Ariana Grande and the question of appropriate expression of sexuality

[msante]

On a somewhat related sidebar, I was feeling slightly guilty for enjoying this video so much _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhW1mh7U6-U because it is fundamentally a pop song and part of the appeal was that I found the women sexy, which is actually somewhat difficult for me amongst all of the "falseness" that is propagated out there. Even though they are still kind of "strutting their stuff," they seem to have a more dignified way of going about it. Comparing this music to Ariana's is like comparing a Greek sculpture to a porn magazine, it just doesn't "reek" of those coarser impressions. I'm sure they get harassed, heck I would even stare a little bit, but I think they attract a different kind of person. Still, watching beautiful women singing about a mythical love affair with subtle esoteric undertones while they do their pseudo-celtic dance is probably not something I should be spending my time on...

Certainly IMO the video fall under pop category (the video has almost 2 millons of views), though it seems to be a more decent way of sell this pseudo-culture. Despite this kind of "decency" I think that there is a sort of connection between Ariana's "art" (or whatever she does) and this kind of videos. I think that since there are differents levels of BEING depending on the development of each person, there are differents way to trigger their "low instincts" (so to speak). Well, watching the video I could see on myself the type of "feelings" that arise in my mind. Those are more in the shape of "platonics" feelings like "what beatiful girls", "they have a nice voice", and stuff like that... but I can feel that in the background seems to be operating the same "forces" only in a more subtle way. This kind of "feelings" can arise not just watching a video but in the real life. For example one can feel it with a workmate that is (or seems to be) a sweet and nice person, or a neighbour, or almost anyone that can cross our path.

What is my point? IMO one should never lower his or her guard, the General Law has many ways to catch us. For those of us who can feel repulsion by the type of art like the one that makes Ariana, there will be ever alternatives more in sync with our likes.

 

[Laura]

<snip>
Basically, men should be more than willing to accept personal responsibility for and nix (or otherwise own and deal with) any fantasies that, when reflected on, are just that. But female sexual overtures, conscious or unconscious, can and should be recognized for what they are, in order that the male in question not be driven bonkers by being told that something that really is happening is "all in his head". Around all of that, it seems lots of conversations would need to happen.

I suppose all of that can be summed up by: "Stop manipulating each other! And talk about things instead!"

All of the above is useful but I want to comment on the bolded part. I think that this is where woman-to-woman communication can help, either mother to daughter, sister to sister, friend to friend, just women's culture in general.

For example, my grandmother was always telling me "don't do that" because it was inappropriate behavior for a girl. Well, I was rather resentful about it at the time, but over the years, I've come to realize how useful such training is.

 

[Chu]

Romantic fantasizing is a different beast IMO. This comes from a place of being needy and not being firmly enough attached to a goal or mission, or generally not having enough social connection, so that you make up and latch on to 'the one' fantasies about a woman when there's nothing of substance really there.

FWIW, perhaps it would be useful to separate and be aware of possible cases of "objectification".

1) (Mostly) VISUAL STIMULUS ---> sexual attraction/sexual fantasies/the other person become the OBJECT of those impulses: It's seeing someone as physically attractive and having an immediate sexual "craving" for them. According to several studies, women feel that too to a certain extent (mating/reproductive instincts), but our brains don't work in the same way when rationalizing them. The hormones are there, but depending on the person, the culture and other factors, it will be voiced, seen for what it is, or not.

2) STIMULUS (anything, from a look to a smell to a smile to whatever) ---> the other person becomes an OBJECT, a mother or father figure who is there to make us feel great, protected, understood, etc. Everything we never got when we were children. Just projection, no true facts to back that up.

3) STIMULUS (Anything, again)---> the other person becomes an OBJECT, a daughter or son figure who is there for us to "save", to protect, etc. White Knight syndrome, etc.

Those three cases are about objectifying, either based on simple but very powerful hormones, or mixed up with emotional wounds, neediness, narcissism, selfishness, etc. None of that is "love", simply because a) you don't know the person, b) you haven't developed a true friendship sharing similar goals, c) you're just being a "walking hormone", d) it is part of the biological nature, e) you have been conditioned and never learned to relate to others on an equal footing, caring about them as real people, valuing friendship and brotherhood above all, f) you don't know yourself and/or haven't worked enough on yourself to be able to give and receive sincerely. Any or all of those can be combined.

There are more than those three cases above, but let's say that is a start. And based on that, I think it's safest to always question the truth behind any feeling/attraction.

Regarding the power of hormones, which most of the time we are unaware of, take this article, for example: http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/Default.aspx?id=39351 and this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/14/science-of-attraction-_n_6661522.html

I think they are worth reading and remembering the different types of hormones that can trigger these objectifying feelings, and how little it takes! Perhaps more than a list of things that make one objectify someone or feel objectified, what is useful is to have a mental list, based on each person's particular machine, wounding, programs, observations from others, etc. of the signs and symptoms that tell us when we are objectifying someone, or the triggers to which we tend to be more vulnerable to. Also, of the signs that tell us when we are misusing sexual energy (are you cranky for no reason, thinking about a person all the time, obsessed about something trivial? Sometimes little changes can be indicative of an imbalance.) And of course, talking about it and getting objective feedback is the best, because we can't always judge by ourselves.

So, once you have a "list" or possible signs that you may have contracted the "objectifying disease" or are at risk of doing so, it becomes easier and easier to question your feelings and take measures. If they are not based on true friendship, on sharing deep goals, on something that benefits something higher than yourself and also your loved ones, then you can be pretty much certain that you are "being a walking hormone" or lying to yourself and the other person. You can then make efforts to treat them like you would a sibling you love, and be friendly without any agendas (or get away from them if they are just playing games). Learning about friendship and what it is to relate to men and women equally, without wanting anything in return. Controlling your own tendency/programmed attitude of attracting the unhealthy kind of attention. It is probably best done in a community setting, but I think a lot of it can also be accomplished in your every day life, and sharing here. Like with any program, once you've observed it and questioned it enough, then it gets easier to spot.

Finally, you can also gain a better idea of what you are willing to compromise on or not, respecting and honoring what you know about your real You, and the other person's.

Conclusion: I think it is fair to say that it is as hard for women as it is for men, just in different ways. Most men in our group CAN and do have control over the basic "hey mamma" impulse. But it is harder to control the type of objectification that is mixed up with narcissistic family dynamics, wounding, past lives, etc. We literally have to practice the art of "religion" (re-ligare). Together, step by step, and regaining healthy principles, pure thoughts, and our deeper human side. Not repressing the "base" thoughts, but understanding them for what they are and learning to act differently, with care for others. Then, there is less room for sexual and biological impulses to take over. You don't heal "cravings" by overeating and immediate gratification. You heal them by understanding them and finding truly nurturing alternatives.

If the above is in any way accurate, I think in the end, what a person wears or not, does or not, won't have that much value as a "magnet". It behooves each of us to try to understand our machine and theirs, and act for what is right and real instead of being ruled by mechanicalness. But we will naturally tend towards being more considerate in the way we act and present ourselves, when we truly care about what's inside them, and ourselves.

Anyway, just some thoughts, FWIW.

 

[WIN 52]

It's merely a matter of where we are and who we are!

To graduate we have to learn all the lesson. It wouldn't work if we skipped the lessons of living in 3D STS. This seems to be the final semester. Heck, only 12.5% of the population will likely graduate to 4D STO, if that. The rest are food for the Moon. Yeah, we chose to be here because that is the choice to move forward.

Personally, it was quite a struggle to read this thread. It really doesn't matter what happened because that is the theme here at the moment, anything goes. It boils down to how each individual reacts. Basically only 12.5% will actually react the way that this thread is saying the World should react. Isn't that expecting too much from the other 87.5%?

50% With Soul potential / 50% Organic Portals
I
25% STO / 25% STS
I
12.5% to graduate / 12.5% to repeat

Who says that things are out of balance?

 

[Timótheos]

I think with sexuality it is like with everything else: knowlege and awareness protects. People have to understand how BIG a force sexuality is. Sex for reproduction is the main mechanism for the survival of life in the universe (at least on Earth) on all scales and has been for billions of years. I think it is safe to say that it is even a bigger and more fundamental force/law than the human subconscious, which is difficult to deal with alone.

Indeed, it seems that the innate urge to procreate (have sex) is so hard wired into our bodies/minds/consciousness that it could be characterized as one of the fundamental forces or programs of the human experience. For this reason, I don't think that this drive can ever be completely eliminated or perhaps even totally mastered within oneself, but with awareness, communication and hard work, it can be controlled or ameliorated to a significant degree. That's what this discussion is about in terms of the work, how to use the tools we are learning here to gain some measure of control and mastery over deeply rooted thought and behavioural programs.

So, with that in mind and thinking about dynamics between the sexes in general, it occurs to me that there are 3 essential factors involved - appreciation, attraction and possession - and the difference between them is one of desire and time.

Bear with me if I get a little philosophical here... :)

One can admire and express appreciation for beauty without feeling the need to objectify or possess that which is being admired. Take a beautiful sunset for example. No one would ever express a desire to posses the sunset for themselves, they would simply enjoy it and revel in it in the moment of the experience. I think the same could be applied when looking at another human being, it would be possible to find beauty in others in the moment without becoming attached in any way to that person, but just being appreciative. But once you factor in 'desire', then the person being admired becomes something you 'want' for yourself, as an object to possess.

There is a caveat here in that what is commonly considered 'beautiful' is often a product of societal and cultural conditioning, so that should be factored in as well. Where one is superficial and often based on programmed preconceptions, the other, when looked at closely, encompasses a whole range of different attributes. It is a deeper understand of the essence of the person that sets them apart.

In my experience, considering someone like Arianna Grande, I can see how she presents the model-image of an attractive woman on the outside, but considering the message she is sending, she in fact becomes kind of ugly in a way. Yet when I really look at my friends and family, none of us even close to being conventionally beautiful, how they smile and laugh, with their crooked teeth and oddly shaped bodies, the weird jokes and easy repartee, I can say unequivocally that they are far more beautiful to me. Beautiful because I have come to know them and can appreciate them as they are, without desiring to possess them in any way.

Then, switching from admiration to attraction is where the 'time' element comes into play. Say a person encounters a man or woman who they perceive as beautiful and immediately feel attraction towards them which leads directly to thoughts of the future, getting together, possible relationship and all that follows, which are forms of wishful thinking. They've gone from simply being appreciative in the moment to the unnecessary complexity of dreaming for the future. The transition between these states is so instantaneous and subtle that one is hardly perceptive of it happening. This is where elements of the work can help. By being mindful of one's propensity for projecting all kinds of things onto people, hopefully we can catch ourselves when it happens and bring our awareness back to the present. If over time two people find themselves 'attracted' to each other and are willing to communicate openly about it, then the possibility of a relationship can form.

Now, possession on the other hand seems to relate to how the process objectification happens. When a man looks at a woman and instantly imagines what it would be like having sex with her, then she has become merely an object to him, to be used for his own personal pleasure. His desire to possess her for no other purpose than copulation reduces her to an inanimate thing, destroying the humanity of them both. I think this characterizes the attitude the boy who shouted insults at Arianna Grande. It is a subconscious process which also happens almost instantaneously and seems to be somewhat ingrained in the male experience, and one which all of us engaged in the work should make strident efforts to catch, master and hopefully eliminate from our interactions with the opposite sex.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we need not necessarily be ashamed of finding beauty in other people, or even expressing it as such, but endeavour to keep our tendency to fantasize about the future and our desire to possess in the forefront of our awareness, so that we can interact with each other open, honest and non-threatening way.

 

[Cosmos]

Here is what Gurdjieff had to say about sex in general, the sex center, and depending in which context, it can be "the chief form of slavery and also the chief possibility of liberation":

The third time he gave still more. On the question of functions and centers for instance. On the first occasion he spoke of three centers, the intellectual, the emotional, and the moving, and tried to make us distinguish these functions, find examples, and so on. Afterwards the instinctive center was added, as an independent and self-supporting machine. Afterwards the sex center. I remember that some of his remarks arrested my attention. For instance, when speaking of the sex center he said it practically never worked independently because it was always dependent on other centers, the intellectual, the emotional, the instinctive, and the moving. Then in speaking of the energy of centers he often returned to what he called wrong work of centers and to the role of the sex center in this work. He spoke a great deal about how all centers rob the sex center of its energy and produce with this energy quite wrong work full of useless excitement and, in return, give to the sex center useless energy with which it was unable to work.

I remember his words. "It is a very big thing when the sex center works with its own energy, but it happens very seldom."
I recollect another remark which afterwards proved a ground for much wrong reasoning and many wrong conclusions. This was that the three centers of the lower story: the instinctive, the moving, and the sex centers, work, in relation to each other, in the order of three forces—and that the sex center, in normal cases, acts as neutralizing force in relation to the instinctive and moving centers acting as active and passive forces.

[...]

"Can the instinctive and the moving functions be controlled by two distinct centers?" I asked G. once.
'They can," said G., "and to them must be added the sex center. These are the three centers of the lower story. The sex center is the neutralizing center in relation to the instinctive and the moving centers. The lower story can exist by itself, because the three centers in it are the conductors of the three forces. The thinking and the emotional centers are not indispensable for life."

[...]

"I have noticed," I said, "that throughout his whole life every man comes into contact with women of a definite type and every woman comes into contact with men of a definite type. As though the type of woman for every man had been predetermined and the type of man predetermined for every woman."

"There is a good deal of truth in that," said G. "But in that form it is, of course, much too general. Actually you did not see types of men and women but types of events. What I speak of refers to the real type, that is to say, to essence. If people were to live in essence one type would always find the other type and wrong types would never come together. But people live in personality. Personality has its own interests and its own tastes which have nothing in common with the interests and the tastes of essence. Personality in our case is the result of the wrong work of centers. For this reason personality can dislike precisely what essence likes—and like what essence does not like. Here is where the struggle between essence and personality begins.

Essence knows what it wants but cannot explain it. Personality does not want to hear of it and takes no account of it. It has its own desires. And it acts in its own way. But its power does not continue beyond that moment. After that, in some way or other, the two essences have to live together. And they hate one another. No sort of acting can help here. In one way or another essence or type gains the upper hand and decides.

"In this case nothing can be done by reason or by calculation. Neither can so-called love help because, in the real meaning of the word, mechanical man cannot love—with him it loves or it does not love.

"At the same time sex plays a tremendous role in maintaining the mechanicalness of life. Everything that people do is connected with 'sex': politics, religion, art, the theater, music, is all 'sex.' Do you think people go to the theater or to church to pray or to see some new play? That is only for the sake of appearances. The principal thing, in the theater as well as in church, is that there will be a lot of women or a lot of men.
This is the center of gravity of all gatherings. What do you think brings people to cafés, to restaurants, to various fetes? One thing only. Sex: it is the principal motive force of all mechanicalness. All sleep, all hypnosis, depends upon it.

"You must try to understand what I mean. Mechanicalness is especially dangerous when people try to explain it by something else and not by what it really is. When sex is clearly conscious of itself and does not cover itself up by anything else it is not the mechanicalness about which I am speaking. On the contrary sex which exists by itself and is not dependent on anything else is already a great achievement. But the evil lies in this constant self-deception!"

"What then is the deduction; should it be so or should it be changed?" asked someone.
G. smiled.

"That is something people always ask," he said. "Whatever they may be speaking about, they ask: Ought it to be like that and how can it be changed, that is, what ought to be done in such a case? As though it were possible to change anything, as though it were possible to do anything. You at least ought to have realized by now how naive such questions are. Cosmic forces have created this state of affairs and cosmic forces control this state of affairs. And you ask: Can it be left like that or should it be changed! God himself could change nothing. Do you remember what was said about the forty-eight laws? They cannot be changed, but liberation from a considerable portion of them is possible, that is to say, there is a possibility of changing the state of affairs for oneself, it is possible to escape from the general law. You should understand that in this case as well as in all others the general law cannot be changed. But one can change one's own position in relation to this law; one can escape from the general law. The more so since in this law about which I speak, that is, in the power of sex over people, are included many different possibilities. It includes the chief form of slavery and it is also the chief possibility of liberation. This is what you must understand."

 

[Alejo]

To expand on something timotheos just said.

I think that being aware of the fantasizing that imagining a future scenario with the object of your attraction. Is where concepts such as "knowledge protects" become verifiable and extremely valuable.

I'm thinking about the fact of the very purpose of our existence as consciousness units that experience the universe. And this experiencing feeds back into the All adding knowledge to the All of itself from a subjective unique point of view (and that is an over simplified version but bare with me). And it occurs to me that in order for us to each accomplish this task we have to, actually, experience said All. And I think that being constantly dissociated in the future because of this innate unconscious objectifying is a way to leave the present.

While you're fantasizing about this or that person, you're not present in yourself. Something else takes over. And the longer it's there the less of "you" will be. And knowing this can protect you from essentially not living your life. Specially if this dissociating happens along with our other tendency to identify with every single state of ours. We could potentially become really identified with our objectifying nature and give up our essence.

Just a thought that occurred to me while reading this thread.

 

[pete02]

<snip>
Basically, men should be more than willing to accept personal responsibility for and nix (or otherwise own and deal with) any fantasies that, when reflected on, are just that. But female sexual overtures, conscious or unconscious, can and should be recognized for what they are, in order that the male in question not be driven bonkers by being told that something that really is happening is "all in his head". Around all of that, it seems lots of conversations would need to happen.

I suppose all of that can be summed up by: "Stop manipulating each other! And talk about things instead!"

All of the above is useful but I want to comment on the bolded part. I think that this is where woman-to-woman communication can help, either mother to daughter, sister to sister, friend to friend, just women's culture in general.

For example, my grandmother was always telling me "don't do that" because it was inappropriate behavior for a girl. Well, I was rather resentful about it at the time, but over the years, I've come to realize how useful such training is.

This is also what I was thinking. I mean most of the problem does appear to be men not controlling their urges but for women there are also appropriate times and places for certain clothing. For example my brother was telling me about this very attractive young woman (mid 20's I think) that works in the office at the company he works for. He told me one time she was complaining because of all the dirty old men constantly making comments at her. He explained to her that certain things she wears sometimes are very revealing and maybe the office is not the best place for that. For example some white spandex pants she wore one time apparently without any undergarments. She argued that a girl should be able to wear whatever she likes and he agreed but he explained it might help tone down the comments. He tells me he hasn't seen her wear them since.

 

[Beau]

This is also what I was thinking. I mean most of the problem does appear to be men not controlling their urges but for women there are also appropriate times and places for certain clothing. For example my brother was telling me about this very attractive young woman (mid 20's I think) that works in the office at the company he works for. He told me one time she was complaining because of all the dirty old men constantly making comments at her. He explained to her that certain things she wears sometimes are very revealing and maybe the office is not the best place for that. For example some white spandex pants she wore one time apparently without any undergarments. She argued that a girl should be able to wear whatever she likes and he agreed but he explained it might help tone down the comments. He tells me he hasn't seen her wear them since.

Yes, it is pretty crazy to see how women dress as far as regular attire is concerned. You see many women wearing leggings aka yoga pants exclusively while wearing a tight shirt that doesn't go past their waist. Modern fashion has really taken the mystery out of things, and it's basically about revealing as much as possible. You see women wearing see-through shirts. Not to mention that jeans and leggings are now made to fit women as tight as possible. Is that necessary in order to attract a man's attention? I don't think so, it really doesn't take much to do that! Seems like it's part of the sexualization of society and women in particular, the way that women's clothing has become about showing as much as her body as possible. That's why my initial reaction to Ariana's story was to think that she can't really complain, because by dressing that way she has, to expect men to not treat her like a sex object is just foolish and naive. Yes, people should be able to wear what they like but they should also be smart enough to know what kind of reaction their self-presentation will have.

 

[Joe]

In my experience, considering someone like Arianna Grande, I can see how she presents the model-image of an attractive woman on the outside,

On this point, I think make up, clothes and the way such 'celebrities' are presented by the media is a big part of it. Without all of that, does Ariana not become just another 20 something girl in the street?

I mean, really, the whole situation just becomes even more absurd.

 

[Ca.]

In my experience, considering someone like Arianna Grande, I can see how she presents the model-image of an attractive woman on the outside,

On this point, I think make up, clothes and the way such 'celebrities' are presented by the media is a big part of it. Without all of that, does Ariana not become just another 20 something girl in the street?

I mean, really, the whole situation just becomes even more absurd.

I often question those that are her handler's, and who this might be.

Obvious financial gains are always high on the list as well the influence too her followers. And all that this entails, including the perverted aspects of this multi billion dollar industry.

With very lucrative fashion spin offs, and royalties from the very easily mind controlled audience. Buy, buy, buy, and be, cool, cool, cool.

Sex Sells

Handler ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Oseary

Oseary, along with Ashton Kutcher and Ronald Burkle, is a co-founder at A-Grade Investments, a venture capital firm that has made numerous investments in companies such as Airbnb, Foursquare, Shazam, SoundCloud, Spotify and Uber.[14] In 2010, Madonna and Oseary founded gym chain Hard Candy Fitness. They've also partnered with Iconix Brand Group to launch the lifestyle brand "Truth or Dare by Madonna."

Guy Oseary you tube

https://youtu.be/AoGTJJB8f24

Ariana Grande is yet another child TV star turned into an industry Kitten.

_http://vigilantcitizen.com/musicbusiness/2014-vmas-oversexualization-pushed-music-industry-puppets/

Were taking about a portal, rack with emotional over load. This kind of entertainment is big very cash cow, over stepping any self reflection social morels within this semi porn worship.

She is just another tool of the trade bring in big bucks to the corrupt few.

There's something very satanic about it all with 30,614,500 Total Page Follows

_https://www.facebook.com/arianagrande/photos/?ref=page_internal

 

[Solie123]

I'm a little late in my response, and I don't have much to add, that hasn't already been said, but this topic is just of such tremendous interest to me, and I wish to thank Joe and all those who have posted. The issue of objectification goes far wide, and finding a feasible solution has proven to not be so simple.

The only other thing I want to build on is in response to Scottie's connection to the 'gender-neutral' ordeal. I want to add a different theory in regards to the latter. Something came to mind as I was reading through this thread and that is, our cultural need, to overtly declare our sexuality. This includes our sensuality, our sexual preferences, and our sexual activities. This is Ariana's 'art', displaying her sexuality, as is the case with most, if not all, pop stars.

Well, isn't this declaring(and displaying)-of-sexuality exactly what these gender-neutral folks are attempting to do? It has nothing, or very little to do with discrimination, instead, it has everything to do with the fact that they want everyone to know, and acknowledge their sexuality. This is interesting, because no one is stopping anyone from doing what they please in privacy, yet they feel compelled to 'display' themselves.

Sexuality is obviously nothing new, what is new, is this comfort and drive to expose it... everywhere! I'm a 'millennium' so to speak, so I cannot say from experience, but wasn't sexuality personal, and something for you, and only you to know at some point? Not to say sexuality is something that shouldn't be spoken about, but shouldn't sexual DETAILS stay out of the public's eye?

 

[T.C.]

I'm a little late in my response, and I don't have much to add, that hasn't already been said, but this topic is just of such tremendous interest to me, and I wish to thank Joe and all those who have posted. The issue of objectification goes far wide, and finding a feasible solution has proven to not be so simple.

The only other thing I want to build on is in response to Scottie's connection to the 'gender-neutral' ordeal. I want to add a different theory in regards to the latter. Something came to mind as I was reading through this thread and that is, our cultural need, to overtly declare our sexuality. This includes our sensuality, our sexual preferences, and our sexual activities. This is Ariana's 'art', displaying her sexuality, as is the case with most, if not all, pop stars.

Well, isn't this declaring(and displaying)-of-sexuality exactly what these gender-neutral folks are attempting to do? It has nothing, or very little to do with discrimination, instead, it has everything to do with the fact that they want everyone to know, and acknowledge their sexuality. This is interesting, because no one is stopping anyone from doing what they please in privacy, yet they feel compelled to 'display' themselves.

Sexuality is obviously nothing new, what is new, is this comfort and drive to expose it... everywhere! I'm a 'millennium' so to speak, so I cannot say from experience, but wasn't sexuality personal, and something for you, and only you to know at some point? Not to say sexuality is something that shouldn't be spoken about, but shouldn't sexual DETAILS stay out of the public's eye?

I can only reiterate what I said in my response to Scottie. I honestly think we really need to distinguish between sexuality and gender.

The gender-crazy folk are obsessed with themselves in their little narcissistic bubbles and wish everyone to know that 'they're not normal' - that they're not a man or a woman or their both, or whatever.

You can contrast this with someone who is overtly sexual in their self presentation and sexually promiscuous, but who isn't 'different' regarding their gender. It could be argued, for example, that the gay scene is more overtly sexually promiscuous, but for the most part, that isn't a gender issue.

"I'm different and speshul because I'm gender-fluid and I demand that you acknowledge and respect that in how you interact with me, and that you put up with it when I'm around you and address me by my preferred pronoun" is different from, "Look at how gorgeous I am, and I want to tease you and flirt with you and have sex with you because I'm sexually liberated and my sexuality is a big part of my identity."

 

[monotonic]

I suspect that the drive for open sexuality is a result of the fact that people are looking for a liberation of pleasure in a world where they are increasingly unable to feel authentic pleasure, or joy, or satisfaction. People are so miserable that they feel they need a new way to experience pleasure in their lives - the dangers of open sexuality are no longer repellent.

 

[Laura]

This is also what I was thinking. I mean most of the problem does appear to be men not controlling their urges but for women there are also appropriate times and places for certain clothing. <snip>

Yes, it is pretty crazy to see how women dress as far as regular attire is concerned. <snip> Is that necessary in order to attract a man's attention? I don't think so, it really doesn't take much to do that! Seems like it's part of the sexualization of society and women in particular<snip> Yes, people should be able to wear what they like but they should also be smart enough to know what kind of reaction their self-presentation will have.

This is where External Considering comes in. And remember, External Considering, as a principle of the work, is predicated on having a good understanding of oneself and other human beings. Being an STO candidate more or less requires that a person work on getting that understanding because only then can they apply STO principles in this way. External Considering is that application; it is doing that which makes life easy for other people AND for the self. Because, obviously, when you make things easy for others it almost automatically makes things easier for you.

Keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean running a "be nice" program all the time. Sometimes, if you understand another person well, the thing that makes life easier for them and for you is to have a confrontation that brings something to a head so that things can reorganize on a different basis.

So, specifically applied to the present topic, if men understand where women are coming from, how they have been programmed by family and society, they will keep that constantly in mind. They will understand how their own machines work and won't allow those triggers to act on them. And if they act anyway, they will practice disconnecting them by networking. They will learn what women really want and need and how to give that both on the friendly level, and the intimate level if and when they do find a partner. On that topic, I wrote a long post about it in the "Women Who Love Psychopaths" thread some years back I believe.

As for women involved in The Work: if they understand where men are coming from, how they have been programmed by family and society, they too will keep that in mind. They will understand that they have been used by dark forces to cause the maximum amount of pain and suffering in our world for both men and themselves. They will undertake to make life easier for those "others", i.e. men, and themselves and that may include eliminating culturally ingrained sexualized behavior.

But that is men and women involved in The Work. We can't expect those who are NOT involved to have this same approach and attitude. So, if trying to communicate it to others, one should keep in mind that its almost like talking another language.

<snip>
The only other thing I want to build on is in response to Scottie's connection to the 'gender-neutral' ordeal. I want to add a different theory in regards to the latter. Something came to mind as I was reading through this thread and that is, our cultural need, to overtly declare our sexuality. This includes our sensuality, our sexual preferences, and our sexual activities. This is Ariana's 'art', displaying her sexuality, as is the case with most, if not all, pop stars.

Well, isn't this declaring(and displaying)-of-sexuality exactly what these gender-neutral folks are attempting to do? It has nothing, or very little to do with discrimination, instead, it has everything to do with the fact that they want everyone to know, and acknowledge their sexuality. This is interesting, because no one is stopping anyone from doing what they please in privacy, yet they feel compelled to 'display' themselves.

Sexuality is obviously nothing new, what is new, is this comfort and drive to expose it... everywhere! I'm a 'millennium' so to speak, so I cannot say from experience, but wasn't sexuality personal, and something for you, and only you to know at some point? Not to say sexuality is something that shouldn't be spoken about, but shouldn't sexual DETAILS stay out of the public's eye?

You have a point here. And that is definitely NOT becoming "as little children", so to say.

I can only reiterate what I said in my response to Scottie. I honestly think we really need to distinguish between sexuality and gender.

The gender-crazy folk are obsessed with themselves in their little narcissistic bubbles and wish everyone to know that 'they're not normal' - that they're not a man or a woman or their both, or whatever.

You can contrast this with someone who is overtly sexual in their self presentation and sexually promiscuous, but who isn't 'different' regarding their gender. It could be argued, for example, that the gay scene is more overtly sexually promiscuous, but for the most part, that isn't a gender issue.

"I'm different and speshul because I'm gender-fluid and I demand that you acknowledge and respect that in how you interact with me, and that you put up with it when I'm around you and address me by my preferred pronoun" is different from, "Look at how gorgeous I am, and I want to tease you and flirt with you and have sex with you because I'm sexually liberated and my sexuality is a big part of my identity."

I see what you mean, but I think that Scottie was using the word in a slightly different way. I think his intent was to say that we should kind of see/act above our genders - whatever they are - and see each other as human beings, i.e. the "become as little children" thing. But heck, even that is poisoned nowadays.

But, referring to what you wrote above, saying "I'm different and speshul because I'm gender-fluid and I demand that you acknowledge and respect that in how you interact with me, and that you put up with it when I'm around you and address me by my preferred pronoun" is only an extension of "Look at how gorgeous I am, and I want to tease you and flirt with you and have sex with you because I'm sexually liberated and my sexuality is a big part of my identity." That's because the first statement is pretty much equivalent to the second in that both are demanding attention to SEXUAL issues, and "gender" terms are just being used to conflate and confuse. Sure, the gender peeps aren't necessarily stripping and acting sexual, but believe me, that's next on their agenda! Geeze, look at the creature that won the Eurovision thing!

Cleckley nailed it in "Caricature of Love" only he had no idea how far it could be pushed. It really is like the Tower of Babel.