reading posts on the internet rather than doing something productive. Let’s start with this basic premise and sit with it for a moment before continuing to spout accusations. “I am here on the internet reading a complete stranger’s post and reacting to it without seeing his facial expression.” Fact. I sit with that fact.
This is not a lecture on judgment. I really don’t give a shit. If I hate someone at first sight then so be it. Nobody deserves a second chance, the benefit of the doubt or anything else. I have no guilt about how I do or don’t feel about someone.
But in order to jump to the kind of snap judgments people often expect, a lot of pre-determined premises have to be established. For instance, before I can say it’s rude that someone didn’t say hi, I need to agree that saying ‘hi’ is productive, genuine, worthwhile, etc. And in many cases I don’t believe that these social rules ARE productive, genuine, worthwhile…. in many cases I don’t see the point of them. So, while I may engage them myself in order to save myself from potentially annoying consequences, I won’t judge someone negatively for shunning them.
I have a deeply personal perspective on things and in order to agree, or disagree, with people’s snap judgments of others, I would have to accept the basic premises that the things they are judging are relevant in the first place. This is not about kindness or compassion, it’s about perspective and frankly, self-absorption. I’m more concerned with evaluating my own merit because I’m the only person I can control.
I don’t see the point in discussing political ideology. Why not discuss solutions instead? Who cares which “side” came up with it..as long as it works?
I may be a liberal, a conservative, a libertarian, a fascist, a greenist or a redist.. I don’t lose sleep over it. What matters to me is that I try my best not to spout ideological spewings that I am incapable or unwilling to carry out myself. If my words don’t match my actions, what are they worth? I’m not saying I’ve been perfect in this area or any other. But it’s amazing to me that most people give more importance to spouting superior verbiage than to who they actually are.
Generally, people don’t think enough about results. Is it true that black people, women, and others get paid less? Is it true that they are oppressed? Maybe, maybe not.. we could argue about statistics all day. However it is visibly evident that telling people they are ‘racist’ when they simply disagree about a policy, isn’t effective. It causes more division and anger, and fails to change their mind or reach them in any way. Unless someone is saying blatantly degrading things about another race, calling them ‘racist’ is counter-productive. What does someone hope to accomplish by doing that?
Politics, to me, isn’t an abstract philosophy comprised of high-minded ideals. It’s a discussion of solutions and problems that arise as a result of contemplating my REAL LIVED experience, and that of my loved ones, or people I meet. My political stances are based on me, my loved ones, and realistic studies and thoughts about human nature, which I apply to actual people in my life, rather than abstracting about what could or should be.
Some people love to hate Slytherin and all it represents. Yet Slytherin is an archetypal necessity that possesses tremendous merit.
Without competition the world would stagnate. Knowledge (Ravenclaw) and kindness (Hufflepuff) are both wonderful, but very localized. What can you do with knowledge if there isn’t an ambitious Slytherin broadcasting it? It just dies with you.
How do you get great ideas out in to the public eye? You think the world just lets that happen? No. Galileo and Jesus’s head are always on the chopping block.
Ravenclaws can yap about knowledge but, when push comes to shove, it’s a Slytherin who is going to take their ideas and actually change the world with them. Hufflepuffs can be sweet and nice but when push comes to shove its Gryffindors fighting the war up at the front line to defend them. Otherwise it’s all North Korea and the rich powerful run everything.
You may not assume the Slytherin would want to broadcast your kindness and knowledge, but understand, that’s what Slytherins do to get ahead. They take something that people need so that they buy it and thus they get paid.
Slytherins are shit heads, but they are necessary for the world. They may be broadcasting an idea because they want to make money or be famous. But they’re still selling it. While Hufflepuffs are resisting competition because they don’t want to hurt anyone, Harry Potters, Hermiones and Snapes are up front and center defending and fighting for what they believe. Rowling is a Hufflepuff herself, but her book centered on Slytherins and Gryffindors for a reason: because thats where the world moves.
Still, Hufflepuffs are equally necessary to the world, because kindness is a thing worth defending. If that doesn’t exist, Gryffindors will go back to sleep and Slytherins will take over.
I am a thousand percent Gryffindor. I’ve always been ambitious, but my big heart defending what I believe is first and foremost and I’ll die in the fire of my loyalty and integrity. If there’s one thing that stops me from “making it big” it’s my big stupid heart. I work hard, but I won’t sell a lie. That is the death of me. And it can be stupid, but it’s the way I’m wired. Still, I’m smart enough to recognize that without Slytherins, people like me would have no purpose and nothing in society would move.
This is not to say that (archetypal) Hufflepuffs utterly and completely lack ambition, but rather, that they are under the delusion that they don’t have to step on any toes to actualize it.