The aberrations and confusions of sexuality

But Jake, to someone who has lived most or all of his/her -life thinking and feeling that they were always just the opposite, that there was some kind of accident of birth, it doesn’t seem to them as if it’s a deep rejection.
Perhaps to them the deepest rejection was in denying what they felt or knew all of their life.
We can’t really know the agony that they go through or went through because of their experience.
It IS a kind of celebration to THEM.
Probably a poor analogy, but was there any celebrating when the Berlin Wall came down, Jakob? People were able to cross to both sides - to the other side? There was such a sense of freedom right? That first real crack in the wall? Was that a deep rejection?
Or was it a celebration of something being destroyed that wasn’t right in the first place or felt to be right and the affirmation of a new beginning?

What is that Native American saying - Lord, grant that I may not judge my neighbor until I have walked a mile in his moccasins - or in this case, under his skin, or into his brain, mind, genitals, et cetera.

I think the deepest rejection is the rejection of self and the denial of who we know we really are but need to pretend to be otherwise because of society’s stupid tunnel vision and stigmatas.

Even if someone’s gender isn’t in reality a “mistake”, who are we to say how someone “ought” or “should” live when it comes to gender? Though I know you weren’t saying that.

funnyface.png

leave the gendertalk to the xperts…

Experts are people who tell you what you can’t do … but they seldom have constructive ideas.

Who is an expert anyway? And why can’t we discuss the subject?

I was blacking out at the time that is why I couldnt discuss the subject.

Man is guided by sight and experience. If by sight you mean the immediate “now” women are more impulsive. Women rarely defend anything these days, except her kids. Actually I think women are better at rooting dangers than men. Men collect and heal just as much as women, that is why their are “medicine men” of the tribe. I dont know how women are less external than men, Id actually say women are more external than men.

I dont think homosexuals want to be women either, and I’m pretty sure that women enjoy sex more than men, and also getting a sex-change is a rejection of your gender, but it is not a rejection of nature, because it is in your nature to get a sex-change, if that is your nature.

This very tender subject has turned into a search into the vast reaches of the meaning for trying to find meaning in the simple act of procreation. And why idealization has turned its back on the ideals which prompted it’s propagation via successive waves of fitness, to cover at first with a successive quantity of clothes, starting with the fig leaf,

And, then giving space to uncovering, & that came suddenly, acceleratingly, the ideals uncovered, with increasing brutality, but after all has been shewn,
Expecting Venus coming out of the sea, accepting nothing less, reach for the stars, twinkling in her eye, bemusing, for, there, they had to relinquish her,
Their competition for her wore off,
First out of guilt for God seething everything
Then warring over her like Helene’s beauty giving a long cast shadow to illuminate the very dark journey ahead,

But, once the goal reached, the terrain arrives and discovered the shortness of the memory of the vastness, before,
The age of discovery,
Now playing as if recapture still possible,
But oh no, the portrait is a very old artifact, languishing in the attick gathering dust,

And this was formidable. But guiltlessly now,
After so many summer dies,
With them.

If you want to know really know, the turnaround
Is almost impossible, because the ideal is instilled into a vanity, so ground in, as to make the true meaning of the romance, it’s own innahilation,

How is it possible say?

Well here it is. guys, dolls, in the eyes of God,
All things are possible. If not, then, it will all ways and everywhere remain just an itching in the soul, you can never scratch.

The surface, hides the eons of immortal times hiding this secret.

Once you get it, then even if habits sustain repetition, it will be with a difference,
That you think before,
Robbing the cradle,
Vandalizing innocence!

I think you misunderstood what I was saying - I may have been unclear.

We are living in a world today where a natural order has been overtaken by a form of individualism, which is supported by drugs and corporate interests. Women are exploited, whether as sex objects or as cheap labour, as consumers and users, as well as numerous other roles which are given to them. There are armies of psychologists working to find out how people can be conned and exploited, and very often people give into the smallest improvement, because it is all they see as motivation.

So when we talk about gender and sexuality, we are talking about an area of life where the natural order has been changed. You confirmed that by adding “these days” to your post. But in what you say, we can see how things have moved - not necessarily to the better, although that is what we are told. Very often we are working on the symptoms, not on the cause of disorders. We tend to be satisfied that one problem has been solved and regard the tears that we cry at night as “just life”. What people have to do to get, for example, a sex change, is swept under the carpet, but the bulge is there.

What I was writing down is what can be observed in communities, which are generally free from the upheaval that many people suffer. Sexuality is so fascinating, because, like drugs, it can help us over a bad time, but it also has its dangers. I think many people use sexuality like that - especially when I sit in a coffee-shop and watch people walk down the street. The images that we are served on this subject regularly lie to us, not representing our situation at all. If it were otherwise, we wouldn’t want the images.

This is why sexuality is full of aberrations and confusion. And yet, just as Orbie poetically wrote, there are so many visions, mythologies and poems which revolve around sexuality. They give us an ideal, or show up the contradictions - if we are open to them.

The problem is that, Males are a commodity of the inverse, while the women are used as the Narcissistic Gradiose, their image plastered
on Billboards…
The Male is the inverse commodity, his suffering is silent, he is used as an object of warfare, a weapon, or silently toils away
at the pyramids of modern times, the worker drone.
Both, the man and woman are objects, but the woman is the hero, the model, the plaster figurine, she is celebrated, she is a beacon of light
and the man is the dirty worker, the soldier that noone sees, thought of as filthy for his work.
Both are objects, but the male is thought to be an inherently lower quality of object, with no sensational value, the dirty slave, a tool, not to be looked upon with eyes, while woman, the high class show girl, to be looked upon at the climatic moment.

Sexuality, as a teenager, was not a medicine for me, It was the Necessity for chemical balance…Finding myself unable to connect with “other” I resorted
to exclusive self-pleasurement…this caused me great envy and angst, I could not label such an act as a cure, but only a source of jealousy and anger…
As an adult I did eventually score the goal but the result, mediocre, and not special like I imagined as a teen. It seemed, the missing Ingredient, being Love,
as my search deepens, often It feels as though a swarm, of conspiracing, cruel water droplets who refuse to love you or value you…the distance and hardness grows and grows, a chamber of 32 doors that all lead you back to where you had always been, in silence
Now, the trend reverts back to the original fetish, self love, fantasies of cloning and marrying the one person I can relate to, the one person who I know has a truly loving heart.
It seems, that the quest for a sex-change, is decided in Part by the slave motif, the female who Wishes to be unseen, and to labor and toil surrounded by the nobility of silent male comrades…or the male who Wishes to be Seen, and to be celebrated, and cherished sexually, appreciated and loved by the water droplets, and it seems the mechanism of opus is the sex-change

Thanks for the reactions to my question, I’ll answer one at a time.

Isn’t the choice of another person irrelevant to how you feel? I know that it is the modern way to express approval or disapproval to all and sundry, but could you just accept it as someone else’s choice and not comment? I couldn’t imagine a sex change for myself either, but other people are not me. I would have to get very close to even imagine what it could be like to feel they were masquerading in their bodies.

Yes, there are a lot of people who have been led to believe that sex is something evil, “the devil within” and all that. I always asked myself, probably edged on by people like Alan Watts, what kind of a God make me procreate in such a pleasurable way, and then forbid it? I feel that sex has been denaturalised by religious organisations because it does seem to fascinate us more than spiritual practise. Priests probably see their sheep roaming away from the flock and try to bring them back.

I don’t think either, that we should go overboard for sex, but all extremes are usually bad for us, and the middle way seems to be the wisest. Our society seems to prevent the natural development, but demonises the behaviour that arises out of that. Hedonism only works to any degree for people who have no other problems. And it even gets complicated for them!

I could imagine that they feel some kind of a release when they come out with something that has been fermenting in them for some time. I also think that Jakob feels the rejection rise within himself, when he thinks about his cousin becoming a man. Perhaps he even liked her as a woman, and feels disappointment at her decision.

You’re right, a poor analogy! :wink:

But you are right, there are so many people commenting on the personal decisions of other people, rather than trying to understand them. And, my purpose here, what is right? Can we even give an answer for someone else, or is it more important to find a way to incorporate other peoples choices into society?

I think the same is true about failed aesthetic surgery, which sometimes turns pretty women into gargoyles. How can we incorporate these people into everyday life, without commenting or rejecting or condemning them?

I think that is a fair description of how it seems to be for many people. It is how it has become, and who knows how long it has been that way? If we think back 200 years, men were cannon fodder and women were left picking up the pieces, if they weren’t the victims of some marauding company passing through.

Who can say how it could be if people were left alone and could cultivate social behaviour that fosters development and progress? What would sexuality be in such an environment? What could men and women build on their yearning for each other? How could homosexuality be accepted as something that also grows in some of us?

Masturbation has been underestimated by many cultures, but encouraged in some for the same reasons as you mentioned – balance. There are numerous situations in which a sexual urge is just out of place, especially in destabilised environments, and cannot be satisfied in a normal way. When it takes over and interpersonal relationships lose their attraction, that seems to be where problems take place.

But I can feel for you, that jealousy and anger were more dominant than the feeling of release, or cure as you say. But then to experience the disappointment later on, that the dream could have just been an illusionary dream of something that never was, must have been very traumatic. I have known many people who have told me about similar experiences, and I have seen their searching eyes asking could you be the one …?

I wasn’t, of course, I was just the empathetic observer, and perhaps another illusion. But I have spoken to men about such disappointment in women and noticed the embarrassed silence spread out. I think men also lose self-esteem, when they notice that they can’t satisfy their women in the way they dream of being able to. I think men are very mixed up about sexuality, which may be a part of what pornography does to them. Some become violent, some can’t control themselves, some have physical disabilities that makes sex anything other than romantic.

Being the one who is said to have to perform, living up to expectations can be the very pressure that makes it impossible.

Interesting take on sex-change. I’ll have to dwell on that for a while.

This thread and the sudden cease of discussion shows just how difficult it is to talk about sexuality. After I mentioned my conversations with women and men on the subject, it suddenly all seems to get very close - too close for comfort probably. I think that our insecurity is based on the denaturalisation of sexuality, which is of course part of culture. That means the more cultured we get, the more insecure in sexual matters we are, and apart from individuals who just don’t care, the more sexuality gets complicated and confusing.

The traditions I like most both have a bad history on sexuality, in as much as they suggest that enlightenment is only achieved by those who are disciplined enough to resist natural urges. This attracts homosexuals curiously enough, I already know five people who have come out as homosexuals and are monks and nuns of some kind. I also know a couple, who have finally left their order because they found they couldn’t control themselves in the way they wanted to, and we all know that pedophiles have also been found in their number.

As Laura Garcia wrote:
"For the modern hedonist, sex is simply another biological craving, and the main goal is that sexual activity should be as pleasurable as possible and relatively hassle-free. Sex has no meaning, or it has only the meaning that each person decides to give it. If you think there is anything particularly deep about sex, you’re just naive – you’re downright rude. In The New Manners for the 90’s, Letitia Baldridge explains:

When two people have been intimate, and the sexual encounter was a pleasant experience for both, it should be considered common courtesy the next day for one to get in touch with the other, if for no other reason than to say “thank you.” Neither person should take a thank-you call as a profession of love or as an indication of desire on the caller’s part to deepen the relationship. When you make a short thank-you call, it is nothing more and nothing less than a gesture of appreciation for a very enjoyable shared experience (pp. 175-176).

So is love and marriage just out of touch with nature, and sex is just “another biological craving”, or does sex deepen personal relationships between people who become close, and warrant such a relationship, as in marriage?

I could have had a lot of angles to respond on the whole OP, but I will just say a couple of things. We could look at the genitals as a metaphor (or is it more than that?) for the thinking of each party. Men are linear, move forward in a line. One could break down their motion, like Zeno might, into small pieces, that are lined up, well, linearly. A woman wraps herself about something. It enters her. (it is internal or becomes internal, where the man’s genital goes somewhere new). She comes at the issue from many sides at once. She does not come at it linearly. She is contacting from many sides simultaneously. Once this is shifted to thinking and discussions, men get pissed off because the woman is using pussy logic. She seems almost random. She jumps from emotions, to consquences ‘over there’, to how it feels, to associations, to memories. She seems all over the place or coming at it from all side. To the woman, the man is thinking in a weird highly focused, disconnected way. Driving toward Z from A, with noticing all these effects and issues that are not even letters. He is a fascist to her, she is an anarchist to him. Both of these modes are extremely important in thinking. Too much focus and you will be cleaning up the side effects of your actions and conclusions forever - and we damn sure are in that situation. Too much all over the place and it is hard to reach a conclusion. (an iq test by the way will always prioritize linear focus because how else can you easily test. Hence the bias in relation to women amongst others) And what the fuck is the hurry for?

A tangential step: sex is not newtonian. Men think it is. They think it is slippery friction that yes, can elicit emotions along with pleasure. But actually it is for the man an immersion in another. In their highly visual goal oriented approach they miss the fact that they, not just their dicks, are actually inside the woman. They think when the sex is over, it is over. It’s not. They have been modified by an intimate overlapping at a complete body level. Women notice this more than men, though they are being trained not to notice this these days. They have been filled up by the man, not just their pussies. New Agers might speak of the combination of energy fields. Well, yup. You can and do actually take on the Karma of the other person. If you deny this, you will not feel it after sex (or during sex). But it will affect you anyway. It will be creative in your life. Because we moderns have been trained to be newtonians, we think this is foo foo. The dick is no longer in there. Nothing was exchanged, well she got a little DNA fluid from me. Sorry, but it’s not like that. Sleep with the wrong person or in the wrong way, you are stained. And so likely are they.

Sorry if this is too tangential to your intentions, Bob.

Thought all nuns were lesbians, and all priests were pedophiles.

Well…

The male and female play specialty roles in producing the strength of the species. As you point out, generally the male does the “rough stuff” and the female does the “tender stuff” (however you like to call those out). That makes a TEAM. It is the TEAMWORK that allowed the species to overcome the jungle. When the female does the rough stuff and the male does the tender stuff, the species doesn’t fair as well against the jungle/dessert/wilderness.

With that in mind, the religions formulated a model for ALL families to adjust toward so that the species/race/tribe would cultivate better and grow stronger (an early concept of The Philosopher’s Stone - the Family). The religions that did not do that, did not fair as well.

But this era is a time when the population is being manipulated, not to be stronger, but to be different, most specifically to be socialist, drones serving the higher order with no concern of the old jungle threats. It is a time when technology has separated Man entirely from the jungle and thus a new make of homosapien species is required so as to handle the new challenges and advance higher toward an imagined “god” status, in absolute control of all things throughout all time.

So that old idea of having males do the brutish, rough stuff and the females do the tender, nurturing stuff is actually on the table for rethinking - “Redesigning Women” (and ditching men entirely in favor of androids and machines).

A big part of the new design for the species is controlled reproduction. And that generally means that males and females cannot be allowed to run around and do what nature had them doing for so long in the past and in the jungle. People are not jungle manimals any more. Of course, to make that change requires a great deal of genetic redesigning, social segregating, and propaganda. And that is where the whole “homosexual” issue came into the scene. It became necessary to prevent the continued growth of specific races and promote the growth of race-mixes that would lead to the final ideal socialist drone (the Eloi drones and the Morlock masters).

That is just during the interim.

That is the naturally formed genetic manner for the jungle manimals. In the New species, all educating, upbringing much be easily upgradable and handled from above. Society cannot afford the delays involved in teaching new generation of males how to raise their son’s in the new properly manner. Thus that duty is to be handled more directly through “social media child rearing”, as you have probably already noticed (“parents” are already thing of the past).

Of course. As I said, “propaganda” is required to cause the change over. And that means blame old people and ways, religions, traditions, people who are not to be liked, or whatever in order to instill the notion that the NEW WAY is the TRUE WAY. What chance could children ever have to not be sucked into that one? Your parents were. And here you are.

Designing in obsolescence, mental blindness, and failure is required while the changing is still underway. ALL of the abnormalities that you are witnessing stem form the same disease of Mankind - the lust to be GOD.

Eventually it becomes known to be completely vulgar and disgusting, never to be done and forbidden. And eventually it can no longer occur. People cannot fight biochemistry.

You are struggling with battles long lost, the rotting flesh of an old dead horse: "Their roots have been cut".

…since you asked. :sunglasses:

Trixie will save us from the Marxist thought police, and their drone propoganda. Trixie is the chosen one, the hero antihero, the one to save us all.

Thanks, Moreno, for your take on the subject.

Your metaphor is appreciated, and as you say, there is more than just the interaction of genitals to take into account here. There is so much going on in the mind leading up to and during copulation that I’m sure that we can hardly recall most of it afterwards. I also think that the connection to the way the sexes think and discuss is also related similar to the way you described it. If men don’t take this into account, we get the mars and venus situation, which has all sorts of consequences.

It is within our capacity to mutually embrace the differences – I’m sure the attractiveness of our partners is because of the differences, not because of the similarities. It is just that we select situations when we expect a compliance and others when we celebrate the difference. This has been addressed in history and generally remedied by looking out for our opposite before we follow our own desires. If it were that simple! As usual, we tend to complicate the issue with an over-compensating ego.

This is what we are here for, I welcome a new angle.

This is an issue that I’ve taken up some twenty years ago, when I was still leading youth groups. It was also my own experience, being of the generation that experimented in this area. Of course we all thought we were all hip and modern and our parents were just puritan and prude. It is true, however, that our sexual partners influence us in a very subtle way – but this influence doesn’t go away, and we carry it into the next relationship. This is the explanation for sexual behaviour that either surprises or disturbs people about their partners. Each relationship has its characteristics and some are very different. Whereas we may adjust in most situations to our new partners, it proves more difficult when it comes down to sex.

Men, being perhaps more psychologically able, are susceptible to going off in search of that special feature they are missing in their relationships at home. However, women are also getting that way. But it is for this reason that men often say, “It didn’t mean anything – it’s you I love!” They are often unable to appreciate that it does mean something from a women’s point of view.

I wasn’t - just for the sake of clarification - using it merely as a metaphor. I do not think the way men and women think is coincidentally related to the way their genitals ‘work’ but actually causally interrelated.

Yes, there is a lot to be said for role demarcation in any team, even if we also need a flexible approach in the face of new challenges. This is also the question that must be posed when looking at the present changes in social cohesion, considering the abandoning of conservative values. Very few young people question their resilience in the storm of changes being made to society – which often create challenges unknown until now, which obviously have an uncertain outcome.

And still, only a short distance from me there are people living out these roles, and some of them belong to the younger generation. I encounter the changes you are talking about in my son’s generation, and I notice he isn’t happy with the situation. He recently told me that he can remember that women he met in his childhood didn’t always represent themselves in a positive way, but they were wise enough not to make such a fool of themselves, as some of the young women he is confronted with today.

At the same time, I have often thought that men would sometimes like to be androids – probably because they neglect a myriad of feelings that they don’t register, and which are all the same important for mental and ultimately sexual health. Women also make the mistake of wanting something other than what they have, and consequently their man should either be “a bit more physical” or “a bit more sensitive” accordingly. It is our idea of being able to transform nature to be as we would like it to be that misleads us into paradoxical ideas.

I like the play on “The Time Machine”, although I don’t share the distrust of socialism. I think we are approaching Huxley’s “Brave New World” to some degree, which is probably equally as disconcerting. Of course it is different in the details, but it fits better than H.G.Wells could have imagined (I have his interesting “The Outline of History” here, which reveals his bias to some degree).

But you are right that there is a reformation of past behaviour based on the technological and biological possibilities we have today, but they are short-sighted and have had no nameable test-phase to ensure that the things we have thought out will actually be successful. However, I get the feeling that my generation’s fixation on the future is regarded as an obsession by younger people.

… or whatever they conceive themselves to be able to be.

Isn’t it incredible that, as science progresses, social conventions become so endangered as to call in anarchy. I was watching Mr. Robot, a series with Christian Slater, because my son wanted me to see where he sees his generation going (his being a hacker and so). We had a short conversation (sic) via Skype and I found I just have to accept what I can’t change.

:stuck_out_tongue:

@Moreno: I understand …

With provisos for a great deal of overlapping bell curves and with no interest in limiting anyone due to their genitals.

Again, let’s be realistic here.

1% of the men don’t deserve 80% of the female sexual variety!!!

It’s insane!!! Someone tried to discuss karma and sex, let’s see… Giving the men who use the greatest amount of extraneous and conspicuous consumptive drama almost all the sex destroys the species…

The other 99% of men are quick to point this out until they figure out that women won’t have sex with men who try to improve their own lives!!!

So what the fuck is this talk about how intuitive women are???!!!

They use a sexual and emotional blackmail system to cause men to shut up, commit a million suicides a year and destroy the planet!!

How do we not know if all this confusion over sexuality isn’t being caused by manmade environmental causes? as these situations of sexual identity confusion seem to be more and more on the increase.

Eating processed foods causes hormone imbalances, and again another problem being caused by what we eat.