Ariana Grande and the question of appropriate expression of sexuality

[T.C.]

For starters, a couple of things Gurdjieff said come to mind. The first was along the lines of, "All social interaction is motivated by sex." Now, exactly what G. meant by sex, only a handful of people probably know, but in the context of how he said it and how I read it, it seemed to me that he meant the literal act of having sex.

The other thing he said was that "Man's evolution goes against nature."

There's been a bit of talk about what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. I think the best response to those ideas would be, "WHEN?" And it relates to my first G. quote.

Speaking biologically, women are born to have babies and raise them and men are born to impregnate and protect mother and child. It's that simple. Pierre talked about women wanting men with money and men wanting attractive women. If a woman is 'more attractive', there's more chance she'll make babies because she'll attract men more. And if a man is more successful, there's more chance he'll make babies and ensure their survival because he has a better chance of offering security. So for me, men and women (not involved in the Work) objectifying each other on these grounds is no cause for surprise or judgement.

There's also talk of how this sexualisation and valuing of possessions and objectification and whatnot is something new; that there was some better vanished time where these things didn't exist and in the 21st century, society has become so toxic and degraded that these things are somehow unnatural and novel.

I don't believe that, personally. Okay, maybe on the surface, but to me, that's only because culture suppressed people's drives.

What I see, in these 'days of Noah' is only ponerization of culture in so far as people live by their base nature because values have been stripped off and that's all that's left.

How this relates to the Work goes back to my second quote from G. If he was correct, then what that means is that Working on ourselves really does mean going against the fact that we are so procreation based, which pretty much ties in with what Laura said about becoming as little children. For the Work, I think this has to be different for people of different ages, roughly speaking. If someone found the Work at a relatively young age, I think it would be a tall order to expect them to master their sex drive. As has been said by others, maturity seems to be a key factor in this whole subject, and maturity just can't be rushed or else it becomes false.

In response to what Joe said about these issues being fuel for our fire, that to me is the bottom line. The majority of human beings are going to live in the realm of A influences, the realm of nature. For the tiny fraction of people who discover the Work - who were supposed to discover the Work - the narrow path is to do the opposite.

As for Ariana Grande. Her tweets strike me as the kind of situation a young person goes through when they've just found out a new concept for the first time. I think she's experimenting with and airing out the idea of objectification, and due to her position as a pop star, she's gonna do that publicly. And also, due to her cultural and job situation, she's going to have to deal with an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance around the whole thing, bless her.

 

[bjorb]

I am wondering if her supposed twisted fight against sexism doesn't go way deeper.


Sexism has been a real issue on the MSM. And of course it is a issue. (Thanks to the media and their perverted programming they inflicted on the population)

But how they spin it is that men can't help themselves and in order for this to chance. We must all become 'gender neutral' Which ties into 'gender theory'

What they are telling us is that the root of the problem is that as long as men define themselves as men. Sexism will rule over them.

To them, men who identify themselves as such are automatically sexists.

The solution they present is that men should become 'gender neutral' Because being 'gender neutral' is the cure against sexism.


And what do you know:

Ariana Grande Has a New Gender-Neutral Perfume Named After Her Brother
http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/01/20/frankie-by-ariana-grande-new-fragrance-scent-gender-neutral/

Just in time for the most romantic day of the year, Valentine’s Day, Ariana Grande and her brother Frankie have released a new, sexy fragrance aimed to both men and women!
Hot on the heels of Ariana Grande‘s first fragrance, ARI, which was released in September 2015, Ari has teamed up with her brother Frankie Grande to release a gender-neutral fragrance in stores now! Find out more info below.

( Btw, Her brother doesn't seems like he wants to be a guy)

So don't be fooled by Ariana Grande supposed fight against sexims...? I think that it's possible that it's all about pushing men to be 'gender neutral' and embrace 'gender theory' So that they can be cured of their sexist behavior.

 

[luc]

The main trap when trying to control those impulses is to overcompensate by repressing them (and we know where repression leads to: emotional thinking, psychosomatic conditions,....). So, a balance approach seems to be key: acknowledging the existence of those impulses while not being controlled by them.

I think that's the key. If we look at the massive programming that is going in our society, there is

a) an over-sexualization and objectification screaming from every corner of society - advertising, "art", culture, you name it.
b) on the conservative/religious side: a portrayal of sexuality as "evil", "sinful" etc.

In case a), this leads to a total enslavement by our sexual impulses and a total over-emphasis of sexuality, which after all is just one aspect of human existence, and by far not the most important one. It is also interesting to note that it is part of our animal nature - animals have the exact same drives, no matter how humans tend to glorify sex and attribute spiritual meaning, love etc. to it. It's simply a programmed drive to reproduce, which is massively exploited in Western society to enslave people and put them on a downward-path, spiritually speaking.

In case b), there is a suppression of this natural drive, which leads to destructive repression, shame and guilt etc. This enslaves us to our mechanical and unconscious whims as well, though differently than the liberal glorification of sex.

So yes, I think from a Work perspective, we should strive to become independent of these urges, repressions and so on. The way to go is, as Pierre said, to acknowledge those drives and consciously decide in each specific situation what to do with them, based on knowledge and understanding of interpersonal dynamics, esoteric goals, and the STO principle.

 

[Niall]

For starters, a couple of things Gurdjieff said come to mind. The first was along the lines of, "All social interaction is motivated by sex." Now, exactly what G. meant by sex, only a handful of people probably know, but in the context of how he said it and how I read it, it seemed to me that he meant the literal act of having sex.

The other thing he said was that "Man's evolution goes against nature."

<snip>

Good post, T.C.

I just want to add to your point here:

There's also talk of how this sexualisation and valuing of possessions and objectification and whatnot is something new; that there was some better vanished time where these things didn't exist and in the 21st century, society has become so toxic and degraded that these things are somehow unnatural and novel.

I don't believe that, personally. Okay, maybe on the surface, but to me, that's only because culture suppressed people's drives.

...by suggesting that there is variation in the 'moral cohesiveness' of society over time. So yes, "there's nothing new under the Sun" - these 'natural' conditions we find ourselves in today manifest repeatedly over time - but they do not appear to be the long-term norm. Fischer, in The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History, illustrates that divorce rates, STDs, rapes, other violent crimes, etc. in Europe remained relatively stable before 'exploding' at certain points in history. He's an economic historian, so his primary focus was on economic factors like interest rates and commodity prices. He couldn't help but notice, however, that a whole array of social and climatological factors are correlated with them. That suppression, as you call it, apparently made for stable growth and (relatively) healthier society, until such time as whatever factor(s) no-longer-suppresses people's drives quickly leads to widespread degradation in 'the world of A influences' - sometimes with catastrophic consequences for the society/civilization in question.

 

[Scottie]

Sexism has been a real issue on the MSM. And of course it is a issue. (Thanks to the media and their perverted programming they inflicted on the population)

But how they spin it is that men can't help themselves and in order for this to chance. We must all become 'gender neutral' Which ties into 'gender theory'

What they are telling us is that the root of the problem is that as long as men define themselves as men. Sexism will rule over them.

To them, men who identify themselves as such are automatically sexists.

Well, now that brings up an interesting idea, I think...

Considering the C's quote posted earlier:

A: Yes. Men will lose most of their drive in favor of more spiritual pursuits. It is the sex drive that is at the root of most of the historical aggression and lack of feeling on the part of the male.

Q: (L) Can we tell others?

A: Might cause turmoil but up to you.

Q: (L) I noticed that at about the same time I began meditating heavily that my drive plummeted. Is this because of the meditation?

A: Yes. Females will lose some drive too. But how will humans react to this, that is the question. Will they be prepared?

So, it is the sex drive that is at the root of most of the historical aggression and lack of feeling on the part of the male. That's kind of hard to disagree with, although I don't think that speaks directly to objectification only - testosterone, being a Manly Man, and all that stuff really does a number on one's head.

Of course, estrogen and female hormones also do a number on the heads (and bodies) of women, but then that kind of "drive" is not-so-easily corrupted into Power, Mayhem, etc. as it is in men.

Thus, guys have a certain responsibility to not go down the Evil Road.

Maybe this "loss of drive" already begun in a sense?

I mean, it's very easy to just look at women and say, "She was asking for it!" and it's very easy to look at men and say, "He just sees women as objects", but it's not so easy to consider the (potential) emotional natures underneath.

With this gender neutral thing, it's almost like somebody and or something is trying to force a change, or deal with a change - but they're doing it in entirely the wrong way. For example, Canada's gender neutral pronoun law. That will simply never work. It's ridiculous.

It seems to me that the answer to the question, "But how will humans react to this?" so far is, "NOT WELL!!"

And notice that it was not, "But how will MEN react to this?" but rather, "But how will humans react to this?"

Again, so far, I would say: Oh boy/girl/xe...

If suddenly one day all men wake up and act all gender neutral, I cannot imagine women will be dancing in the streets. Can you imagine interior decorating in that scenario?

Likewise, if one day all women wake up and want to enter into more traditionally "manly" roles, how do you think us guys are gonna feel when all our power tools go missing?!

Yes, those are just practical, every day, and rather silly examples... But I think you get the idea. Fundamental roles will change. That would be rather earth-shattering for society as a whole. Forget earthquakes!

Anyway, going through a Work-like process and dealing with our emotional natures, nurturing emotion, controlling impulses, and generally becoming more "whole" would be a great idea for everyone. Helping each other to do this would be great for everyone. This would naturally lead to being more "gender neutral" in both a physical and a spiritual sense.

But instead, we have this "fake" gender neutral / PC phenomenon where it's basically being pushed in such a way that the likely result will be blow-back against it, maybe a sort of new "sexual revolution" or whatever where humanity will go down exactly the wrong path as men say, "No, I'm a REAL MAN!" and women say, "No! I'm a REAL WOMAN!" This would have the effect of preventing real Work, real evolution, etc.

Thoughts?

 

[msante]

I didn't even know who Ariana Grande was until today and could only tolerate about 30 seconds of one of her videos. Her complaints about being objectified are laughable. But she's a product of society and a Hollywood product which makes things doubly bad. The boy who made the comment is also a product of society. It doesn't make his comments okay but it's certainly not a shock. Maybe in the old days he would've said to the boyfriend, "You're a very lucky man" or something along those lines but things have gotten so gross in this society that some people think that blatantly commenting about someone's sex life is okay.

In a perfect world no one would be objectified and no one would feel the need to flaunt their half naked bodies on tv while singing sexually suggestive lyrics. People would act like mature adults and save their sexual expression for the privacy of their bedrooms. But we're not living in that world and neither Ariana and her ilk nor the commenting boy are doing the work.

As has been said before, a part of doing the work means reigning in your horses and practicing external consideration by not offending or, dare I say, arousing people's emotions (whether it is in regards to sexuality, politics, religion or whatever). It also means knowing about reality and human nature. Knowledge protects. Dressing or behaving in a certain way can trigger slavering sex fiends, invite degrading comments or at the very least give the wrong impression. It may not seem fair but that's the way it is. People are mechanical and the world is corrupted and those doing the work must act accordingly.

Thank you Odyssey, I think your post sums it up well.

It seems to me that using the “blame the victim” narrative is a convenient catchphrase that allows certain people to avoid taking responsibility for their actions.

Well, it is one of my first thoughts when I thought about fans reaction on tweeter. Although they have a point in pointing out that "she can not complain about objectification because she promote it", I feel that many of them, more than bringing a "big truth" to the light or makeing an "inteligent" critique, are trying to justify their own sex impulses and perverted feeling toward her. Then, I am wonder if some of the comments written here, subtly goes in the same line. I notice (maybe my mistake or subjetivity) that some here have inverted quite energy to point out how guilty she is. Is she guilty? Well, sure, there is not a way to negate that what she do harm society and that she promote what she intends criticize. But I am a little surprised how soon several here jumped to conclusions about her nature/intentions/motivations and has made a kind of condemnatory judgments towards her. Maybe I am wrong here and it is the right way of see the whole issues about this girl, but IMHO I think that we can get more benefit if we try to see the big picture, the forces involved here, and what is the better way to people engaged on Work to deal with all this mess.

...
In regards to the perspective that Arianna Grande is a poor victim being manipulated by the evil music industry, I’m not buying that either. I think she knows exactly what she’s doing and is milking this non-controversy for all it’s worth. If she possessed any real awareness about the negative implications of sexual objectification, she would quit the business entirely and speak out against the insidious music industry machine that has made her famous millionaire superstar. I’m not holding my breath on that one.

Again, maybe I'm totally out of focus and wrong here, but I am not so sure that "she know EXACTLY what she is doing because she has awareness about the negative implications of sexual objectification". IMHO could coexist inside her contradictions that are too obvious to us but not for most of people. I was remembering what G said about buffers:

'Buffer' is a term which requires special explanation. We know what buffers on railway carriages are. They are the contrivances which lessen the shock when carriages or trucks strike one another. If there were no buffers, the shock of one carriage against another would be very unpleasant and dangerous. Buffers soften the results of these shocks and render them unnoticeable and imperceptible.

Exactly the same appliances are to be found within man. They are created, not by nature but by man himself, although involuntarily. The cause of their appearance is the existence in man of many contradictions; contradictions of opinions, feelings, sympathies, words, and actions. If a man throughout the whole of his life were to feel all the contradictions that are within him he could not live and act as calmly as he lives and acts now. He would have constant friction, constant unrest. We fail to see how contradictory and hostile the different I's of our personality are to one another. If a man were to feel all these contradictions he would feel what he really is. He would feel that he is mad. It is not pleasant to anyone to feel that he is mad. Moreover, a thought such as this deprives a man of self confidence, weakens his energy, deprives him of his 'self-respect.' Somehow or other he must master this thought or banish it. He must either destroy the contradictions or cease to see and to feel them. A man cannot destroy contradictions. But if 'buffers' are created in him he can cease to feel them and he will not feel the impact from the clash of contradictory views, contradictory emotions, contradictory words.

I think that everyone here have experimented the effects of buffers on their life (I did it) and I guess that many of us can undertand that many stupid, ridiculous, and harmful contradictions can dwell inside us.

[quote author=Timótheos"]
...
And that brings us to an important issue as Odyssey points out above. That neither of the actors in this drama are at all self aware nor engaged in any conscious “work” on themselves. What we are dealing with is completely mechanical behaviour on both sides. One doesn’t blame a computer for crashing because of bad code. A machine will do what a machine will do. We can’t really judge either party using work concepts, but only use their example as a template as to how we on this forum would act under similar circumstances.
[/quote]

I agree here, this is the main point to me. Some post before Bjorn had (to my understanding) strong and maybe a little condemnatory words towards this girl just because she do not took advantage of fan critique and used it as a mirror to analize her own attitude toward women objectification. IMO demand this kind of actions is expect too much from her considering her strongly mechanical behavior.

Well, just a thoughts that are in my mind.

EDIT: a couple of quotation marks

 

[Niall]

It's always the same argument, which came first? The egg or the chicken? Here's another variation of Ariana's situation in the West only this time the usual rape/groping problems in India. The comments below the article are rather interesting... same points of who's to blame? and the usual answers... http://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/cover-story/Bengalurus-night-of-shame/articleshow/56279784.cms

Very interesting. Yes, we see some of the same basic arguments play out in the comments section there. There's even an argument there that it's "those northern migrants", which is echoed in Europe by last year's 'Cologne mass rape' incident. Then there's a Muslim saying that the way to solve it is to 'put it all back in the box' by regulating the issue with laws and decrees. One (male) commentator gives the 'the-grass-is-always-greener-elsewhere' argument, suggesting:

India has a long way to go to become like Western culture, where drinking and partying is common. People maintain respect and decorum after party. In India men still look woman as object of sex. Until that mindset changes, it is advisable for woman to be cautious while exercising their freedom, because there is a group that is ready to break freedom framework to create chaos. From one side we are growing and quickly adopting to Western culture while the other side is still stuck with the narrow mindset, as simple as if a girl talks to all men, there is group that still thinks that she is someone who freely indulges in sex. It will take time for such situations to change. It has got nothing to do with North Indians or South Indians. Indians are everywhere the same.

It's ironic that he's looking to the West for moral guidance over this... while we're observing that the West has gone to pieces!

So this is not a (set of) 'Western' issue(s); it's global, with perhaps minor cultural emphases on certain aspects. What I find interesting about the Indian 'rape problem' is that people there are also asking: "Where did this come from? I don't remember it being this bad before..."

 

[Joe]

What I find interesting about the Indian 'rape problem' is that people there are also asking: "Where did this come from? I don't remember it being this bad before..."

Well, what has impacted all of Indian society over the past 20 or 30 years? One thing is Western-led "globalization".

 

[Kika]

I did not know how to start this text so I decided to tell a joke.

God called to Adam and said to him that he has a good and a bad news for him.
Adam: What is good?
God: I made these two improvements.
I gave you a brain that can think and decide what is good and what is bad. Then you will be able to select and influence the quality of your life.
Secondly, I gave you a penis, and you will be able to enjoy Eve and will have descendants.
Adam: What's wrong?
God: It's bad that I gave you too little blood, because you can not use both at the same time.

Or in other words; if you knock on the lower (animal) passions, hypocritical is, expect higher emotional and intellectual responses.

But this, with Arian is just one example of the general condition. Sex is used in commercials (for example, auto fairs and hostesses in addition to new models) sublimated sex messages (various sausages and eggs, curves, and shapes of products, which are reminiscent of tits and ass and the rest of the sexual equipment, both male and female) and so on.

More and more I read in the newspaper "scientific" recommendations for lots of sex with lots of different partner, because it is healthy for prostate and cardiovascular system in men. Fine, but what about their partners and why must be different. What is the difference in a lot of sex with the same partner?
Why "successful" men (and occasional women) seeking younger and younger partners, to the extent that it exceeds the pedophilia?
Married men live longer than single men, unlike women who are the opposite. Why?

In everyday situation in respect of man and woman, the sexual act is the result of the wishes / needs of children. Heavy. We all know that a lot of bond ceases if a woman gets pregnant, because, usually, the man feels caught in a trap. And if there is a need to "do the right thing" (because of education, religion, or simply because they want children) often, after a few years, a woman starts to wail and sigh, that is for the kids and a husband, she lost herself and her life.
People have sex for pleasure. I'm not sure, given the effort that needs to be invested in the few short-term effect (if it is successful, because a lot of times not).

I live in the area, where swearing is the verb "fuck" in such wide use of; "All the rest", father, mother, god, mother of god, the blood of Jesus (to gather all these "pearls" should be a few pages). We all know that physical aggression and verbal (such swearing) indicator of fear and a sense of powerlessness to fix the problem in another way. But why describe the sexual act?

It's the same with the act of rape. In all military campaigns required to folklore the rape of women in the occupied areas. Due to the spread of genes. Again difficult. He was counsel or the aggressor in such a stressful situation hardly anyone thinks of posterity. Obviously is something else.
Why women can suffer beatings and verbal abuse and recover thereafter easier than after the rape, which leaves a deeper and more difficult trauma.

On all these issues, it is written a lot of things, from the physical and psychological considerations, and I would like to address the energy dynamics.
First to you all reminded of the situation when Laura sat in the car outside the school, waiting for children. Energy is not only food being of 4D, but we humans eat each other's energy end energy of 2D.
The key to the direction of flow of energy is the DOMINATION.

Most often in the sex energy devour men. Sex works in men's favor. We women vampire (sucking the energy) verbally; criticize, disparage, gossip and so on. (After all, a woman is impossible to rape a man). :)

Now to get back to Ariana; but before that, some grammar (from my language).
In a sentence, a noun that is the holder of (acting) actions is called the SUBJECT, a noun which is the subject of action (with which, or over which the subject performs the action) is called OBJECT. Simply put, the subject is dominant over the object.

If I well understand the text, a boy came up to Ariane and her boyfriend, saying that it was a huge fan, and it was all good and fun. The problem arose when he congratulated her boyfriend. At that moment, Ariana lost DOMINANCE, ceases to be the center of interest and attention, (and thus the recipient of energy) shall be subject (Grammatically / in a sentence) which becomes her boyfriend, and she becomes the object (grammatical).
I think the boy told his worship and sexual fantasies directly Ariane, she would still consider it a fun and silly performance fans, and not to feel objectified.

 

[whitecoast]

What I find interesting about the Indian 'rape problem' is that people there are also asking: "Where did this come from? I don't remember it being this bad before..."

Well, what has impacted all of Indian society over the past 20 or 30 years? One thing is Western-led "globalization".

O.k., but what specifically is the causal connection? Increased poverty? Then what? Decreased morality from the consumption of western media? How can that be established? Could there be an increase in the reporting of such crimes due to greater awareness in general of women's issues (especially in a country whose human rights record with women is downright terrible?)

As for the original topic, it sounds like Ariana Grande was subjected to a "shock", by which I mean that a buffer briefly vanished between Ariana (the strong and loved-by-Miller independent woman) and Ariana (the sexually provocative singer who has personally profited off the sexualization and objectification of women). She could have used this opportunity to sincerely ask what role her public life has contributed to this situation of men not treating women like ladies. But she didn't - she projected all of her inner discomfort on this slight the teenager perpetrated, and will keep cruising along like there's no wider personally-applicable context to this.

It's interesting to note that in this story there's very little information about what her boyfriend Mac Miller did in all of this situation. They probably had a few words about it in the car, but then Ariana just tweeted about it. To those straight men here who are in serious and deeply intimate and enriching relationships, how would you respond to the teenager if they sexualized "your girl" and said "{significant other} is sexy as hell man i see you, i see you hitting that!!!" to you when you both are RIGHT in front of her. Wouldn't you chastise him, knowing that as a role model you could probably influence him? Nothing of the like seems to have been brought up here. It makes me question if Ariana is really in a relationship with a man who "treats me with love and respect".

Is it really hard for men to speak up against other men (esp. those lower down the power structure) about how they speak to women? Did Mac Miller genuinely see no problem with what was said? Maybe he just thought it was impolite to say it when the subject of the conversation was in ear-shot? I feel like if people want to see a reversal to objectification, they have to stop promulgating it in their personal and professional lives, and that includes for both men and women, both in acts actively encouraging it and passively encouraging it by not speaking out. It's better Ariana speak out than not, but if that's where it ends... :/

 

[BHelmet]

I think that's the key. If we look at the massive programming that is going in our society, there is

a) an over-sexualization and objectification screaming from every corner of society - advertising, "art", culture, you name it.
b) on the conservative/religious side: a portrayal of sexuality as "evil", "sinful" etc.

Case B may be slightly inaccurate. My experience of religious programming is that sex outside of marriage is sinful, but sex within marriage is certainly not sinful or evil and is even to be celebrated.

 

[Chu]

As for the original topic, it sounds like Ariana Grande was subjected to a "shock", by which I mean that a buffer briefly vanished between Ariana (the strong and loved-by-Miller independent woman) and Ariana (the sexually provocative singer who has personally profited off the sexualization and objectification of women). She could have used this opportunity to sincerely ask what role her public life has contributed to this situation of men not treating women like ladies. But she didn't - she projected all of her inner discomfort on this slight the teenager perpetrated, and will keep cruising along like there's no wider personally-applicable context to this.

Well, FWIW, what I question more is the actual "shock" in this context. Was she really shocked, or was she coached by someone or her own programming to say what she said? I have a hard time believing that someone who chooses that profession would a) be shocked when something like this happens, and b) be told what that teenager said, only this one time. It is more likely that this has happened many times before, and that even in her training someone with brains will have warned her about the dangers or singing and playing like she does, yes?

If she was honestly shocked, she would get the heck out of that line or work, and even want to expose it. If she wasn't, then she might just be playing her role, just in a different way: Typical behavior seen and explained by Jordan Patterson! Precious snowflakes, over sexuality expecting no consequences, etc. The message it sends is that you should be able to do whatever you want and not face any consequences. It even evokes pity. That makes her a mechanical victim of the system too, but put into that context, her "shock" could just be one more marketing tactic.

Maybe this is too simplistic, but I think there's something to it.

 

[Mountain Crown]

but I think there's something to it.

I think there is. The entertainment industry requires the public eye to keep the gravy train moving, whether a star or newcomer.

A large segment of any fan base is comprised of those who follow the buzz, and many don’t even know what is good or bad talent, they just want to check out what everyone is nuts about, or what the critics claim is phenomenal (often paid to do so.)

This all sounds to me like a publicity maneuver for as the saying goes “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” especially when it’s free. Just think how many people must've gone to YouTube to check her work after this came out, my wife and I did, and we couldn't care less about this kind of entertainment.

 

[Seppo Ilmarinen]

Well, FWIW, what I question more is the actual "shock" in this context. Was she really shocked, or was she coached by someone or her own programming to say what she said? I have a hard time believing that someone who chooses that profession would a) be shocked when something like this happens, and b) be told what that teenager said, only this one time. It is more likely that this has happened many times before, and that even in her training someone with brains will have warned her about the dangers or singing and playing like she does, yes?

If she was honestly shocked, she would get the heck out of that line or work, and even want to expose it. If she wasn't, then she might just be playing her role, just in a different way: Typical behavior seen and explained by Jordan Patterson! Precious snowflakes, over sexuality expecting no consequences, etc. The message it sends is that you should be able to do whatever you want and not face any consequences. It even evokes pity. That makes her a mechanical victim of the system too, but put into that context, her "shock" could just be one more marketing tactic.

Maybe this is too simplistic, but I think there's something to it.

I think her tweet supports this: "expressing sexuality in art is not an invitation for disrespect !!! just like wearing a short skirt is not asking for assault.". Sure, wearing short skirt doesn't justify assault, but the first part is same kind of paramoralistic argument that those snowflake types often use, i.e "i have the right to behave how ever i want", and if anyone express that their behavior is inappropriate, it's interpreted as hostility/attack ("disrespect"), because those who won't accept their liberal worldview are "prejudiced" and "close-minded" (it's their fault, not mine!).

 

[bjorb]

Sexism has been a real issue on the MSM. And of course it is a issue. (Thanks to the media and their perverted programming they inflicted on the population)

But how they spin it is that men can't help themselves and in order for this to chance. We must all become 'gender neutral' Which ties into 'gender theory'

What they are telling us is that the root of the problem is that as long as men define themselves as men. Sexism will rule over them.

To them, men who identify themselves as such are automatically sexists.

Well, now that brings up an interesting idea, I think...

Considering the C's quote posted earlier:

A: Yes. Men will lose most of their drive in favor of more spiritual pursuits. It is the sex drive that is at the root of most of the historical aggression and lack of feeling on the part of the male.

Q: (L) Can we tell others?

A: Might cause turmoil but up to you.

Q: (L) I noticed that at about the same time I began meditating heavily that my drive plummeted. Is this because of the meditation?

A: Yes. Females will lose some drive too. But how will humans react to this, that is the question. Will they be prepared?

So, it is the sex drive that is at the root of most of the historical aggression and lack of feeling on the part of the male. That's kind of hard to disagree with, although I don't think that speaks directly to objectification only - testosterone, being a Manly Man, and all that stuff really does a number on one's head.

Of course, estrogen and female hormones also do a number on the heads (and bodies) of women, but then that kind of "drive" is not-so-easily corrupted into Power, Mayhem, etc. as it is in men.

Thus, guys have a certain responsibility to not go down the Evil Road.

Maybe this "loss of drive" already begun in a sense?

I mean, it's very easy to just look at women and say, "She was asking for it!" and it's very easy to look at men and say, "He just sees women as objects", but it's not so easy to consider the (potential) emotional natures underneath.

With this gender neutral thing, it's almost like somebody and or something is trying to force a change, or deal with a change - but they're doing it in entirely the wrong way. For example, Canada's gender neutral pronoun law. That will simply never work. It's ridiculous.

It seems to me that the answer to the question, "But how will humans react to this?" so far is, "NOT WELL!!"

And notice that it was not, "But how will MEN react to this?" but rather, "But how will humans react to this?"

Again, so far, I would say: Oh boy/girl/xe...

If suddenly one day all men wake up and act all gender neutral, I cannot imagine women will be dancing in the streets. Can you imagine interior decorating in that scenario?

Likewise, if one day all women wake up and want to enter into more traditionally "manly" roles, how do you think us guys are gonna feel when all our power tools go missing?!

Yes, those are just practical, every day, and rather silly examples... But I think you get the idea. Fundamental roles will change. That would be rather earth-shattering for society as a whole. Forget earthquakes!

Anyway, going through a Work-like process and dealing with our emotional natures, nurturing emotion, controlling impulses, and generally becoming more "whole" would be a great idea for everyone. Helping each other to do this would be great for everyone. This would naturally lead to being more "gender neutral" in both a physical and a spiritual sense.

But instead, we have this "fake" gender neutral / PC phenomenon where it's basically being pushed in such a way that the likely result will be blow-back against it, maybe a sort of new "sexual revolution" or whatever where humanity will go down exactly the wrong path as men say, "No, I'm a REAL MAN!" and women say, "No! I'm a REAL WOMAN!" This would have the effect of preventing real Work, real evolution, etc.

Thoughts?

Yeah, everyone is going to have an identity crisis


"But how will humans react to this?"

With the Wave people either disintegrate or learn, right?

If this process is also about losing more of the sex drive. The disintegrating part of humanity of who there are many can come out of it in quite a bad shape. Hence them clinging to being 'gender neutral' or choosing one of the a-sexual genders?

If the Wave is kind of 'forcing' us to learn and people reject it. 4STS might set up all these toxic alternatives for people to 'cope' with their chance. (Gender Theory)

If this is somehow correct, I think this whole gender theory thing is about to dominate society at a real fast pace.