Ariana Grande and the question of appropriate expression of sexuality

The thing is with the Ariana Grande situation is that it is a caricature of real life situations - everything about it is sort of larger than life. What she says about being objectified is absolutely true: no one should be objectified; but her defense is futile because she objectifies herself in her "art". No, it does not give anyone the right to go over the line no matter how blatant she behaves, but there is free speech. The kid can say what he was thinking as long as he doesn't act on it. It's one thing to paint a picture and another when your art is pretty much selling yourself so that men will hang on you and pant after you. You are basically inviting them to think that way and to say such things.

However, let's take it to the work level. The work is all about mastering the self. It's pretty obvious that someone engaged in The Work ought not to be affected by such as Ariana Grande. That's pretty much a given. But, take it down a notch: you could say that if some part of you goes "hubba hubba" and starts fantasizing about the girl next door even if she is not doing any of those "come-on" type things, you are NOT mastering yourself.

I'm sure everyone has heard the zen story about the two monks and the woman crossing the river:

A senior monk and a junior monk were traveling together. At one point, they came to a river with a strong current. As the monks were preparing to cross the river, they saw a very young and beautiful woman also attempting to cross. The young woman asked if they could help her cross to the other side.

The two monks glanced at one another because they had taken vows not to touch a woman.

Then, without a word, the older monk picked up the woman, carried her across the river, placed her gently on the other side, and carried on his 
journey.

The younger monk couldn’t believe what had just happened. After rejoining his companion, he was speechless, and an hour passed without a word between them.

Two more hours passed, then three, finally the younger monk could contain himself any longer, and blurted out “As monks, we are not permitted a woman, how could you then carry that woman on your shoulders?”

The older monk looked at him and replied, “Brother, I set her down on the other side of the river, why are you still carrying her?”

I've been doing a lot of reading about Essenes, Zoroastrians, Pythagoreans, early Christians, etc, and it seems that all of them place a certain focus on mastery of the sexual nature. At the same time, those three groups seemed to be quite accepting of women even in positions of authority which was almost unheard of in those cultures.

Gurdjieff had interesting things to say about sex and "abuse of sex" and I think it's posted several places around the forum if someone wants to find it and quote it here. There are also some passages in Mouravieff on the topic of the emotional center running on sexual energy and dreaming while awake.

Obviously, we can't judge or seek to correct the external society by Work standards, but we, here, should certainly be aware of the necessity for Work, that Mastery of the self is a large part of the AIM of the Work, and that means, at the most basic level, mastery of the sexual/romantic tendencies/urges/whatever.

If you are in The Work - Esoteric Christianity as Gurdjieff called it - you might consider the rather puzzling saying of "Jesus" in the NT:
And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

I suspect that this saying - and many others put in the mouth of "Jesus" - are simply borrowed from the writings and sayings of Paul. Another thing Paul said was:

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ

I would suggest that this was going in the same direction as becoming as little children.

As to what the "kingdom" is, Paul saw it as a new reality and his descriptions are rather like graduating to 4D. His ideas were all geared toward that end. Another thing he said that goes along with the quotes above:

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

Now, if guys and gals could begin to think about each other as children in a sense, innocent and curious and energetic and interested in learning about everything, and put aside gender differences for the sake of interacting on a more authentic level it might be easier to achieve some mastery of the self.
 
Laura said:
But, take it down a notch: you could say that if some part of you goes "hubba hubba" and starts fantasizing about the girl next door even if she is not doing any of those "come-on" type things, you are NOT mastering yourself.

I'm sure everyone has heard the zen story about the two monks and the woman crossing the river:

A senior monk and a junior monk were traveling together. At one point, they came to a river with a strong current. As the monks were preparing to cross the river, they saw a very young and beautiful woman also attempting to cross. The young woman asked if they could help her cross to the other side.

The two monks glanced at one another because they had taken vows not to touch a woman.

Then, without a word, the older monk picked up the woman, carried her across the river, placed her gently on the other side, and carried on his 
journey.

The younger monk couldn’t believe what had just happened. After rejoining his companion, he was speechless, and an hour passed without a word between them.

Two more hours passed, then three, finally the younger monk could contain himself any longer, and blurted out “As monks, we are not permitted a woman, how could you then carry that woman on your shoulders?”

The older monk looked at him and replied, “Brother, I set her down on the other side of the river, why are you still carrying her?”

I read what you wrote above and started to ask "why?", and then the little zen parable, which I had not heard, in combination with what you said kind of stopped me dead in my tracks. It seems good, so thanks...
 
Laura said:
Gurdjieff had interesting things to say about sex and "abuse of sex" and I think it's posted several places around the forum if someone wants to find it and quote it here.

There are a lot of references to "abuse of sex" throughout the forum and this one is a quote directly from ISOTM:

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,6785.msg47429.html#msg47429

"The study of the work of the human organism as a chemical factory shows us three stages in the evolution of the human machine.

"The first stage refers to the work of the human organism as it has been created by nature, that is to say, to the life and functions of man number one, number two, and number three. The first octave, that is, the octave of food, develops in a normal way to mi 192. At this point it automatically receives a 'shock' from the beginning of the second octave, and its development goes on consecutively to si 12. The second octave, that is, the air octave, begins with do 192 and develops to mi 48 where it stops. The third octave, that is, the octave of impressions, begins with do 48 and stops there. Thus seven notes of the first octave, three notes of the second, and one note of the third octave represent a complete picture of the work of the 'human factory' in its first or natural stage. Nature has provided only one 'shock,' that is, the 'shock' received from the entrance of the second octave which helps mi of the first octave to pass to fa. But nature did not foresee and did not provide for the second 'shock,' that is, the 'shock' that would help the development of the third octave and thereby enable mi of the second octave to pass to fa. A man must create this 'shock' by his own personal efforts if he desires to increase the output of the fine hydrogens in his organism.

"The second stage refers to the work of the human organism when a man creates a conscious volitional 'shock' at the point do 48. In the first place this volitional 'shock' is transmitted to the second octave which develops as far as sol 12, or even further up to la 6 and so on, if the work of the organism is sufficiently intense. The same 'shock' also enables the third octave to develop, that is, the octave of impressions which in this event reaches mi 12. Thus in the second stage of the work of the human organism, we see the full development of the second octave and three notes of the third octave. The first octave has stopped at the note si 12, the third at the note mi 12. Neither of these octaves can proceed any further without a fresh 'shock.' The nature of this second 'shock' cannot be so easily described as the nature of the first volitional 'shock' at do 48. In order to understand the nature of this 'shock' it is necessary to understand the meaning of si 12 and mi 12.

"The effort which creates this 'shock' must consist in work on the emotions, in the transformation and transmutation of the emotions. This transmutation of the emotions will then help the transmutation of si 12 in the human organism. No serious growth, that is, no growth of higher bodies within the organism, is possible without this transmutation.

The idea of this transmutation was known to many ancient teachings as well as to some comparatively recent ones, such as the alchemy of the Middle Ages. But the alchemists spoke of this transmutation in the allegorical forms of the transformation of base metals into precious ones. In reality, however, they meant the transformation of coarse 'hydrogens' into finer ones in the human organism, chiefly of the transformation of mi 12.

If this transformation is attained, a man can be said to have 'achieved what he was striving for, and it can also be said that, until this transformation is attained, all results attained by a man can be lost because they are not fixed in him in any way; moreover, they are attained only in the spheres of thought and emotion. Real, objective results can be obtained only after the transmutation of mi 12 has begun.

"Alchemists who spoke of this transmutation began directly with it. They knew nothing, or at least they said nothing, about the nature of the first volitional 'shock.' It is upon this, however, that the whole thing depends.

The second volitional 'shock' and transmutation become physically possible only after long practice on the first volitional 'shock,' which consists in self-remembering, and in observing the impressions received.

On the way of the monk and on the way of the fakir work on the second 'shock' begins before work on the first 'shock,' but as mi 12 is created only as a result of the first 'shock,' work, in the absence of other material, has of necessity to be concentrated on si 12, and it very often gives quite wrong results. Right development on the fourth way must begin with the first volitional 'shock' and then pass on to the second 'shock' at mi 12.

"The third stage in the work of the human organism begins when man creates in himself a conscious second volitional 'shock' at the point mi 12, when the transformation or transmutation of these 'hydrogens' into higher 'hydrogens' begins in him.

The second stage and the beginning of the third stage refer to the life and functions of man number four.

A fairly considerable period of transmutation and crystallization is needed for the transition of man number four to the level of man number five. [...]

" 'New birth,' of which we have spoken before, depends as much upon sex energy as do physical birth and the propagation of species.

"'Hydrogen' si 12 is the 'hydrogen' which represents the final product of the transformation of food in the human organism. This is the matter with which sex works and which sex manufactures. It is 'seed' or'fuit.'

"'Hydrogen' si 12 can pass into do of the next octave with the help of an 'additional shock.' But this 'shock' can be of a dual nature and different octaves can begin, one outside the organism which has produced si, and the other in the organism itself. The union of male and female si 12 and all that accompanies it constitutes the 'shock' of the first kind and the new octave begun with its help develops independently as a new organism or a new life.

"This is the normal and natural way to use the energy of si 12. But in the same organism there is a further possibility. And this is the possibility of creating a new life within the actual organism, in which the si 12 has been manufactured, without the union of the two principles, the male and the female. A new octave then develops within the organism, not outside it. This is the birth of the 'astral body.'

You must understand that the 'astral body' is born of the same material, of the same matter, as the physical body, only the process is different. The whole of the physical body, all its cells, are, so to speak, permeated by emanations of the matter si 12. And when they have become sufficiently saturated the matter si 12 begins to crystallize. The crystallization of this matter constitutes the formation of the 'astral body.'

"The transition of matter si 12 into emanations and the gradual saturation of the whole organism by it is what alchemy calls 'transmutation' or transformation. It is first this transformation of the physical body into the astral that alchemy called the transformation of the 'coarse' into the 'fine' or the transformation of base metals into gold.

"Completed transmutation, that is to say, the formation of the 'astral body,' is possible only in a healthy, normally functioning organism. In a sick, or a perverted, or a crippled organism, no transmutation is possible."

"Is complete sexual abstinence necessary for transmutation and is sexual abstinence, in general, useful for work on oneself?" we asked him.

"Here there is not one but a number of questions," said G. "In the first place sexual abstinence is necessary for transmutation only in certain cases, that is, for certain types of people. For others it is not at all necessary. And with yet others it comes by itself when transmutation begins. I will explain this more clearly. For certain types a long and complete sexual abstinence is necessary for transmutation to begin; this means in other words that without a long and complete sexual abstinence transmutation will not begin. But once it has begun abstinence is no longer necessary. In other cases, that is, with other types, transmutation can begin in a normal sexual life; and on the contrary, can begin sooner and proceed better with a very great outward expenditure of sex energy. In the third case the beginning of transmutation does not require abstinence, but, having begun, transmutation takes the whole of sexual energy and puts an end to normal sexual life or the outward expenditure of sex energy.

"Then the other question: 'Is sexual abstinence useful for the work or not?'

"It is useful if there is abstinence in all centers. If there is abstinence in one center and full liberty of imagination in the others, then there could be nothing worse. And still more, abstinence can be useful if a man knows what to do with the energy which he saves in this way. If he does not know what to do with it, nothing whatever can be gained by abstinence."

"Speaking in general, what is the most correct form of life in this connection from the point of view of the work?"

"It is impossible to say. I repeat that while a man does not know it is better for him not to attempt anything. Until he has new and exact knowledge it will be quite enough if his life is guided by the usual rules and principles.

If a man begins to theorize and invent in this sphere, it will lead to nothing except psychopathy. But it must again be remembered that only a person who is completely normal as regards sex has any chance in the work. Any kind of 'originality,' strange tastes, strange desires, or, on the other hand, fears, constantly working 'buffers,' must be destroyed from the very beginning. Modem education and modem life create an enormous number of sexual psychopaths. They have no chance at all in the' work.

"Speaking in general, there are only two correct ways of expending sexual energy: normal sexual life and transmutation. All inventions in this sphere are very dangerous.

"People have tried abstinence from times beyond memory. Sometimes, very rarely, it has led to something but in most cases what is called abstinence is simply exchanging normal sensations for abnormal, because the abnormal are more easily hidden. But it is not about this that I wish to speak.

You must understand where lies the chief evil and what makes for slavery. It is not in sex itself but in the abuse of sex.

But what the abuse of sex means is again misunderstood.

People usually take this to be either excess or perversion. But these are comparatively innocent forms of abuse of sex.

And it is necessary to know the human machine very well in order to grasp what abuse of sex in the real meaning of these words is.

It means the wrong work of centers in relation to sex, that is, the action of the sex center through other centers, and the action of other centers through the sex center; or, to be still more precise, the functioning of the sex center with energy borrowed from other centers and the functioning of other centers with energy borrowed from the sex center."

"Can sex be regarded as an independent center?" asked one of those present.

"It can," said G. "At the same time if all the lower story is taken as one whole, then sex can be regarded as the neutralizing part of the moving center."

"With what 'hydrogen' does the sex center work?" asked another.

This question had interested us for a long time but we had not previously been able to answer it. And G., when he had been asked before, had never given a direct reply.

"The sex center works with 'hydrogen' 12," he said on this occasion, "that is to say, it ought to work with it. This is si 12. But the fact is that it very rarely works with its proper hydrogen. Abnormalities in the working of the sex center require special study.

"In the first place it must be noted that normally in the sex center as well as in the higher emotional and the higher thinking centers, there is no negative side. In all the other centers except the higher ones, in the thinking, in the emotional, in the moving, in the instinctive, in all of them there are, so to speak, two halves: the positive and the negative; affirmation and negation, or 'yes' and 'no,' in the thinking center, pleasant and unpleasant sensations in the moving and instinctive centers. There is no such division in the sex center. There are no positive and negative sides in it. There are no unpleasant sensations or unpleasant feelings in it; there is either a pleasant sensation, a pleasant feeling, or there is nothing, an absence of any sensation, complete indifference. But in consequence of the wrong work of centers it often happens that the sex center unites with the negative part of the emotional center or with the negative part of the instinctive center. And then, stimulation of a certain kind of the sex center, or even any stimulation at all of the sex center, calls forth unpleasant feelings and unpleasant sensations. People who experience unpleasant feelings and sensations which have been evoked in them through ideas and imagination connected with sex are inclined to regard them as a great virtue or as something original; in actual fact it is simply disease. Everything connected with sex should be either pleasant or indifferent. Unpleasant feelings and sensations all come from the emotional center or the instinctive center.

"This is the 'abuse of sex.'

It is necessary, further, to remember that the sex center works with 'hydrogen' 12. This means that it is stronger and quicker than all other centers. Sex, in fact, governs all other centers. The only thing in ordinary circumstances, that is, when man has neither consciousness nor will, that holds the sex center in submission is 'buffers.'

'Buffers' can entirely bring it to nought, that is, they can stop its normal manifestation. But they cannot destroy its energy. The energy remains and passes over to other centers, finding expression for itself through them; in other words, the other centers rob the sex center of the energy which it does not use itself.

The energy of the sex center in the work of the thinking, emotional, and moving centers can be recognized by a particular 'taste,' by a particular fervor, by a vehemence which the nature of the affair concerned does not call for.

The thinking center writes books, but in making use of the energy of the sex center it does not simply occupy itself with philosophy, science, or politics - it is always fighting something, disputing, criticizing, creating new subjective theories.

The emotional center preaches Christianity, abstinence, asceticism, or the fear and horror of sin, hell, the torment of sinners, eternal fire, all this with the energy of the sex center. ... Or on the other hand it works up revolutions, robs, bums, kills, again with the same energy.

The moving center occupies itself with sport, creates various records, climbs mountains, jumps, fences, wrestles, fights, and so on.

In all these instances, that is, in the work of the thinking center as well as in the work of the emotional and the moving centers, when they work with the energy of the sex center, there is always one general characteristic and this is a certain particular vehemence and, together with it, the uselessness of the work in question. Neither the thinking nor the emotional nor the moving centers can ever create anything useful with the energy of the sex center. This is an example of the 'abuse of sex.'

"But this is only one aspect of it. Another aspect consists in the fact that, when the energy of the sex center is plundered by the other centers and spent on useless work, it has nothing left for itself and has to steal the energy of other centers which is much lower and coarser than its own.

And yet the sex center is very important for the general activity, and particularly for the inner growth of the organism, because, working with 'hydrogen' 12, it can receive a very fine food of impressions, such as none of the ordinary centers can receive.

The fine food of impressions is very important for the manufacture of the higher 'hydrogens.'

But when the sex center works with energy that is not its own, that is, with the comparatively low 'hydrogens' 48 and 24, its impressions become much coarser and it ceases to play the role in the organism which it could play.

At the same time union with, and the use of its energy by, the thinking center creates far too great an imagination on the subject of sex, and in addition a tendency to be satisfied with this imagination. Union with the emotional center creates sentimentality or, on the contrary, jealousy, cruelty. This is again a picture of the 'abuse of sex.'"

"What must be done to struggle against the 'abuse of sex'?" asked somebody present.

G. laughed.

"I was just waiting for that question," he said. "But you already ought to understand that it is just as impossible to explain to a man who has not yet begun to work on himself and does not know the structure of the machine what the 'abuse of sex' means, as it is to say what must be done to avoid these abuses.

Right work on oneself begins with the creation of a permanent center of gravity. When a permanent center of gravity has been created everything else begins to be disposed and distributed in subordination to it.

The question comes to this: From what and how can a permanent center of gravity be created?

And to this may be replied that only a man's attitude to the work, to school, his valuation of the work, and his realization of the mechanicalness and aimlessness of everything else can create in him a permanent center of gravity.

"The role of the sex center in creating a general equilibrium and a permanent center of gravity can be very big. According to its energy, that is to say, if it uses its own energy, the sex center stands on a level with the higher emotional center. And all the other centers are subordinate to it. Therefore it would be a great thing if it worked with its own energy. This alone would indicate a comparatively very high level of being. And in this case, that is, if the sex center worked with its own energy and in its own place, all other centers could work correctly in their places and with their own energies."
 
The quote from Ariana's fan is what caught my interest:

'ariana is sexy as hell man i see you, i see you hitting that!!!'

This really highlights how men have been trained to perceive women: as a possession to serve their needs. And women, too, are trained to perceive themselves this way, to varying degrees of success.

I mean, it's pretty much how a male psychopath will treat a woman (and she doesn't have to be dressed or performing like Ariana) so it makes sense that this will trickle down into a ponerized society and impact everyone profoundly. I think we're accustomed to this kind of repression where a woman's sexuality (among other things) is assumed to be a service to men. Male sexuality can run rampant and is often encouraged and highly regarded, while female sexuality can only be channeled as a service.

And so we have people like this fan -- who has spent years fantasizing about "wanting" and "possessing" Ariana, and her "art" has supported this fantasy -- so that when he has the opportunity to engage with her in person he literally has no idea how to do so. His perspective and perception of women is so scrambled that the best he can do is congratulate her partner -- another male -- on his possession. Not only that, it's considered normal behavior.

It would be interested to see a society without psychopaths -- and without influence from external psychopaths -- and look at how both genders are treated. Would it suffer the same problems, or would it be quite different?
 
As I was searching for information on "abuse of sex" I came across a couple of threads that may be worth reading. Some aspects of this topic seem to have been discussed before from different angles and without a 'celebrity' spin. And I think it will be interesting to compare the difference in overall approaches/responses with and without that celebrity spin.

I'll read through the threads to get a broader picture of the issue at hand and in case anyone else would like to do that too here are the links:

Sex/"Romantic Love" and the Work:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,4104.0.html

Caricature of Love:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,21284.0.html

Pornography:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,21650.0.html

Sexual slip and issues:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,22244.msg237467.html#msg237467

The hidden factor in relationship disharmony / Transmutation of sexual energy (merged threads):
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,20835.msg225938.html#msg225938

Learning to Sense and Control the Functioning of One's Centers - Help?:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,25022.msg292738.html#msg292738
 
The thing with Ariana seems like an old conversation had many times.

She complains because she was disrespected and objectified, which shouldn't happen. But she seems to fail to see that she herself is being utilized to further the very behavior she complains about. Now one doesn't have to agree or encourage such behavior to acknowledge it's existence. Female objectification happens way to often in alarming ways the world over. Just take a look at the society's child section of SOTT. Thinking it shouldn't be so Or acknowledging it's harmful effect on people, doesn't mean one shouldn't prepare or beware of it. Or warn others.

I disagree with it, but I would not recommend women I know to walk around in a bathing suit in certain parts of town. There's the way id like society to be and then there's reality. And one must be strategic about it I feel. I'm not negating anyone's right to dress in whatever way they want, but because society is the way it is, I would not recommend dressing certain ways in certain places. And I'm not saying anyone's asking for it, absolutely not.

In terms of the work, I see it somewhat in the lines Laura was mentioning. I believe once the conversation takes place one could use this situation as an opportunity to have honest self observations. Recognize this aspect one sees outside of oneself as part of ones inner world also. How does it operate? Where does it come from? Is this behavior attached to fears or anger? What does it mean to me? And so on. Because I've personally realized that when one let's these things to go unexplored, it provides an opening for external forces to come in and take over your behavior. In this case, your sexual morality could be the one the industry and society imposes on you.

Which brings me to the community level of it. Regardless of how deep the rabbit hole you go, whether you find fault in men or women or the industry and so on. I think personally that the best approach, one that combines personal work with external consideration, is to be the change you want to see in the world. Seeing the level society has gotten to, and behaving within it in such a way that expresses your view for how it could be, is the best way (I think) to do something about it.

Just my two cents.
 
Ant22 said:
As I was searching for information on "abuse of sex" I came across a couple of threads that may be worth reading. Some aspects of this topic seem to have been discussed before from different angles and without a 'celebrity' spin. And I think it will be interesting to compare the difference in overall approaches/responses with and without that celebrity spin.

I'll read through the threads to get a broader picture of the issue at hand and in case anyone else would like to do that too here are the links:

Sex/"Romantic Love" and the Work:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,4104.0.html

Caricature of Love:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,21284.0.html

Pornography:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,21650.0.html

Sexual slip and issues:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,22244.msg237467.html#msg237467

The hidden factor in relationship disharmony / Transmutation of sexual energy (merged threads):
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,20835.msg225938.html#msg225938

Learning to Sense and Control the Functioning of One's Centers - Help?:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,25022.msg292738.html#msg292738

And there was also a thread similar to the current one:

Wealthy women that dress and behave like streetwalkers...
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,42057.msg658263.html#msg658263
 
Siberia said:
<snip>

And there was also a thread similar to the current one:

Wealthy women that dress and behave like streetwalkers...
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,42057.msg658263.html#msg658263

Thank you Siberia, it's a very relevant thread. I only posted the ones I found through the search for "abuse of sex", thanks for broadening the context.

There's also a useful link to a SOTT article in the thread you posted:
https://www.sott.net/article/318282-The-Health-Wellness-Show-The-Death-of-Intimacy-Porn-and-the-Ponerization-of-Sex
 
Joe said:
Dealing with sexuality and sex is a pretty big part of the 'Work' on the self (hence the board this topic is in), so using this story as a launching pad, what are members' take on this story in particular and how it relates to the broader 'work on the self'?

In an ideal world, she shouldn’t be objectified. And men shouldn’t either. On the other hand, she’s objectifying herself and women and selling sex to make money for herself and a music corporation. I don’t see her work as art, it’s more like sales job - likely created by the record company - that invites those sorts of comments and behavior.

Interestingly, a study done last year showed that sex doesn't sell in advertising, so I think the motivations behind the 'sex sells' meme is used for more nefarious reasons. Distraction and dissociation being a couple of them. On an esoteric level, misuse of sexual energy so our enslavement continues is a big one. Given that sexual energy is used to form our magnetic centers, connecting us to our 'higher selves' and given that the energy can be wasted and usurped by other centers, mastering ourselves in relation to sexual instincts and urges is a huge part of working on the self.

'Sex sells' maxim is BS: Study shows almost no evidence that sexually explicit content actually sells products

I do think she was right to say something about it. That at least sets an example for young girls who listen to her music.
 
Joe said:
There's a recent story on Sott about tweets by 23 year old American singer Ariana Grande. The short version is that she was approached by a fan after a concert and the fan made some rude comments about her (you can read them in the article) and she responded on twitter that "expressing sexuality in art is not an invitation for disrespect !!! just like wearing a short skirt is not asking for assault."

A Sott editor comment at the end of the article reads:

How to cope with the residual effects of degrading insults and sexual innuendo is an emotionally crippling problem for many women, but it becomes especially prevalent for those in the celebrity spotlight deemed 'public property.' This young woman had courage and patience to take on stereotypical responses and convey the damage inherent in this thoughtless behavior. Maybe it will always be this way and men remain crass and clueless, but women have both a right and a say in how they are treated by the other half of humanity.

Dealing with sexuality and sex is a pretty big part of the 'Work' on the self (hence the board this topic is in), so using this story as a launching pad, what are members' take on this story in particular and how it relates to the broader 'work on the self'?

Coming back to the main topic of this thread I want put here some practical ideas about sex and The Work, just a thoughts

I think that there is many practical things that we can do to Work on mastering ourselves in relation to sex. The first that I think is in keep aware all the time (or as long as we can) that people (specially opposity sex or the target of our sex attraction) are not things. We know that we have different forces inside (and outside too) pushing in that direction. Inside there is, as is pointed in "Cupid's poisoned arrow", the Mating Program (designed to make sure we spread our genes as widely as possible). This force are there; IMO it would be silly try to destroy it or make believe us that it can be discarded in some way. But we, like learners doing the Work, can be aware of it and try to mitigate its effect on our behavior. So for example we, at our jobs, could do not participate in jokes about sex and objectification of women/men. Also we can avoid consume music, movies, "art", or stuff like that, that goes in the same line (of course except if we are researching or watching it with aware eyes in a way). Also we can read about the topic and examine ourselves, our impulses trying to keep aware of it, and if we are involved in a romantic relation try to put in practice and try to bypass the Mating Program in the way that we can and to the extend that we can.

I guess that there is much more that we can do, but IMO a good begin can be these simple (or not so much) "rules".
 
Nathan said:
It would be interested to see a society without psychopaths -- and without influence from external psychopaths -- and look at how both genders are treated. Would it suffer the same problems, or would it be quite different?

I would think it would be different, but it's probably more than just psychopaths. As we have been told by the Cs, humanity was trapped in this physical body because it wanted to experience the physical and all the feel-good effects that such a life would bring. Obviously sex was the biggest "draw" that was used by 4D to do that. Now, what has happened is that the Western world, culturally speaking, has denigrated to creating and propping up artistic people who treat their sexuality and physical appearance as tools to market themselves, making themselves targets for those who have objectified them due to that marketing. It's gotten pretty disgusting, as most of us here have noted, when looking at pop culture and the current zeitgeist. Is this because of psychopaths at the top controlling the angle of popular culture? I'm not so sure if it's that, because as was noted humanity itself is rather drawn to the physical world and all it takes is the denigration of society into puerile thinking to see the culture change and for "expression of sexuality" to turn into what it has become, essentially softcore pornography. Oh it's definitely been guided there by psychopaths, but I'm not sure if we would end up different left to our own devices.

Of course women (and men) are going to be treated as objects in such a world. What we saw in the interaction with Ariana and her fan and the ensuing reaction on Twitter was the verbal confirmation of what so many people are thinking but not saying. Which is, that Ariana and her ilk are at least partly responsible for those reactions. I very much disagree with that stance, as it's essentially a variation on the "blaming the victim" mindset that exists in rape cases by men and women. Also, it's not just people involved in the Work who should be able to control their desires and see past the physical when interacting with other people. If we're talking about a world without psychopaths, the ideal world, I think everyone would be behaving essentially with consideration towards others and realizing that as a human being, each person has the right to be treated as such and not as a piece of meat to be gawked at. I personally think that even in this current messed-up world, men, as a whole, have a responsibility to do that no matter what is being presented to them, whether it's a scantily-clad singer on stage or a woman in a bar wearing a short skirt and heels. Yes, that kind of controlled behavior veers into the Work, but I'm sure there are men not involved in any kind of Work who do take on that responsibility, albeit they are in minority in the West unfortunately. To suggest that Ariana "got what she asked for" is just lazy thinking that entirely takes the onus off the other person for what goes on in their heads.

So I think there are a couple lines of force here. One is that Ariana and other pop singers are exhibiting inappropriate expression of sexuality, behavior that is engendered and maintained by a culture that looks at the physical and the satisfaction of desires as the be-all, end-all of human purpose. The creation of such a cultural direction has likely been done consciously by the elite consortium who dance to the tune of their 4D overlords in order to keep mankind entrapped and focused on anything but our spiritual evolution. That much has been made clear through Laura's work and the C's transmission.

The second line of force is mankind's reaction to those behaviors, and especially those of us here intent on engaging in the Work and attempting to spiritually evolve. If you know that what you see is there to make you think a certain way, you can then choose to not think that way. You can see that the inappropriate behavior of a woman or man is not because they WANT to be treated like an object, but because they are under the control of a culture and don't have the wherewithal or interest in not being under that control. I believe that in some ways, they are victims even if they are willing participants, if you can call a machine a willing participant. If you can see that, then you can control yourself and be conscious enough to not fall into the trap of objectifying them and being aware when your thinking has veered into the "blame the victim" mentality. For those of us involved here, attempting to do the Work, that is an excellent opportunity to be mindful of our thinking, analyze it and communicate with others hoping to iron out any thoughts or behaviors of ours that could be culturally influenced.
 
I think there is more than just to blame it all on psychopaths or on society. They contribute for sure but they only amplify something deeper in us, which is what can be called the animal nature. We cannot escape personal responsibility.

In a crowd of people, you're likely to find individuals with different levels of development. Some have mastered their primitive drives and some not. To rise above the inner monkey is a conscious task, individually and often collectively, but it would be premature I think to assume that such maturity would occur automatically in a situation where psychopaths are inefficient.
 
Patience said:
Laura said:
But, take it down a notch: you could say that if some part of you goes "hubba hubba" and starts fantasizing about the girl next door even if she is not doing any of those "come-on" type things, you are NOT mastering yourself.

I read what you wrote above and started to ask "why?", and then the little zen parable, which I had not heard, in combination with what you said kind of stopped me dead in my tracks. It seems good, so thanks...

The idea is that you are not mastering yourself in this situation because you are still a slave to/being controlled by, biological urges. It feels natural and normal and all, but so do most mechanical things. We have the theory from Gurdjieff and the Cs and other ancient texts that mastery over the 'machine' part of ourselves is the path to true human evolution. It's a theory, and we try to put it into practice, so see what it produces.
 
[quote author= Ant22]If my take on this, as described above, is correct, is any means of control and regulation likely to be successful? Wouldn't the matrix act to ensure its source of food is maintained? I can definitely imagine people raising a cry that their rights are being infringed and comparing any attempts to restrict their choice of outfit or expression of sexuality as an attack on their "freedom". Potentially they'd even compare it to the limitations imposed on women in muslim countries. And given the islamophobia rhetorics currently propagated by the media this would probably be quite a successful argument against regulation.

It may be a step too far on my part, but it's an STS approach to seek to control the situation or environment. I wonder what an appropriate STO approach would be though? Those who enjoy excessive sexualisation of the media don't seem to be asking for help.[/quote]

STO approach would be to keep the school functional. Parents also set rules for the best of their children. So must society. Absolute freedom gives absolute choas. The only thing you can hope for is that people understand why those rules are set in place. Or so I think.

But I am not talking about deciding for everyone what he or she must wear in society. Only those considered 'rolemodels' People who are famous etc.

I suppose it's difficult to explain this to society. But think about it this way. Ask a parent if they want their children subjected to an endless supply of sex-symbols.

No reasonable parent would ever say yes to it. Yet many children worship sex-symbols. So why do we allow it as a society when nobody basically finds it right.

Maybe it's also just a lack of common decency among people these days?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ryu
mkrnhr said:
I think there is more than just to blame it all on psychopaths or on society. They contribute for sure but they only amplify something deeper in us, which is what can be called the animal nature. We cannot escape personal responsibility.

In a crowd of people, you're likely to find individuals with different levels of development. Some have mastered their primitive drives and some not. To rise above the inner monkey is a conscious task, individually and often collectively, but it would be premature I think to assume that such maturity would occur automatically in a situation where psychopaths are inefficient.

Exactly. The way this dynamic played out re: Grande is pretty much social cause and effect. Compared to women, men are more sexually aroused by visual stimuli. (I know there are some articles out there attempting to debunk this, but the studies I've glanced over suggest it's a fact. Jordan Peterson mentions it too, so I'm assuming he's read studies to back it up - need to do more research to confirm. He does mention this book: A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What the Internet Tells Us About Sexual Relationships. Plus, it's possible that those who try to debunk this are the anti-biological SJW types who deny biological differences between sexes.)

This is just amplified by media and the fact that men are presented with an endless stream of highly sexualized images of women. (Women they don't know and probably never will, thus they automatically tend to see them primarily as objects or images, which may have an effect on how they see the women they DO know personally.)

So what happens when a woman objectifies herself and is objectified by her managers/PR people, etc? Naturally, she's going to be objectified by many of the men (and some of the woman) who see her image. It's not ideal, but it's predictable.

Depending on how "conservative" or "liberal" a society is, this can show up in different ways. In our highly "liberal" culture, people are free and encouraged to "express" themselves however they want. And naturally, because our society lacks any kind of emotional education system, you'll get exactly what we have: women who present themselves as sexual objects, and men who treat them as such. And it's a vicious circle.

A more "conservative" culture might respond by covering women completely, thinking that this will either temper men's automatic reactions, or prevent women from using their "evil feminine wiles" on men, depending on where they place the bulk of the responsibility. The result? Just look at Afghanistan, where pedophilia is rampant. The men end up turning to young boys because, some of them say, they can't even see the women, so there's nothing else to arouse them.

So "ordinary" society fluctuates between hedonistic hypersexualization and repressive authoritarianism. Psychopaths can find a niche in either extreme.

From a Work perspective, the first steps would be to acknowledge how your own machine reacts, and to not act on those reactions. Observing how the world works tells us a lot about the way humans work, and how WE work. And that gives us the material to choose how we want to behave, and who we want to become.

Peterson's new year's letter has some good stuff in it for the bigger picture, IMO. A couple quotes:

https://www.sott.net/article/338356-Prof-Jordan-Petersons-New-Years-Letter-to-the-World
The Divine Individual is the man that every man admires, and the man whom all women want their men to be. The Divine Individual is the ideal from which deviations are punished by the group with contempt and disgrace and fidelity to which is rewarded with attention and honor.

If as a culture we started looking to the Divine Individual again, this would have an effect on men's behavior. Being boorish would be socially unacceptable and shame-inducing, encouraging more socially responsible behavior.

And this:

To live with free women, and gain the advantages of their freedom and sophistication, men must therefore bring their shadowed psychic identification with the Divine Mother and Child into the light, without losing their Divine Individuality in the process. They must consciously, voluntarily, deliberately and strategically accept their responsibility for the relationship between autonomous female companionship, support, love, and the responsibility of producing that next generation. This means rejecting, among other things, the misbegotten idea of casual sexual gratification. Sex is either the impulsive, short-term gratification of a domineering biological impulse, or the union of two conscious spirits taking responsibility for what they are doing. The former is not commensurate with the demands of an advanced civilization, which requires the adoption of responsibility above all for its preservation, maintenance and expansion. It is for this reason that the sexualized interactions between young men and women - in universities, for example — are increasingly and inevitably falling under the harsh and tyrannical regulation of the state.
 
Back
Top Bottom