Ariana Grande and the question of appropriate expression of sexuality

[T.C.]

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?

[...]

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...

Note that you're conflating the issue of sex drive with gender, Scottie. They're not the same thing. The C's seemed to have been referring to sex drive exclusively.

Also, I don't actually see that sex drive is diminishing in the general population. It's certainly not with my friends and peers. The general public still seem to want to find a partner and have sex.

So I wonder if the C's were referring to humanity as a whole, or just this group - the forumites?

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.

Depends what you mean by gender neutral. I think people think of gender neutrality as ambiguous/androgynous/fluid/non-specific. I believe if one was to put into practice the Work concepts you state in the above, that ambiguity of gender wouldn't really be a result. It's been noted that for those who did the Work under Gurdjieff, the men got more masculine and the women became more feminine.

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?

Again, I just think it's important to distinguish between sexuality and gender. They're quite separate issues and I don't know that gender was included in what the C's were talking about.

 

[Cosmos]

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.

Yep. I think applying terms from the work to Ariana, might not be the best way to approach her "shock".

Here is what Gurdjieff had to say about ordinary people, outside of the work:

"I think I understand what you mean," I said. "And I have often thought how little there is in the world that can stand against this form of mechanization and choose its own path."

"This is just where you make your greatest mistake," said G. "You think there is something that chooses its own path, something that can stand against mechanization; you think that not everything is equally mechanical."

"Why, of course not!" I said. "Art, poetry, thought, are phenomena of quite a different order."

"Of exactly the same order," said G. "These activities are just as mechanical as everything else. Men are machines and nothing but mechanical actions can be expected of machines."

"Very well," I said. "But are there no people who are not machines?"

"It may be that there are," said G., "only not those people you see. And you do not know them. That is what I want you to understand.

and this:

"Man's possibilities are very great. You cannot conceive even a shadow of what man is capable of attaining. But nothing can be attained in sleep. In the consciousness of a sleeping man his illusions, his 'dreams' are mixed with reality. He lives in a subjective world and he can never escape from it. And this is the reason why he can never make use of all the powers he possesses and why he always lives in only a small part of himself.

 

[Azur]

[..]

For example, Canada's gender neutral pronoun law. That will simply never work. It's ridiculous.

[...]
Thoughts?

Pretty sure most 15 year-olds in Canada when redressed by a savvy, new identity vector person, would respond politely and say: "Ok, buddy. [pause] You gonna eat those fries?".

And that'll be it.

Some of us that are older see what *might* be a push towards something, and it is, but like the last few pushes, it doesn't quite pan out. It gets relegated to a fad.

 

[Laura]

I would like to bring the discussion back to the context of The Work with the following snippets:

.... with rights come responsibilities. .... As the Cs said: "Life experiences reflect how one interacts with God." Grande shouldn't be shocked at this young boy's comments about her. The fact of the matter is she was shocked, which means that, in the course of setting a good example for others - young fans especially - which she has done by staking her rightful claim to respect, there's also something there for her to learn about herself.

I think that if we placed the above context into the standards of two people doing 'the work', we would say that one member doesn't get to flaunt sexuality, while the other doesn't get to imagine/fantasize that he/she is doing so. As to what exactly constitutes 'flaunting sexuality' and 'improper imagination', that would be resolved via networking on a case-by-case basis.

We should try to establish some minimal standards of dress, behavior and decorum, I think.

Arianna Grande story is symptomatic of our modern society. In a healthy society nobody should be insulting and nobody should be provocative but those times are long gone if they ever existed.

<snip>

Now, from a Work perspective, any individual can, of course, feel attracted but it is his/her responsibility not to be slave of those impulses, i.e. not to act mechanically.

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 would suggest that networking with your "homies" about such things is a good start. Perhaps the guys could make a list of what sorts of things get them activated? If women knew, maybe they could be more conscious and self-observant and externally considerate.

Talking about victims, what about all the 'ordinary' women who are objectified, through no fault of their own, by society and men BECAUSE of the kind of trash that this 'Ariana' puts out there? Ordinary women who don't have her $millions and millions of "adoring fans"? If we're gonna talk about victims, then I'm with Jen.

Exactly. The ladies here might want to make their own list of what guys do that make them feel objectified. And perhaps see if there are any match-ups between their own unconscious actions/behaviors and those things on the guy's list of triggers?

Obviously, obviously burkas aren't the answer. And repression isn't the answer.

 

[Hesper]

One thing that comes to mind when reading this thread, and considering how it relates to the Work, is the question of Love. Considering that the C's have said that Love is Light is Knowledge, we can see that a man or woman could theoretically Love just about anything through expanding in knowledge, being, and understanding. Through this one can act in a way that is positive towards the object being Loved - as though him / her / it were the same as one's self.

This case reveals how elusive love is. The young man, programmed to respond towards women as being symbols of status, reacts in a mechanical way to Ariana Grande. He treats her like a status symbol with her boyfriend, and they are able to enjoy whatever 'male bond' that results. Ariana also reacts to the situation in their own way - she's hurt, obviously. But maybe deep down she's hurt now, and not when objectified on a billboard or in a magazine, because her 'sex symbol status' is not a tool for her, but a tool used against her. So she probably won't quit the industry, but if she reached a degree of awareness, through increasing in knowledge and being, maybe she would - out of love for herself and those who she's a role model for.

The young man shows no understanding or knowledge of what it would be like, to be her, and to hear someone say something so degrading about him. Through simple external consideration it isn't too difficult. But that's what differentiates this Forum from everyday life - we seek to gain knowledge, thus growing in Being, and becoming capable of transducing a higher force - conscious love. Without that we just have a bunch of automatons doing whatever 'it' tells them to do. And the result is a mass of confusion and unconscious suffering.

 

[Azur]

I would like to bring the discussion back to the context of The Work with the following snippets:

[...]

Exactly. The ladies here might want to make their own list of what guys do that make them feel objectified. And perhaps see if there are any match-ups between their own unconscious actions/behaviors and those things on the guy's list of triggers?

Obviously, obviously burkas aren't the answer. And repression isn't the answer.

On the flip side of that, are the women that get mad when you ignore their "learned cues".

 

[T.C.]

Arianna Grande story is symptomatic of our modern society. In a healthy society nobody should be insulting and nobody should be provocative but those times are long gone if they ever existed.

<snip>

Now, from a Work perspective, any individual can, of course, feel attracted but it is his/her responsibility not to be slave of those impulses, i.e. not to act mechanically.

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 would suggest that networking with your "homies" about such things is a good start. Perhaps the guys could make a list of what sorts of things get them activated? If women knew, maybe they could be more conscious and self-observant and externally considerate.

I honestly don't know if that's going about it the right way, and I don't think the guys here are the best sample to ask about this. I'd say for normies, you could just pick any female pop star or model off the cover of a magazine, and that would be enough to get them going.

You say that burkas are out of the question, but I think a list of what gets men going would be so long and random that women wouldn't have much freedom left in terms of how they looked, what they said, how they acted, what they did for a living, what they did in their spare time, whether they were kind or cold, whether they were demure or provocative, etc., etc.

I'd say, personally, it's up to men themselves to figure this out for themselves. I'm sure a woman knows if she's being provocative, either in her behaviour or in her self presentation. So the general rule should be that anything that isn't provocative just should not be an issue at all.

In order to convey to you what it's like for guys whose character means they're stuck in the objectifying and fantasising, it's basically like being extremely hungry, walking around an all you can eat buffet and not being allowed to buy anything. When you're hungry, you see the world through hungry eyes; your entire orientation towards the world is in the context of food. And you can't just hide all the food in the world.

Well, that's my take on it, anyway. We could wait and see what kind of list might get drafted up, but for you women, I'd say you'd probably already know 95% of what would be on it.

It's just down to a guy to work on himself; when in moments of sexual attraction, to remember himself, remember all he knows; to be completely honest with himself and how he's feeling and not to be ashamed of it, deny it or repress it. Even the darkest thoughts, when brought into the light, lose all their weight and dissolve of their own accord.

 

[Keyhole]

I'm in agreement with T.C. here. To compile a list of every single factor that might "activate the system" would be long, tedious, and maybe even impossible.

In my experience, the mind can invent whatever type of fantasy it wants to regardless of the external stimuli. Something which seems to be a fairly average, day-to-day occurrence can be twisted and distorted really quite easily.

For instance, I actually know a guy who has disclosed on several occasions that he fantasises over women in burkas. For me, this is evidence that the predator's mind will do all that it can to find any way to satisfy it's urges, and so trying to pinpoint external variables is probably futile. The only way I can see this working out is that it needs to be dealt with on an individual basis, and it is a man's responsibility to take control of those thoughts and remember himself in times of weakness.

 

[Kika]

In order to convey to you what it's like for guys whose character means they're stuck in the objectifying and fantasising, it's basically like being extremely hungry, walking around an all you can eat buffet and not being allowed to buy anything. When you're hungry, you see the world through hungry eyes; your entire orientation towards the world is in the context of food. And you can't just hide all the food in the world.

Very well said T. C.
Observe how you feel and how well you satisfy the hunger in various forms of sexual activity. For example; when you masturbate, or if you have sex with a prostitute, or to some unknown (one-night) or with a person who is in love with you, or the person with whom you are in love, or with someone who's in any way inferior to you ...
Do you feel; very important and powerful, like you could move mountains, empty and exhausted, still hungry, you feel like you have to run headlong.....

Energy predator or victim - that is the question......

 

[Laura]

I'm in agreement with T.C. here. To compile a list of every single factor that might "activate the system" would be long, tedious, and maybe even impossible.

In my experience, the mind can invent whatever type of fantasy it wants to regardless of the external stimuli. Something which seems to be a fairly average, day-to-day occurrence can be twisted and distorted really quite easily.

For instance, I actually know a guy who has disclosed on several occasions that he fantasises over women in burkas. For me, this is evidence that the predator's mind will do all that it can to find any way to satisfy it's urges, and so trying to pinpoint external variables is probably futile. The only way I can see this working out is that it needs to be dealt with on an individual basis, and it is a man's responsibility to take control of those thoughts and remember himself in times of weakness.

Well, hell's bells. That's not good news. In other words. a girl/woman just has to be really, really conscious and observe both herself and whoever is around her (mainly meaning males) in hopes of being able to pick up on secret fantasies that they may go to extremes to hide!

 

[Beau]

For instance, I actually know a guy who has disclosed on several occasions that he fantasises over women in burkas. For me, this is evidence that the predator's mind will do all that it can to find any way to satisfy it's urges, and so trying to pinpoint external variables is probably futile. The only way I can see this working out is that it needs to be dealt with on an individual basis, and it is a man's responsibility to take control of those thoughts and remember himself in times of weakness.

Pretty much how I feel about it too. It's our responsibility as men to be able to keep our urges "below the neck", acknowledge them but maintain chivalry and proper behavior and etiquette. There are so many things that can stir up manhood, like Keyhole says it can be something totally ordinary and mundane. Obviously smiling, laughing and any kind of light physical contact are signals of interest for both sexes. I think it's much more common for men to misread social cues of interest from women when there is only platonic interest than the other way around. Does that mean that women should be more careful in being friendly? I don't think so, it should be the man who understands that not every woman who is friendly to him is attracted to him.

Those men who are trying to be more than just a reaction machine chained to their biological imperatives and cultural programming will (or should) think about their behavior, what's right and what's wrong, and act accordingly. I would say the majority of guys know the difference, it's just that some or many choose to cross the line because for them the ends justify the means.

Now, clearly Ariana Grande and her ilk are considered below the standard of dress, behavior and decorum for women who don't want to be objectified. But I don't think that we want to go to far and turn into Saudi Arabia. Most likely many women feel confident, happy AND sexy wearing a dress that reveals a little skin. That will more than likely cause at least some men to ogle and objectify her. Does that mean she shouldn't do that which makes her happy, at least on occasion, because of that reaction? No, it's up to the man to control their urges and still behave decently. Our entire global society has become a population of men who don't do that, but I don't think it should force women to put their sexuality and femininity in the closet until they know they're around men/women who will not objectify them.

 

[Andromeda]

Maybe it's a bit simplistic but I'd say the whole problem could be solved from either side with direct and respectful communication in the moment. I mean, in the context of The Work, if everyone can agree that:

1) most people have not entirely mastered their drives, impulses, programs, etc. in this area
2) that they are sincerely working to do just that
3) burkas aren't the solution
4) repression isn't the solution

....then if or when a situation occurs that needs addressing, everyone learns to do just that. Like "Hey Man, when you talk like that it makes me feel like you think I'm a stupid woman." or "Hey Woman, when you act like that it makes me feel like you're inviting my attention." And then discuss and find a solution.

Of course it can be difficult for anyone not used to communicating like that, and it would take self-awareness, but I think it could work. Maybe if everyone could do that with each other in this context and grow a better sense of the opposite sex and all the potentials therein, that could help in dealing with interactions outside of The Work too.

 

[Niall]

I would suggest that networking with your "homies" about such things is a good start. Perhaps the guys could make a list of what sorts of things get them activated? If women knew, maybe they could be more conscious and self-observant and externally considerate.

I honestly don't know if that's going about it the right way, and I don't think the guys here are the best sample to ask about this. I'd say for normies, you could just pick any female pop star or model off the cover of a magazine, and that would be enough to get them going.

You may be right, but perhaps we can consider this in a Work context, within this network - both online and in person - rather than what works or doesn't 'in the world of A influences'? Obviously almost anything can activate a guy, but what is more likely to do so at a Cass meet-up, for example, where he might have impulses in check to a stronger degree than usual?

One thing that comes to mind is that women might be careful expressing one-on-one affection to guys they see at meet-ups. A specific scenario, which can also extend to off-forum contact... You're at a meet-up of a number of 'Cass people', and you find yourself alone in conversation with one male member. You feel safe in this environment and begin to do something you mightn't ordinarily do: tell him your life story. You have your doubts... but you carry on because, after all, he's a Cass guy! He seems so mature on the forum, and now in real life too! And he's so not like the guys back home. And...

The Cass guy may be a perfect gentleman to you, listening and offering sage advice, but little do you know that behind his platonic exterior, alarm bells are sounding about how she could be is definitely... THE ONE! And you may only learn this months or even years later when something in his life has blown up or crashed

Now, in time, direct, one-on-one, heartfelt communication is perfectly normal conduct between the pair in the above scenario, but like any relationship, non-romantic ones included, getting to that point takes time and trust-building, which involves the two becoming aware of each others' warts and scars (not necessarily literally!). So I suppose what I'm getting at is, if you find yourself 'peeled off' from the group, maybe avoid sharing any 'deep stuff' until you are back in a setting with at least a few others (preferably including at least one other female) present.

You say that burkas are out of the question, but I think a list of what gets men going would be so long and random that women wouldn't have much freedom left in terms of how they looked, what they said, how they acted, what they did for a living, what they did in their spare time, whether they were kind or cold, whether they were demure or provocative, etc., etc.

I'd say, personally, it's up to men themselves to figure this out for themselves. I'm sure a woman knows if she's being provocative, either in her behaviour or in her self presentation.

You'd be surprised. Women can 'give off signals' they are not aware of. That isn't their 'fault' or anything, but guys need to be aware of this.

In order to convey to you what it's like for guys whose character means they're stuck in the objectifying and fantasising, it's basically like being extremely hungry, walking around an all you can eat buffet and not being allowed to buy anything. When you're hungry, you see the world through hungry eyes; your entire orientation towards the world is in the context of food. And you can't just hide all the food in the world.

Yes, it's a horrible state to be in. We can change our perspective though, and thus our state.

 

[Niall]

I'm in agreement with T.C. here. To compile a list of every single factor that might "activate the system" would be long, tedious, and maybe even impossible.

In my experience, the mind can invent whatever type of fantasy it wants to regardless of the external stimuli. Something which seems to be a fairly average, day-to-day occurrence can be twisted and distorted really quite easily.

For instance, I actually know a guy who has disclosed on several occasions that he fantasises over women in burkas. For me, this is evidence that the predator's mind will do all that it can to find any way to satisfy it's urges, and so trying to pinpoint external variables is probably futile. The only way I can see this working out is that it needs to be dealt with on an individual basis, and it is a man's responsibility to take control of those thoughts and remember himself in times of weakness.

Well, hell's bells. That's not good news. In other words. a girl/woman just has to be really, really conscious and observe both herself and whoever is around her (mainly meaning males) in hopes of being able to pick up on secret fantasies that they may go to extremes to hide!

...while the guys have to - when they are in la-la-land, or suspect they might be - air it out.

 

[Joe]

Well, hell's bells. That's not good news. In other words. a girl/woman just has to be really, really conscious and observe both herself and whoever is around her (mainly meaning males) in hopes of being able to pick up on secret fantasies that they may go to extremes to hide!

I don't think there's any need for women to go around trying to pick up on secret fantasies, and I don't think they need to be really conscious about what fantasies men may or may not be having. As others have said here, the issue is mostly one of guys fantasizing, which is the guy's issue to deal with, and it's probably best dealt with by talking to another guy(s) about it (a responsible one that will understand and give good advice). The area that women need to be conscious of is their programmed behavior with sexual overtones that is a covert attempt to "draw a man in" for nefarious purposes!

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

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