Ariana Grande and the question of appropriate expression of sexuality

monotonic said:
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.

Yes but IMO maybe it's a little more complex. It seems that there is not a lineal cause/effect chain, but rather a mesh with a central point of gravity that could be the mating program printed on our genes or on our biological baggage. At the same time there would seem to be a constellation of forces working around that nodal point reinforcing it and increasing its force of attraction and allowing to it anchoring in our cultural and personal reality. In this line could be (as put it Chu) narcissistic family dynamics, wounding, past lives, etc.

In any case it seems to me that the Work point to weaken the force of that gravity central node (mating program) Working through this constellation of forces, to the point of, without destroy it (after all this is part of our 3D nature), to override or mitigate its effect on our behavior and its effect like a filter that distort our perception and undertanding of our inner and outer reality.
 
Solie said:
<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?

Good point!!

Laura said:
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!

That's pretty much it.

It's not really about "identity", but everyone is supposed to think it is. Heck, I know guys who are more "feminine" and even like traditional feminine dress (including makeup), but they don't expect the rest of the world to conform to how they are. In that kind of case, it takes a certain strength and self-knowledge to accept yourself as you are, and lots of external consideration to successfully navigate life on this planet today especially when you have a higher aim. That's a personal thing, and the rest of the world does not have to accept it for it to be "okay".

If I'm born with man parts, then I am a biological male, not female. Mother nature decided on binary gender - which by definition means binary sexuality for the purposes of procreation and continuation of the human race. Now, sure, there are various permutations of that, but that isn't the vast majority of people.

So, if I feel more womanly, that's totally fine. But if I'm running around in dresses and demanding that everyone refer to me as Princess Scottie - thereby causing problems, making others feel uncomfortable, requiring that the law is changed to accommodate me, requiring that language is changed just for me, and generally disrupting established social structures that exist for very practical reasons - how on Earth is that external considering? It's not! Not even close.

But in my private life, maybe I dress up as a woman. Well, that's perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned.

Also, one of the other points I was trying to make is that this "gender identity" thing is not occurring in a vacuum. When you put all the puzzle pieces together, it sure seems like something is going on, and it's not for the benefit of humanity - quite the opposite.

I think this whole drive for "equality" is being corrupted by certain elements which turns the whole thing into something far more sexual and base in nature. That's devolution, not progress. And that ties directly into this whole "liberal progressives" thing, which we now see is just as bad as the "right-wing loonies". Same song, different verse.
 
[quote author= Scottie]That's devolution, not progress. And that ties directly into this whole "liberal progressives" thing, which we now see is just as bad as the "right-wing loonies". Same song, different verse.[/quote]

I don't know. At least with the Nazi's everyone could keep their own gender.

If they succeed in making pedophilia acceptable with this whole 'gender theory' thing and all the horrors that come with it. I think that even the Nazi's in comparison look like a bunch of regular boy scouts compared to what the Pedophile Elite have in mind for society.

I wonder how the Nazi would have reacted to such a society. I bet they even would have found it a step to far. And that is saying something.

Or maybe they would have turned to this new dark side.

Seeing that the grass is greener on the other side.
 
bjorn said:
[quote author= Scottie]That's devolution, not progress. And that ties directly into this whole "liberal progressives" thing, which we now see is just as bad as the "right-wing loonies". Same song, different verse.

I don't know. At least with the Nazi's everyone could keep their own gender.

If they succeed in making pedophilia acceptable with this whole 'gender theory' thing and all the horrors that come with it. I think that even the Nazi's in comparison look like a bunch of regular boy scouts compared to what the Pedophile Elite have in mind for society.

I wonder how the Nazi would have reacted to such a society. I bet they even would have found it a step to far. And that is saying something.

Or maybe they would have turned to this new dark side.

Seeing that the grass is greener on the other side.
[/quote]

This made me think of the diagnostic criteria in the DSM 5:
The diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder are intended to apply both to individuals who
freely disclose this paraphilia and to individuals who deny any sexual attraction to prepuber-
tal children (generally age 13 years or younger), despite substantial objective evidence to the
contrary. Examples of disclosing this paraphilia include candidly acknowledging an intense
sexual interest in children and indicating that sexual interest in children is greater than or equal
to sexual interest in physically mature individuals. If individuals also complain that their sex-
ual attractions or preferences for children are causing psychosocial difficulties, they may be di-
agnosed with pedophilic disorder. However, if they report an absence of feelings of guilt,
shame, or anxiety about these impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic im-
pulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and le-
gally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these
individuals have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not pedophilic disorder.

The bolded part is where I think the problems arise, since the elites will obviously be able to better hide "legally recorded histories".


Aside from that, as of now I don't have much to add that wouldn't be redundant to everything said so far on the thread, which has been really interesting and important, imo.
 
This thread has been such an eye open for me. It's amazing how a simple event such as this can bring so much discussion and this is another lesson about how we can learn A LOT from paying attention to the world around us.

My thoughts are pretty much in accordance to many of you here. And, Jenn, I'm with you regarding your Facebook post and initial reaction. I too have this way of thinking and felt guilty of having such a thought afterwards. Of course, I don't think that the boy's action is justifiable, but I also don't see Ariana as a full victim here. And I also thought something along the line of what Chu said. That maybe this is all just part of her show to rise the controversy and bring more attention to herself.

Some have questioned if she really believes that her “art” is a symbol of female emancipation and I must say that, even though there is no way to know for sure about what she believes or not, my experience with women that are in these “progressive” movements is that they pretty much think that female sensuality and sexuality should be emancipated from the “grip of men”, and that a “progressive woman” should be near to promiscuous. I know, most of them don't say it in those terms, but, having spent time with people from these progressive liberal movements, I always thought that there was some sort of pressure for “breaking the old rules” just because they were “retrograde”. And that if you were to be “progressive”, you had to be open to question old values and come to terms with new ones. Wanting to marry one man or have long-lasting relationships was labelled as "being OK with being possessed by one man” and becoming “his private property". Not wanting to show too much of the body became “being OK with suppressing the female ‘natural’ sensuality, which means accepting oppression”. Being straight regarding sexual preferences became “being unaware that we have no sexual preferences established by nature and that you just didn't try it yet to know or are too retrograde to try new experiences, so you don't really know if you are straight or not”.

For me this was wrong and too black-and-white, but now, thanks to this thread and the one about Jordan Peterson, I'm starting to understand why I was in conflict with this “progressive” ideas. I think that I've always been more conservative after all. Although I do think it is important to think about our values and analyse why they are important to us and also their practicality, one thing is to analyse them, another is to just go against every value just because it is “old” or has been part of what was once a “repressive” society. And I think it amounts to that, to a nonsense fight against everything that puts some structure in our society. It makes me think of the left-wing authoritarians mentioned by Bob Altemeyer, as well as the ideas put forward by Freudian psychology regarding sexual repression and how every progressive now is a Freud fan. It becomes an ideology of fighting against order because "any kind of order means repression" for them, it seems. But, that's the problem with ideology, once you “marry an ideology” it colours all your thinking and then everything must be accepted or rejected accordingly.

I think that all these “progressive” ideas have had great impact in our present society and how we see each other, it certainly has had an impact in me and how I interact with others, so, yes… although I'm reluctant to place the blame in society because I think that I can always choose to be different, knowing that this ideas did have an impact in me and my generation helps me to see that I can change what I chose to manifest according to what I think is right.

We can't directly change the disintegration of society out there, but within our group we can do our best to become better. So I think that it is a great idea to agree on some guidelines as Laura suggested. By them we can probably know better how to behave respectfully and help each other regarding the things discussed here.

Solie said:
[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?

Good point! And it reminds of something that a Brazilian "philosopher" said which I posted in the Jordan Peterson thread. As I said there, I don't' agree with many of the things this man says in other videos, but in the video posted there, he says some interesting things.

Paraphrasing him:

- Every sexual conduct has elements of conflict and can generate guilt. Therefore, for any group that holds sexuality as a dominant factor, the inner conflict will also be intense, which will increase the tendency to neurosis and the repression of moral conscience.

- Psychopathic leaders will provide all the possible means to extinguish the moral conscience and they will try to appear as the solution to moral conflicts – in order to suppress them.

- The suppression of moral conscience is converted into ideology by the psychopathic leaders and it emerges as a solution to their problems (referring to the people with this intense moral conflicts mentioned above – i.e. activists for homosexual identity.)

- Both the suppression of moral conscience and the systematization of it as ideology imply a decrease in psychological acuity and the spread of perception failures.

- Psychopathic leaders consolidate the neurosis of moral conscience as a right, an ideology and a merit, as well as a new model of society.

- As Lobaczewski points out, the psychopathic leadership generates neurosis in order to strengthen the suppression of moral conscience.

- The Gay discourse tries to eliminate any possibility of moral conflict. They try to normalize homosexuality but also portray it as a meritorious practice that is above any possibility of criticism. When the individual assimilates this ideology he/she becomes incapable of recognizing his/her own inner conflicts.

- The idea of normalizing homosexuality emerges from psychopathic leaders that influence the masses of militants and neurotic sympathizers. The offer of normalizing it is the offer of eliminating the moral conflict. But this conflict isn't really eliminated, thus, it must be explained somehow. They explain this by the idea of “moralizing social constructs that condemn us”.

- Since there is no natural fundament for the idea of a “homosexual identity” – homosexuality includes many types of different people, therefore it is impossible to say that it is only ONE identity –, they try to explain it by using the idea of social constructs. So this identity is a social construct, but also every natural human reaction is explained as “social constructs”, creating a pseudo-social science. By assimilating this ideology, the individual contact with his own deep structure is completely blocked and he starts living in a world of hysteric self-affirmation.

- Psychopathic leaders also induce these groups to blame others for their own inner conflicts. Since the homosexual identity is something nonexistent in and on itself, its construction is a hysteric procedure in its totality, which doesn't match the real feelings of the individual. By trying to suppress their own inner conflict they start blaming others of their own inner discomfort. So they put the blame in what others say. And, because this identity is a “construct” that doesn't correspond to our natural human perception (we see a man, a woman, a boy, a girl), they also need to constantly “show off” this identity, they need to constantly show it so that it continues to exist (hysteric self-affirmation).

I always wondered what's up with that "showing off", why are they so prone to announcing their sexuality. And I suppose this goes for a big part of the exaggerated demonstrations of sexuality in public and the idea that sexuality has to be expressed in the kind of "art" that Ariana talks about, because we are a "free society" and so forth. And I suppose it can be applied in any other ways in which people try hard to identify with a constructed "identity" and, since that "identity" isn't actually based on real things, and individuals are so hysterized, they need to constantly tell everyone who they are, otherwise, all the ideas to which they hold on to might crumble and they will be exposed to their inner moral conflicts. In other words, they need the buffers so that they wont experience any inner conflict that could possibly help them grow up a bit. And this is contrary to what we want to do here, of course.
 
monotonic said:
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.


As some other posters have pointed out, this issue is a bit more complex. First, there's the fact that for many people, not having any responsabilities and rules is very attractive. The sexual movement has reached a point nowadays, where essentially you can do whatever you want as long as it "empower you" and doesn't physically hurt someone. Secondly, there are very real issues that affect women that push them into the whole "walking the street naked is power", because these issue are never given a proper debate and discussion without people (especially men and some women) turning into judgemental pig. And finally, celebrities who by branding themselves as feminist icon by gyratting almost nude on videos can cash on a lot of money out of this trend and the media quite literally prevent any opposing view.

Women have historically constantly been judged and labelled this or that because of what they wear, who they sleep with and how many people. Many uncritically accept that being promiscuous and wearing whatever the hell they want no matter how trashy or the situation is a way to reclaim power. There's also another type of women, the one who have or are on the fringe of society for whom sexual liberation can be very attractive. I'm talking about women working or who may have worked within sex industries. There's a lot of stigma associated with being a stripper, porn actress or prostitute. Instead of trying to understand people judge. For these type of women, the sexual movement can be a way to feel accepted and worthy of respect. The problem is that no serious discussion on the sex industries and their exploitation of women is ever made. Neither is their a discussion on how poverty and our materialist society lead women to sell their bodies. For black women in particular, the sexual liberation movement is extremely attractive because of their history. During slavery they were raped and abused by their white owner, their body type was mocked, teased and literally exploited. After slavery, any black women who worked as maid or nannies is white house were still sexually abused. And along their own race, there was also a lot of physical abuse. Nowadays, in particular and I supect mostly in the US, due to poverty, a lot of black women have to sell their bodies as strippers or prostitute (not necessarily full time). Their own community are very critical of them for that, so is society at large. For them, being sexually liberated in the form it is currently promoted means having control over their body and earning the respect as human being, as women, that they never had.

Now bring on celebrities, like Beyonce, Amber Rose, Miley Cyrus, Kim Kardashian or as in this present case Ariana Grande who stand to make a lot of money from being provocative. I think it's half/ half these women truly feel they're doing something AND they can make money while doing, except in the case perhaps of Beyonce and Kim K who are only in it for the money. Celebrities like them have millions of fans or rather I should say followers willing to listen to their message and receptive to it. This message essentially says "You can do whatever you without consequence and you will be loved and respected for it". The question is not who is going to buy, but who won't.

Finally, the media. Oh boy, I could write an essay on how little freedom of thought we have. I'm a wannabee freelance writer. The subjects I know best are pop culture, feminism and branding. As I was looking for publication to which I could pitch story ideas, I realized that actually when it came to feminism, women sexuality and celebrities, magazines are copies of one another. It looks like there is diversity but there truly isn't. All I essentially saying this the sex industries can empower women. If a girl want to work as a escort or stripper she should be championned and encouraged. Promiscuity is healthy for women and anyone who criticize this or any of the thing aforementioned is an annoying prude. Also, I noticed that it was not allowed to criticize certain celebrities. The only magazines that are critical are those with little readership, or who are not quite mainstream. By the way, a feminist website I recommend for anyone interested in a feminist group who criticize the very thing we do in this thread is the Feminist Current. It has a bad name because of a piece the founder of this site did about a transgender actress. She was called racist and transphobic even though she is neither.

There are many reasons why the sexual liberation movement has taken the form it has today and why it is prevalent. And at the end of the day, to me, the losers are still women.
 
DianaRose94 said:
Finally, the media. Oh boy, I could write an essay on how little freedom of thought we have. I'm a wannabee freelance writer. The subjects I know best are pop culture, feminism and branding. As I was looking for publication to which I could pitch story ideas, I realized that actually when it came to feminism, women sexuality and celebrities, magazines are copies of one another. It looks like there is diversity but there truly isn't. All I essentially saying this the sex industries can empower women. If a girl want to work as a escort or stripper she should be championned and encouraged. Promiscuity is healthy for women and anyone who criticize this or any of the thing aforementioned is an annoying prude. Also, I noticed that it was not allowed to criticize certain celebrities. The only magazines that are critical are those with little readership, or who are not quite mainstream.

I get that you'd like to get paid for your work, but if you're really passionate about the topics and could help to educate people about them, what about writing an article for SOTT? If it's been such a welcome topic on the forum, I'm sure a lot of SOTT readers would appreciate it, too.
 
Scottie said:
Also, one of the other points I was trying to make is that this "gender identity" thing is not occurring in a vacuum. When you put all the puzzle pieces together, it sure seems like something is going on, and it's not for the benefit of humanity - quite the opposite.

I think this whole drive for "equality" is being corrupted by certain elements which turns the whole thing into something far more sexual and base in nature. That's devolution, not progress. And that ties directly into this whole "liberal progressives" thing, which we now see is just as bad as the "right-wing loonies". Same song, different verse.

Not sure if this is where you're going Scottie, but this reminds me of my difficulty reconciling the 'Arab Spring' as both revolution (in the genuine sense: mass popular expression/uprising) and 'color revolution' (as in: regime change imposed from abroad).

I'm satisfied now that both things were at work: revolution 'coming up from below', and pseudo-revolution, or corruption of that revolution 'imposed from above', although the interplay of each is obviously complex and difficult at times to discern.

I wonder if the 'whole corrupted drive for equality', as you put it, is corrupting or staving off an 'impetus coming from below' (or within, rather) for humanity (or a portion of humanity) to 'become as little children'? So it's emerging in the form of, or finding expression in, Speshul Snowflake Syndrome and hypersexuality, but 'the real thing' or 'the other force' is obscured and deviated by all the ideological identity nonsense.

It's also like the false 'man-made global warming' construct, which was laid down in advance of these times when the climate has gone wonky. By design, (most, I think, of) those who see that that is happening see it in the frame or narrative dictated by the Powers That Be.
 
Niall said:
Scottie said:
Also, one of the other points I was trying to make is that this "gender identity" thing is not occurring in a vacuum. When you put all the puzzle pieces together, it sure seems like something is going on, and it's not for the benefit of humanity - quite the opposite.

I think this whole drive for "equality" is being corrupted by certain elements which turns the whole thing into something far more sexual and base in nature. That's devolution, not progress. And that ties directly into this whole "liberal progressives" thing, which we now see is just as bad as the "right-wing loonies". Same song, different verse.

Not sure if this is where you're going Scottie, but this reminds me of my difficulty reconciling the 'Arab Spring' as both revolution (in the genuine sense: mass popular expression/uprising) and 'color revolution' (as in: regime change imposed from abroad).

I'm satisfied now that both things were at work: revolution 'coming up from below', and pseudo-revolution, or corruption of that revolution 'imposed from above', although the interplay of each is obviously complex and difficult at times to discern.

I wonder if the 'whole corrupted drive for equality', as you put it, is corrupting or staving off an 'impetus coming from below' (or within, rather) for humanity (or a portion of humanity) to 'become as little children'? So it's emerging in the form of, or finding expression in, Speshul Snowflake Syndrome and hypersexuality, but 'the real thing' or 'the other force' is obscured and deviated by all the ideological identity nonsense.

It's also like the false 'man-made global warming' construct, which was laid down in advance of these times when the climate has gone wonky. By design, (most, I think, of) those who see that that is happening see it in the frame or narrative dictated by the Powers That Be.


So true.
Sarah McBride, first transgender speaker at major political convention, addresses DNC 2016
Published on Jul 28, 2016
PBS NewsHour
 
The question of the appropriate expression of sexuality (and romance) has bothered me for a long time. Clearly we can't just surrender to a mechanical (chemical) process, which is sex, because that ends up in pain and trouble, as experience and observation has repeatedly shown. At the same time, I don't think it's realistic, nor desireable, to simply 'chop-off' our sexual nature and turn into monks or nuns. There has to be a third, healthier option, but exactly what that is, is not clear to me. I think we spend way more time discussing what is wrong with our ways of sex and romance so far, and too little about what the real deal would look like - and I feel it would be very helpful, at least for me, to get a clear picture of it in my head, even if I never experience it and is all theory, for the sake of not falling into traps. Under what circumstances could true romance happen, between which sort of people and how? How do we distinguish between genuine relationships and those based on chemicals?

So in thinking about this, one remark I have found to be useful as a starting point is this one from the Cs, from the session of 12 June 2008:

Q: (L) Okay, well, what we want to ask about are the recent events. Just exactly what was operating in or through {name deleted} during the last - well, since he's been here?

A: (L) What has always run him: sheer mechanical chemistry.

Q: (L) What was operating in {name deleted}?

A: Much the same. However, it is not normal for her.

Q: (L) If it's not normal for her, what is it about someone like {name deleted}, who apparently it IS normal for, that can trigger or stimulate that [non-normal energy in {name deleted}]?

A: Something like bodily resonance.

Q: (L) So, it's not what I thought, which was drawing out or hooking into deep emotional nature?

A: Oh indeed, emotional center is activated by chemistry, but that generally is supposed to work the other way.

Q: (L) You mean the emotions are supposed to trigger the chemicals, is that correct? Rather than chemicals triggering emotions?

A: Yes

[...]

Q: (Andromeda) Does he feel any emotions?

A: Not what you call true emotions. But you haven't experienced the full range either. Most of what you experience is chemical, though there is a true emotional component. You are still the "princess in the tower" kept captive by the dragons set to keep you captive.

Q: (L) What are the dragons?

A: Fear and distortions of your emotional center programmed into you in childhood. You bit the apple and fell into a trance.

Q: (Andromeda) Not permanently though, right?

A: True love conquers all. But chemicals usually only feed the dragon; at least as long as the dragon is master.

I was under the impression that the idea of the emotional center having to work before chemicals was expanded more by the Cs - perhaps that was in another session, but I haven't been able to find it. What I thought I remembered was the suggestion that in a genuine romantic relationship, there would be first an intellectual connection between two people, which would then trigger the emotions and finally it would activate chemicals (including sexual attraction, etc, as I understood it). But in 'normal' mechanical life it tends to go the other way around: people are attracted first and then they get emotionally involved with someone who lacked any intellectual connection with them (no common worldview or sense of purpose, etc).

This still leaves many questions open, but it may be a start.
 
Yas said:
My thoughts are pretty much in accordance to many of you here. And, Jenn, I'm with you regarding your Facebook post and initial reaction. I too have this way of thinking and felt guilty of having such a thought afterwards. Of course, I don't think that the boy's action is justifiable,

(great post BTW) I think the obvious should be noted - that he is a boy, an immature, undeveloped creature with little real experience who is a product of the very 'culture' that Ariana is promoting. I wouldn't expect much more from him as he is an example of the kind of result the social engineers are striving for: a shallow, "narcissistic sex and physical gratification is what life is all about" mindset.

Yas said:
they pretty much think that female sensuality and sexuality should be emancipated from the “grip of men”, and that a “progressive woman” should be near to promiscuous. I know, most of them don't say it in those terms, but, having spent time with people from these progressive liberal movements, I always thought that there was some sort of pressure for “breaking the old rules” just because they were “retrograde”. And that if you were to be “progressive”, you had to be open to question old values and come to terms with new ones. Wanting to marry one man or have long-lasting relationships was labelled as "being OK with being possessed by one man” and becoming “his private property". Not wanting to show too much of the body became “being OK with suppressing the female ‘natural’ sensuality, which means accepting oppression”. Being straight regarding sexual preferences became “being unaware that we have no sexual preferences established by nature and that you just didn't try it yet to know or are too retrograde to try new experiences, so you don't really know if you are straight or not”.
...
And I think it amounts ... to a nonsense fight against everything that puts some structure in our society. It makes me think of the left-wing authoritarians mentioned by Bob Altemeyer, as well as the ideas put forward by Freudian psychology regarding sexual repression and how every progressive now is a Freud fan. It becomes an ideology of fighting against order because "any kind of order means repression" for them, it seems.

genius observations - this idea of the emancipation of the sexes seems like such a red herring and even a kind of impossibility. How can the sexes ever be emancipated from each other without destroying or contorting the very idea and expression of relationship? Men and women are joined at the hip, so to speak. Yet, the 2 sexes ARE different and each brings something positive to the other. And when there is conflict, that just generates the friction needed for esoteric work on the self. Being in a lifetime committed relationship has made me a better person and forced me to deal with things I used to run from. I view this 'emancipation' as a kind of assault on humanity; making the harmonization of the sexes even more difficult.

Solie said:
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.

...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?

Good point! And it reminds of something that a Brazilian "philosopher" said which I

Paraphrasing him:

- Psychopathic leaders will provide all the possible means to extinguish the moral conscience and they will try to appear as the solution to moral conflicts – in order to suppress them.

- As Lobaczewski points out, the psychopathic leadership generates neurosis in order to strengthen the suppression of moral conscience.

And development/discovery of conscience is a hallmark and result of doing "the work".
 
Windmill knight said:
A: True love conquers all. But chemicals usually only feed the dragon; at least as long as the dragon is master.

I was under the impression that the idea of the emotional center having to work before chemicals was expanded more by the Cs - perhaps that was in another session, but I haven't been able to find it. What I thought I remembered was the suggestion that in a genuine romantic relationship, there would be first an intellectual connection between two people, which would then trigger the emotions and finally it would activate chemicals (including sexual attraction, etc, as I understood it). But in 'normal' mechanical life it tends to go the other way around: people are attracted first and then they get emotionally involved with someone who lacked any intellectual connection with them (no common worldview or sense of purpose, etc).

Ironically I was just reading Mouravieff book II last night (page 220 or so) and read this very idea of the aim to reverse the order of the interaction of the centers. This may be what you are referring to. Normally the body dominates the personality and the personality dominates the real I, but the aim of esoteric development is to, more or less, reverse this interaction.
 
Windmill knight said:
The question of the appropriate expression of sexuality (and romance) has bothered me for a long time. Clearly we can't just surrender to a mechanical (chemical) process, which is sex, because that ends up in pain and trouble, as experience and observation has repeatedly shown. At the same time, I don't think it's realistic, nor desireable, to simply 'chop-off' our sexual nature and turn into monks or nuns. There has to be a third, healthier option, but exactly what that is, is not clear to me. I think we spend way more time discussing what is wrong with our ways of sex and romance so far, and too little about what the real deal would look like - and I feel it would be very helpful, at least for me, to get a clear picture of it in my head, even if I never experience it and is all theory, for the sake of not falling into traps. Under what circumstances could true romance happen, between which sort of people and how? How do we distinguish between genuine relationships and those based on chemicals?

Same feelings and question are in my mind. This is a "marshy ground" for me and really I have not a good understanding of how should to be (or should build up) a healthier romantic relationship. It seems that, for example, build a friendship (a deeper relationship without "sex interest" in the middle) it is not as difficult because although there may be others factors of an emotional nature involved, it seems that a strong program (as it is mating program) is not operating on the background. Also I wonder if it is possible construct this kind of healthier relation with a partner that it is not engaged on Work and maybe is not aware enough of the nature of our impulses and "feelings".
 
Niall said:
Scottie said:
Also, one of the other points I was trying to make is that this "gender identity" thing is not occurring in a vacuum. When you put all the puzzle pieces together, it sure seems like something is going on, and it's not for the benefit of humanity - quite the opposite.

I think this whole drive for "equality" is being corrupted by certain elements which turns the whole thing into something far more sexual and base in nature. That's devolution, not progress. And that ties directly into this whole "liberal progressives" thing, which we now see is just as bad as the "right-wing loonies". Same song, different verse
.

Not sure if this is where you're going Scottie, but this reminds me of my difficulty reconciling the 'Arab Spring' as both revolution (in the genuine sense: mass popular expression/uprising) and 'color revolution' (as in: regime change imposed from abroad).

I'm satisfied now that both things were at work: revolution 'coming up from below', and pseudo-revolution, or corruption of that revolution 'imposed from above', although the interplay of each is obviously complex and difficult at times to discern.

I wonder if the 'whole corrupted drive for equality', as you put it, is corrupting or staving off an 'impetus coming from below' (or within, rather) for humanity (or a portion of humanity) to 'become as little children'? So it's emerging in the form of, or finding expression in, Speshul Snowflake Syndrome and hypersexuality, but 'the real thing' or 'the other force' is obscured and deviated by all the ideological identity nonsense.

It's also like the false 'man-made global warming' construct, which was laid down in advance of these times when the climate has gone wonky. By design, (most, I think, of) those who see that that is happening see it in the frame or narrative dictated by the Powers That Be.

I don't remember the just session talking how we were trap in this physicality by our own choice, i see this "Grande" stuff as reflection
loops where we was, where we are and where we will be.
In the perspective of The Work, the question is how many turn and time
you gonna stay in the carousel, and even you wanted to get out, there are laws and rules, it's not only a mechanical respond or even choice.
So somewhere each one of us are coming back at "this" first choice that leading where we are now and the world with.
And it seems that the choice of everyone gonna to define her/his own loops than the ones of others....
So the question is what will you choose now with the knowledge, the work on yourself done or still to finish, who do you choose to be ?
It's quiet simple... i like simple things, not because it's simple, because it's working... or not, But you know it, there are no excuses.
It was useful for me in the light of Scottie's quote to read this ;
Almost every imaginable claim has been made concerning sex. We will look at the subject from a number of angles, including myth, mass culture and control system, various esoteric teachings and channeled material.

Many creation myths have sexual content. In the Egyptian cosmogony, the autofellatio of Atum leads to him spitting out the god Shu and goddess Tefnut. The One has become the many. This idea is quite universal. The channeled entity Ra puts it so that the One differentiates into the thought centers of service to others and service to self and the "distortion of free will" mediating between these. This is akin to the One becoming the first three forces of Fourth Way cosmology at the first interval of the octave of creation.

The same idea is found in Babylonian myth, where the creator masturbating brings forth the Euphrat and Tigris.

Closer to the human perspective, sex is a central feature, whether taboo or object of open desire, in lending cultures their distinctive character. For understanding this from the esoteric angle, we need to first understand what this may be, beyond any biological or socio-psychological phenomenon.

In George Gurdjieff's Fourth Way teaching, sexual energy is its own specific hydrogen, called Si12, the highest product of transformation of food. The "default" usage of this is for reproduction, where male and female versions of this energy combine for conception. The by-product is this hydrogen going to 'feed the Moon,' since conception is relatively rare compared to the frequency of human sexual activity. Now Gurdjieff suggests that a conscious usage of Si12 is possible but that everybody who thinks simple abstinence is useful simply misunderstands the whole issue.

Si12 is also the highest hydrogen produced by humans without conscious work. This is in principle at the level of the higher emotional center but is not the only possible food for it. Hydrogens of the level 12 resulting from the air and impression octaves may open this center also but these hydrogens are not formed without consciousness, like Si12 is.

Sexual energy is then a sort of food. According to the Cassiopaeans, excess sexual energy is claimed by fourth density service to self being‎s. Thus the more people are preoccupied by it, the more people have sex, the better the moon eats. Probably uninhibited promiscuity as well as strict taboos and guilt work equally well, simply producing a different flavor of food. History has known periods of both. Both extremes revolve equally much around sex, although not in the same manner.

In the Gurdjieffian system of cosmic ecology, we could say that the more mechanical humanity gets, the more it has to compensate quality of vibrations by quantity to meet some cosmic quota. At the present time, the mass culture emphasis is on sex, whether via promiscuity or suppression, rather than on producing vibrations whose production requires conscious work.

Sexual energy can be misused by running different centers of the body with it. It may animate the moving, emotional or thinking centers, where it manifests as a sort of frenetic hyperactivity. The moving center will break records, the emotional center may conceive of meant-to-be romances where there are none or launch itself in fanatic frenzies for diverse causes, and the thinking center may manufacture sandcastles of cosmologies with no basis in fact.

Esoteric teachings pretty much all have a specific take on sex. The exoteric corruption of churches is to assign value to abstinence just for its own sake. Another, opposite misconception of would be magicians is its ritual use. Both probably feed the moon without even realizing it. Gurdjieff has a somewhat more nuanced approach, which we find essentially repeated with Carlos Castaneda: How literal sexual activity relates to spiritual transformation depends on the person. Some will abstain naturally, some will tend to increase activity, some might willfully abstain. Both G. and C.C. were sexually active and rather promiscuous in their private lives.

Tantra Yoga teaches that sex can be practiced as long as the energy is not released in orgasm. All these practices probably have some effect, but it may depend on the persons involved and not be what Is claimed.

Looking at the physical side of sexuality and how it might correlate with the metaphysical, we note that psychic phenomena often occur around female puberty or menopause. The organism flukishly produces chemicals which activate otherwise dormant functions. Also we must mention Wilhelm Reich's research on the orgasm. According to Reich, it releases so-called orgone energy, which probably corresponds to Gurdjieff's Si12. The beneficial effects of this for the body and mind are blocked by near-pervasive "armoring", i.e. physical and mental tensions arising from trauma. Outside of the human, orgone plays the function of an ordering principle in weather phenomena, for example. It is one among a gradation of 'intelligent energies' or 'hydrogens.'

Laura Knight-Jadczyk argues in The Secret History of the World that references to sex in myth and alchemy and other tradition are likely corruptions of the idea of DNA. DNA and its activation is important, not actual sexual activity. The hieros gamos, the sacred union, is most often not a sexual act in the ordinary sense. The myth of the androgyne refers more to the polar couple than to a person with mixed sexual characteristics.

Still, in myth also, orgiastic sexual activity is tied to periods of fall into chaos at the closing of cycles. The idea is probably a duality: On one hand, natural process, not to mention the control system, require releases of large amounts of sexual energy at intervals. The present time would be an example. On the other hand, such periods have a function of regeneration. Of course, this has a biological aspect but may also have a spiritual one. However, the spiritual aspect cannot be realized unconsciously. Emitting Si12 is not enough for this, other hydrogens are also needed.

In Boris Mouravieff's Gnosis books, the physical aspect of sexuality is tied to spirituality via the idea of the polar couple. The polarity intensifies the production of Si12, which fills the motor and intellectual centers. Their functioning changes and the intellect temporarily loses its doubting, calculating and agnostic nature. The emotional center may transform Si12 to Sol12, which is a key to the higher emotional center. This can produce a flash of the consciousness of real I. Generally, Mouravieff argues that the superabundance of sexual energy in man is, besides a source of physical preoccupation, also the latent chance for esoteric evolution. Sexual energy is needed for the internal alchemy which opens the higher intellectual center. The sublimation of sexual energy involves conscious work of self-remembering and other practices.

"Love is all you need," say the Cassiopaeans. According to them, the problem with sex is that it is, in practice, inseparable from the idea of physically getting for the self and of ownership or jealousy. These features align it with STS and make it so that it feeds 4D STS, no matter what one do with it. Besides, "desire-based imbalance," including desire for more physicality are among the root causes of the fall of man, from which the Work aims to recover.

Ra speaks about sex in some more detail. Sexual energy transfer between people is possible and even desirable in cases. The channel herself received energy in this way, which may be a "magical" operation with its attendant problems. The idea is that energy flows where there is a difference of potential, i.e. polarity and the chakras in question are not blocked. The transfer involves a duality and can serve the self or serve others. The degree of spiritual love present in the interaction is a function of unblocking the heart chakra, which corresponds roughly to the higher emotional center of Gurdjieff. In Fourth Way terms, we could say this requires the consciously produced hydrogens of Mi12 and Sol12, not only the unconsciously produced Si12. So this in a way determines whether the interaction is in the taking or sharing mode.

Gurdjieff describes sex as a bodily function for which people must find a personally suitable outlet. This must not be confused with love, says he. At the level of personal practice, most esoteric sources discourage promiscuity. The rationale is twofold: Sexual activity establishes a long lasting energy flow between the partners. If this is mixed between several people, confusion arises and may be reflected in physical or emotional problems. Also, casual sex without emotional involvement is unlikely to activate any higher energies and tends towards attachment to physical satisfaction and getting for self.

The subject is complex and we do not have space to discuss the almost endless variations in specifics; the reader is referred to the source materials.

And also this;
This is one of the core precepts presented by Laura Knight-Jadczyk in the Wave series. We could say that this is the fulcrum on which free will and the duality of service to others and service to self balance.

Choices in the ordinary sense are essentially always conditioned, that is, the existence of the possibilities is a consequence of previous causes and the person making the choice estimates consequences and arrives at some decision using some sort of system of values which itself is a consequence of yet other factors. Furthermore, the system of values used to weigh the choice depends on which little I happens to be "on duty" at the time, which itself depends on past habit and the specific circumstance of the moment.

Such processes are what is commonly called exercise of free will. These are quite adapted to the world of A influences but do not represent any true creativity or freedom. Man's possible contribution to creation, "helping God," as Gurdjieff puts it, calls for free will of a different order.

Religions speak of man's free will. This is logical since some degree of free will must be recognized in order to rationalize the diverse rewards and punishments promised by religions. This is one example of systems of values which set up weights for choices: Yes, man has the free will to sin but will pay by eternal damnation. Choices made within such systems of values are not unconditioned, they are weighted and generally made by the individual in order to maximize personal gain, however this gain be defined in the system at hand. Sometimes man reacts in rebellion, deliberately inverting the weights of the values but this is no less mechanical than the initial system of conditions. Social norms, business, cultures and the like are other sources of similarly weighted systems of choices. All these have their place and are useful for organizing man's life but these are not free will in the metaphysical sense, even if they sometimes claim differently or deny the very question.

We note that all the above systems revolve around control, either in the sense of society setting up values that control its members or in the sense of the individual making choices for the purpose of getting a predetermined result. We could even say that especially modern society burdens people with countless trivial choices between basically identical alternatives, trivializing choice while creating the illusion of freedom and diversity. This is quite clear in both politics and religion.

The unweighted choice is a spiritual act. It can only be understood as the introduction of something unconditioned into a conditioned world. In a certain sense, it is the negation of all the criteria of choice discussed thus far. It is not chosen from among a set of choices offered by the environment. It is not made in order to obtain a predetermined result. It is recognizing an essential quality of self, sometimes called invariant nature or consciousness director. Gurdjieff speaks of measuring the lower by the higher. The personality is the realm of the self-serving conditioned choices and it is, through its various little 'I's, the party in charge. The unconditioned choice comes from beyond it. We could say that it is the act of choosing to give expression to a spiritual principle, to 'align oneself with an archetype or 'thought center.' In a sense this is surrender before a higher principle. Yet this is the greatest act of freedom, insofar this breaks away from the entire paradigm of the self-serving calculations of conventional choice.

We could say that this is part of the master taking charge of the coach. This does not negate the practical intelligence of the driver or the senses and strength of the horse but gives them a higher purpose, a direction which they could not attain or keep by their own devices alone.

The unweighted choice is the gateway which leads from the world of 3D STS to the possibility of STO polarization. A certain "bankruptcy", as Mouravieff puts it, is generally needed for such a choice to become possible. One must see one's former system of values as inadequate and be free of consideration for self, of anticipation of results and so forth. Such a state is exceptional and does not occur without shock. The alignment with STO is more than good works or thoughts. Good works and thoughts may be conditional and in the end based on ideas of control and contain no intrinsic freedom or creativity. The liberation is a mystical thing for which no exterior definition can be complete. In the words of the tradition, the vessel must be emptied before it can be filled with spirit.

There is possibly a service to self polarizing analog of the unweighted choice, involving deliberate choice of raising the subjective self above all others. This too may take place in a moment of crisis and can involve a conversion of sorts. The STS idea of freedom and creation is however quite different, as in freedom for self to appropriate the freedom of others. Generally, unconditioned creativity has no place in such a system.

Laura Knight-Jadczyk discusses this concept in the Wave series through her own experience of ultimate disillusionment with the world: Even if the values of STO are not generally appreciated by the world, it can be one's choice to manifest these values in the world, even if this had no effect on anything. This is an act at the archetypal level.

Sex and Unweighted Choice on CassWiki :lol:
 
[quote author= Windmill Knight]Under what circumstances could true romance happen, between which sort of people and how? How do we distinguish between genuine relationships and those based on chemicals?[/quote]

Maybe it's not about loving the personality of each other.

But helping each other to overcome that. (Soul growth)

But for that to happen. You need to have a mutual understanding and Aim. Loving those soul qualities in each other makes perfect sense if you ask me. Especially so because you look out for each other in this way so the both of you can chance for the better and learn. If you truly care about the other, you want them to progress and learn.


In a 'normal' relationship this wouldn't make sense. Because they don't want the other to chance. They 'love' the personality of another.

Just imagine if one person in such a relationships chances for the better and the other wouldn't like it. This person would try to do anything to stop their soul growth from happening and get them back in line.


This is your standard 3STS relationship. It's solely based on chemicals. Like the song goes, ''the way how you make me feel'' It's self serving and only the feelings matters, not the reason behind it, which they are completely unaware of.

The opposite of that are chemicals (emotions) in line with the intellect. Meaning you attempt to make a conscious choose and your emotions respond to that accordingly. You don't follow your feelings, it's more about following the reason behind that choose. And let that reason Be of a higher Aim. Especially so when you choose to get in a relationship.

So yeah, like you said. I also think that the intellect is very important in Love. But people hardly ever use it. They solely use the emotional center.
 
Back
Top Bottom