So bored.

Somebody stop this madness!

it pains me to publish

Well, I've just come out of the oven.

I changed my oil today and fucked the fuckedupedly small air intake on the engine. She's got a bit more low end now, but still sucks on the whole "accelerating" thing.

Has anyone else looked at the last few blogs and thought that I've got on a philosophical binge?? Well kids, I have.

I want to be an old man, some day, who tells stories to his grand-children that are completely outrageous, but full of color.
For instance, did you know that I invented the modern wall as we know it. You see, before I was born, all the walls were incomplete, they had big holes in them. That was also before my friend Jimmy invented doors. See, back then folks thought it convenient to enter in and out of their houses and since hallways certainly weren't for the "common" folk yet, well, a feller by the name of, ahhh, Chester Picklesworth came down from New England to tell all us to go ahead and put a hold in yer walls cause it didn't make no more sense to be usin the ladders n'more. So, we being decent folk at the time takes a sledge and puts some holes in our walls and then fellers was walkin in and out of our house all day long, for we didn't get many visitors back then on account of all the ladder climbing even if one so chose to use the washcloset.
See, then there Jimmy comes along and says why don't we invent something called doors so that we won't have holes in our walls all the time, and so he gets credit for that, but then one night we was talkin in the woods. See, we used to go to the woods as children cause it was said that there was an old indian grave yard that was fully buried under a large boulder that sat right smack in the middle of the forest (now, this forest wasn't big as far as forests go, but I'll bet it were 90 acres or so, which, believe me, if yer at the center they cain't here ya scream!). So it was said that if ya went there at night and said the name of anybody in the world that that person would come to you in your dream and say something to you. Now we, being the curious sort, tested it out. But, I'll have to save that for another time. So, needless to say, since this indian thing turned out to be not so bad, we kept returning to the middle of the forest for many years to come, and it just so happened that on the day Jimmy suggests the use of these "door" contraptions, that we went to the middle of the forest.

I'll continue this shit another time. It sucks.

To be attracted to one another

It's monday. I think just about everybody has left almost.

Thanks for the comments on my previous post. I'm always very curious to hear what other people have to say about this sort of thing. Although, the "male body is ugly/functional at best while the female body is beautiful" was not heard for the first time at HD for me, which was surprising.

The thing that stands out to me is when men, themselves, seem to want to die to uphold this belief. But the look on their faces . . . hmmm, I wonder about that. It's like guilt. It's the same sort of look that I've seen on men's faces when they're chastised for wanting sex.

Get this, I've noticed that, in America, both genders are chastised for wanting sex! There are some differences though. A woman is told that she is "above it" or that it's a dirty thing to do and they're told to be "ladylike." While I do agree with using sex responsibly and not making it a focus of your life, I think that it should be integrated into one's life without having to feel like we're doing something "dirty." Just think about the language we use about sex. It's "naughty, nasty, behind closed doors, in the dark, taboo". And why? Could anyone give me a good reason why sex is bad? Of course you can't, because, like everything else, sex does not hold an intrinsic good or bad, it's all how you look at it, how you use it, and what you think about it after you've done it.
While little girls are encouraged to resist sex at all costs, we come to the other side of the story. Why are little girls told to resist sex and boys? because all boys want is sex, ever. Everyone has a sex drive, but in my own personal experience, it is NEVER something that you need, as great as it is. I'm not talking about physical contact and being close, I'm just talking about sex and sexual activities. So, as little boys, we're basically told that we're "hopeless sex mongers", that our penises should always be inhumanly rock hard, we should want sex at any time all the time, that the more sex we have the happier we are, and that there really isn't much else to life except fucking, cause the more you fuck, the higher up on the social ladder you are.
That is some twisted ass shit! Why are we told to be so disassociated with our bodies? Well, it's our American cultural begins. Time and time again, if you look to the pilgrims who founded this country, much the very way we think about the world comes from their views. This is not bad, just something to understand, cause everybody comes from somewhere, and that somewhere has some view about the world.

But look at the nature of our laws . . . if we don't want it to happen, we'll illegalize it. But our focus is always off . . . we don't want murders to happen (decent intention I'd say), so we begin to illegalize the use of guns (whoa! how the hell do we think this will help!?). Using the gun example . . . did anyone ever notice that there have been a shit-ton of murders before guns were ever thought of?

We don't want young people abusing alcohol (decent intention, again, I'd say), so we make it illegal for them to drink before a certain age (whaaaattt!?) Just because you illegalize the means of doing something does not AT ALL fix the problem. Drug abuse is a problem, so let's make that illegal! Well, that doesn't really help the people who abuse drugs to understand why they abuse them in the first place, or what causes that sort of substance misuse. They'll just find something else to abuse: because a band-aid was put on the problem, but the cut was never addressed.

I guess it all comes down to trust. Does the government who makes these laws trust it's people?

All this circles back around to sex. We make it taboo, forbid it, look down on it, call it names . . . and yet, we all want it. Yes, yes, even those of us in IV. Everybody's got the desire, but that doesn't mean we have to be attached to it. The view that America currently holds on sex is quite a good example of attachment. Sex is something that we can let be, something that we can't resist wrapping our intellects around. Probably because it's so emotional (although the Delt Sig's would pick up swords to disagree with me), which brings us closer to the problem, that as American humans, we're really not taught how to look at our feelings and be unattached to them. Being unattached to your feeling means that you feel it entirely, with your whole body/being, and you don't hate it, or check the clock to see how long you've been feeling this way. Instead, being unattached to your feeling means that you can fully engage it, and fully let it pass. The funny thing about feelings is that they tend to pass on their own after they've exhausted themselves without any help from us. Hmm, how about that.
It's taken me a significant chunk of my adult life to learn that, cause learning that doesn't just take intellectually understanding it, but experiencing it too. Yet, everyone is capable of doing this, but most of us have sever roadblocks in our way because we're taught to be attached to our feelings. When someone cries, it's a "big deal" and they're weak and need help, the party must stop! somebody's having a feeling!

We all know that in Europe, alcoholism is not as much of a problem . . . why? Because it's not a big deal to them. I've talked with some Europeans and they say that since wine was always on the table, and they've been drinking it since they were young, they don't really have any desire to go out and participate in the abuses (or "fun" as americans call it) that we do. Hmmm, maybe if emotions were treated as "not as big of a deal", while still cherishing them, we could solve some problems.

Same thing with the drug war, you create drug abusers by illegalizing drugs and painting them as "oh my gosh the worst thing ever created!" I tell you something, you stop saying drugs or horrible and you greatly reduce the abuse/violence problem related to them. Just talk to an economist about this one (specifically ask them the results of black markets).

I, too, walk with the teachings of our society. I have trouble getting close to people (especially women) and I'm not even sure why. But I question it, I don't believe it all the time . . . and so there's hope for me yet.

What if whatever came up inside us was ok? What if we didn't have to hate the natural thoughts and feelings that come up? It would be easier to let them go, and pursue who we want to be.

Keep questioning, following in the footsteps of the sages.

gassho.

Sight and what we see

I've been doing some thinking about a concept which has never seemed right to me: the female form is beautiful, while the male form is, at best, functional.

Many of my readers may hold this option. Shockingly enough, I have heard this opinion devoutly reinforced by men! But, as always, I notice the way things are mentioned, and so this just doesn't sit right with me.

I start by saying, I'm not sure of the truth of this, because it seems like an opinion. However, this opinion permeates the minds of even the youngest children. In the following link, note the reference to the old nursery rhyme " . . . girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice, while boys are snakes and snails and puppy dog tails . . ."
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/11/17/stories/2002111700560100.htm <---- cut and paste that badboy!

I've had many thoughts about this. I wondered about little girls growing up, what happens the first time they see a naked penis? What are they told about it? What are the unspoken messages that are communicated to a young girl about the nude male body? This I'm not sure about, for I was never (to my recollection) a young girl. But still, the reaction that I have often see was one were the face looks like it has just tasted something REALLY bitter. YUCK!

And yet I'm reminded of a story when a little boy first sees a woman's naked genitals and says, "that lady lost her wee wee!" There is initial shock for a boy of the apparent lack of external sex structures on a woman. Hmmm. Now, doesn't it make you wonder why there seem to be opposite reactions in little boys and little girls.

Why do women find the nude male body to look "awkward." Being a man myself, this is somewhat hard to swallow. I guess it's the notion that no matter how in shape I am, the dick is doing me in.

Let me briefly mention something here: the obsession with beauty. We label ourselves (even as broadly as using genders) to label ourselves of even capable of beauty. And then we have millions of young women who literally kill themselves in order to be thin, equating that with beauty. How fucking absurd.

I gotta say, I really think it's cultural. As men, we're told that women's bodies are irresistable, and that we're hopelessly attracted to them, setting all other priorities aside for a good fuck.
Little girls seem to be told the opposite: their bodies are fragile, hyper-sacred sculptures that, if exposed to sexuality (even in the context of tender love or even marriage) are defiled for the rest of their lives, and so undesirable to any other man.
I'm not saying everyone consciously believes this shit, but it's in the darker parts of our minds that we don't visit often, yet will die for the beliefs found there.

There are always mixed messages, often contradictory. Why is it that men seem to think women's bodies can do no wrong, even that their external genitals are beautiful. Have you ever really looked at a woman's genitals outside of wanted to fuck them? It's not the prettiest sight in the world. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that human gentitals in general are not exactly beautiful in how we commonly define the term.

But if you can release yourself a bit, empty the cup a little . . . then it seems that there is some other quality that is present in beautiful things, and I think it's this quality that we seek. It is, itself, Quality. Why are some paintings better than others? Why do we like some music, but not others. Quality. We all seem to be able to see it, to gravitate towards it (or at least the promise of it) but what is this Quality that we're after, that beautiful things seem to all have.

Quality is not an intellectual judgement, and it is, of course, not separate from the intellect. It is on the cutting ede of experience, it is the flow of energy. Before judgement happens, quality is perceived.

Beauty is not an external quality, not something you can display. Beauty is an internal phenomenon, happening exclusively in the viewer. When one thing is called "beautiful" another automatically becomes "ugly." And so the dicotomy, the gap that permeates American thinking seems to have applied itself to our concepts of ourselves.

I'll publish more on this later. Comments are welcome, but note that if you're from the HD, you're opinion may be accompanied by a large grain of salt. I've found that Hillsdale, in all it's timeless puritanic glory, tends to be concentrated Victorian American culture.