[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hi 7L,

a few points to clarify…

1) it was presented (but I guess that tempts even more so) as qualified by: “hyper-simplification”, and,

2) assumed by context to be describing the prevalent “problem set” as in most unconscious and burdened with disagreeable consequences - the vast majority of people within both genders who are fraught with the issues discussed - even including, and in many cases - the highly educated (surprise), who - in both genders are largely unconscious about the sexual and desire components of their being that rule their lives, and as a result are exploited as such, and being educated have great facility in exploiting others (often as a studied profession or adjunct to one as a “life-quality” pursuit) as a prevalent and unquestioned social dynamic. (I live in a fairly large urban metropolis in the Northern Hemisphere and see this demonstrated incessantly)

Jyotir, hello there. I think you know quite well I don't disagree with any of what you say here. Agreed, full stop, that these are all serious issues, and that when most individuals are not sufficiently aware or awakened, they are easily manipulated by predatory social norms, institutions, and/or individuals.

3) the case you present is more ideal, less fraught with these problems when actualized, but imo represents a very small minority of people on the planet, although increasingly more individuals are increasingly striving in that direction. Yet even on this supposedly 'spiritual' site people argue against spiritual approach to life insisting that the ultimate goal of human existence is a complacent moral ethical sentimental bourgeois life (home family country)...with a dash of hard science wonder to occasionally ponder.

I too am not in agreement with amoral utilitarianism in any form...whether it's the ruthless predatory version so prevalent today, or whether it's the "kinder, gentler" apathy borne of cynicism and despair.

Nonetheless, I can feel and see the truth of what I see in the hearts and minds of most women. It's just that so many as yet still lack the courage, the voice, and perhaps even the words...because they've kept quiet for so long. Because it's been made so clear by society for more than a half century now...all they've ever known firsthand...that they are nothing special, interchangeable, just a **** really. And by most men who are not family or beloved friends, who tell them in myriad ways, shapes, and forms that there is little or nothing sacred or special or noteworthy about them as individuals, people, souls -- i.e., if they don't pay to play or get with the program then they are nothing special or worth getting to know otherwise, and it's on to the next. Pay to play now luv, it's the sex and affection we want, and we'll see how it all plays out.

That's where most are, married or not, because non-familial opposite-sex relationships have never historically been based upon a mutual authentic love, unlike ALL other intimate personal relationships ideally and often actually were (i.e., parent/child, beloved friend, beloved mentor/student, etc). And historically women had very little say, so there you go. They just outlawed "marital" rape 25-30 years ago. Progress is very slow and absolutely, the voice of most women is not well heard or understood at this time.

Do I reject the near-universal demands in Western societies to "pay to play"? Yes, I do...but too many are not in that position, beat down, and struggling to get by, perhaps with kids as well. And we are persistently and pervasively vulnerable, in nearly all ways. So they try desperately to please time and time again, against their dignity, their inner morality, their core humanity. Meanwhile, what most women want is a mutuality of authentic love in ALL our personal relationships. Including partnerships. Nothing has changed...it's what we've always wanted and it's who we've always been. It's just that at this time, it's still a radical act of resistance simply to be who we are, much less to give voice to it.

4) Q: does one‘s “simple humanity” include the need for plastic surgery to preserve the appearance of sexual viability as one ages? Or maybe it’s just about preserving beauty in the ideal classic Greek sense. Ultimately, one can’t cheat death, but one might fool one’s chronological age - or one’s sexual appetites - to obviate another’s possible or presumed alienation that btw cheats or pre-empts others’ “simple humanity” in a way that presumes and judges by surface appearance as to intention - wouldn’t you agree? Do you think that the percentage of men who indulge in porn is equivalent to the percentage of women who wear make-up & sparkly things, color their hair, get cosmetic surgery, and willingly pay 3x as much for clothes that show more skin?

I would say by far porn is the great equaliser for men...near universal, and that more men globally watch porn than all those other things combined But I will agree that there are standards for women's appearance in nearly all cultures that require attention to clothing and grooming. You may not wear makeup or colour the hair or follow the extreme trends...but likely you have to do a bit of something to "meet the grade" and not be socially shunned or judged harshly. Most of us strike a balance and do what we feel or observe is necessary -- but as we've discussed this also depends upon one's confidence and one's social status. For example, poor women, younger women, women of colour, and so forth are often judged far more harshly when they do not conform "properly", and all manner of judgment is laid upon them from afar. So these are very real concerns, yes, and also broadly universal.

But why so? That strikes me as naïve, unexamined, and actually makes my point, since "where we are" is where "we" unconsciously want to be vis-à-vis the preferred disposition of orientation by sexual viability of which age (& age-ism) is also a key but subsidiary component.

I just got a bit more into that background above and sorry, did not include that prior Rarely is there an aspect of anything socially related where I would fall into the unexamined category. Just saving typing, hahaha. Yes, there is a requisite mainstream ideal and if you do not meet it in some way you suffer judgment, discrimination, and so forth. Be it based on age, race, class, and so forth. As I've noted, social acceptance has (both historically and now) always been of particular concern for women as we are much more vulnerable all round. And then, yes, as we've noted, this conformist ideal is then heavily sexualised by men for their consumption AND for social control of men through sex and porn, for economic exploitation all round, and for all manner of control and exploitation of women.

so…“women’s perspectives not well understood by men“?
How about by themselves?
And of course the obverse would apply to men as well. That was a major point. So let's be fair

Yes...not well understood in many cases. That is simply a truth. Mostly because of the lack of pervasive, consistent communication of our perspectives in all areas of society, both personal and communal. Our inner lives still lack a broad and diverse voice in mainstream society, and what is shared is often superficial and/or very partial, not really at the substance of it at all. And much of this has to do with making a space to put those voices forward at the deepest and most resonant levels. Without harsh judgment and with a broad and deep empathy which makes for deeper understanding (short of illumination and direct transmission).

I do agree that whilst adult women (beyond the age of innocence, or ~uni age) DO actually know much of their deepest feelings and yearnings (and perhaps that is not always so for men, granted), that there is a wealth of additional knowing that comes with the articulation and sharing...in finding the words AND the courage to put them forward, both. First and foremost, we need the space to be different in very deep and broad ways where this is clearly and often the case. Like regarding sexual desire in women, which is most often tied strongly to a particular individual and rooted deeply in emotional and spiritual bonds. It is not "at large" and doesn't work that way for most of us, LOL. To ascribe that sort of blanket perspective to the vast majority of women means that all deeper understanding is lost from the start. And that's essentially the history of humanity to date.

Of course, wherever (particularly in modern society) men have been schooled to contain or control their feelings, then this applies variously to men as well -- and it's interesting that even a century ago here this was much less the case in some ways and men in the West were able to be much more demonstrative and physically tactile with one another, i.e., showing affection to one another. With reflection and emotional freedom comes insight, wisdom, and spiritual growth...so obviously, there are reasons this stifling "standard" was put forward as "the norm" for men, LOL...

It goes without saying that neither has a good and really useful understanding of mutually divergent identity, attributes, ways, means, and goals, especially in the spiritual sense, because they don‘t understand themselves first. How could they if they are simply unwitting and unconscious reactors to and slaves of these natural forces extant within human existence - male or female?

~ J

As to your general statement, yes, agreed generally

Peace & blessings
7L