Posts by dustyskipper3

Death is just part of life, I suppose. How you live is really how you die. ☕

Unfortunately, the user LIQ doesn't really post much about spirituality, so I suppose I'll just offer my own little contribution here. Some people might find this out of place, but I feel like it’s actually quite fitting:



☕

copperfox22 said:Oh man, and I was just thinking about heading over to the forum 😁you always know how to pique my interest

I’m going to answer this the same way I answer everything else: by being completely honest and true to myself. So, here it is:

- I look for soul first. I'm not specifically hunting for a certain "look." I'm looking for character, temperament, and personality. What do I give in return? Well, I give everything 🤣once I find what I'm looking for, obviously. To address your points... wouldn't giving someone your body be a way to reveal your soul? It's not like there's anything particularly unique about my body that would somehow broadcast my level of spirituality 😁...so that particular logic doesn't really hold water for me. As for the idea that people will think I'm easy ...come on, anyone using that phrase automatically loses "spiritual" points in my book. Since none of those options you listed really resonate with me, I'll put it simply: when I find what I'm looking for, I give myself, my energy, and my presence spontaneously and without reservation. If our energies mesh, then we truly connect 😍. It's not that deep
.

unattractive women will react more "femministically" or "spiritually" because they have fewer choices; when given the chance, they basically have to aim for a serious relationship if they don't want to end up alone.

Solitude is relative. Some people handle it much better than others. Personally, I'm a bit of a lone wolf, so being alone doesn't sting as much. And as for relationships... why enter one just to avoid being alone? That's not how I work. I don't think I'm so special that I'm the only woman out there like this

That's why it's such a challenge for us men to tell if a woman is truly spiritual or if she's just less attractive and forced into being "spiritual" out of necessity. Personally, I prefer spiritual women, so I tend to pick the beautiful ones. Because if she's both beautiful and spiritual, it's likely genuine and not just an act to secure a serious commitment. Plus, she's easy on the eyes. Consequently, unattractive women miss out on those spiritual types and are left with just the "average" guys.

But hey, they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder 😬and you've laid out your argument quite nicely, but... I refuse to believe that every woman who isn't conventionally beautiful ends up alone just because all the stunning women are taken. Why? Like you mentioned, plenty of those gorgeous women won't be a match for you, some are moving in different circles... etc. In reality, there are far more combinations and possibilities than your theory suggests.

Whether it’s about a sinner turning into a saint by trading physical vanity for spiritual depth (though if you aren't attractive, there isn't much to trade away).

We can all find ourselves in a position where we have nothing left to sacrifice... regardless of how we look physically. That’s actually one of the core tenets of spirituality, isn't it? 😉

So, basically, society is patriarchal and forces women into being sexual objects that men are primarily attracted to based on looks, while physical appearance matters far less to the men themselves.

Society might be patriarchal, but I truly believe—and I live my life this way—that as a woman, you can survive within it without having to become an activist or a submissive little housewife. It really comes down to your own mindset and how you perceive yourself and those around you. Look at it this way: right now, I’m talking to you primarily as a human being, not as some specific type of man, and I’m steering this conversation so that you see me as an equal human being too. 🙂

Personally, it bothers me, and I long for equality, but who am I to change society? Or even you? That's why I started reading feminist literature just to understand what women think, and I've become a male feminist.

To follow up on that, I also strive for equality 🙂 and that's how I conduct myself and live my life. My way of "changing society" (which is the only way I see it working) is simply by living this way. I view everyone around me as people (you can only be a "Man" in one very narrow sense 😁), and I treat them as such... I won't ramble, let me know if any of that is unclear.

Honestly, feminism is nonsense. Just like chauvinism is.

So you have to minimize both worldly consciousness and spiritual vanity.

Vanity and ego are the anchors that hold back human prosperity... I realized that even as a kid. Maybe that's why I always viewed my physical appearance as a weight around my neck rather than a benefit.

Besides, looking at your avatar, I'd conclude that physical appearance isn't exactly unimportant to you; you clearly still want a certain amount of attention, if not outright admiration.

That is a very common and completely mistaken conclusion. My avatar was actually a total accident (I have another photo that looks strikingly similar to this one), and I've always just preferred showing my "true face"—I don't care for masks. The persona of Angie doesn't play much of a role in why I chose this avatar. So, it has absolutely nothing to do with beauty, physical looks, or anything of the sort.
Before this, I had other images that were also reflections of things deeply tied to my actual self.

but the real issue remains for those who don't look at things quite that way.

I’m more than happy to help them work through that if there's anything I can do... what else is there to say?

Let me give you an example. Someone like Marilyn Monroe was essentially average when it came to intellect. She succeeded primarily because of her looks and the men who recognized that. ....... I honestly feel like women who end up with guys like Brad Pitt (and he only picks the beauties) have to be either a bit airheaded or struggling with low self-esteem... they can't see themselves as inherently valuable individuals, except perhaps through the lens of a man's admiration or whatever financial perks they get from him.

So, what exactly are you trying to prove with this example? That all beautiful women are just like her? That most of them fall into that category? That men are all walking versions of Brad Pitt, so we should just build a grand theory based on that? Look, I'll stick to my own perspective (I generally prefer not to use other people as case studies). Others tell me I'm attractive, even a "bombshell" sometimes (which is just an irrelevant, highly subjective data point to me), I consider myself moderately intelligent—though many have pointed out I have more potential there—and ultimately, I think I'm a pretty witty woman. Basically, I don't hold any grandiose opinions about myself, but I do have high self-esteem. And despite that, I still mess up, make mistakes, "find myself," wander off course... and yeah, I drink.🙂

I guess I have remembered you from quite some time ago, too. Maybe.

Quincy:

I suppose I’ll respond to this, just like I do with everything else... I don't really know how to put it, but I'll just be honest and stay true to myself, I guess. So, here goes: I suppose I am looking for spirit, primarily... not just some specialized "intellect" or raw brainpower. What I'm really after is character and temperament—true personality. As for what I bring to the table? Well, I guess I'm giving everything. 🤣 Once I finally track down what I'm looking for, naturally... regarding everything you just mentioned... I suppose one has to wonder if surrendering the body might actually cause the spirit to suffer? Or perhaps perish? As for my own physical self, there isn't really anything particularly remarkable or significant about it that would allow such a level of spirit to be perceived, I guess.😁So, yeah... I suppose that solution is out of the question. It just doesn't seem to work. Maybe we should look at this other thing... I suppose... they might think I'm an easy target. Or maybe just someone who's too soft. I guess it's possible they'll see me that way.I mean, honestly, whenever I hear someone using that specific phrase, I can’t help but feel like they’re trying too hard to sound "spiritual." It just feels a bit off to me, I guess. As for those options you mentioned... well, they don't really apply to how I operate. For me, it's more simple than that, maybe. Once I finally stumble upon what I'm actually looking for, I just sort of let go. I give everything—my whole self, my energy, all of it—completely spontaneously and without any filter. And at the same time, I'm absorbing what others are putting out there. If our energies happen to bleed into one another, then we just kind of become one, I suppose. 😍It isn't really that deep, I suppose. There isn't much philosophy to it, honestly.

I suppose you should be looking for spirit above all else. If someone is only focused on the physical aspect, then options two and three just... they don't really work for me. I guess that’s the best way to look at it long-term, anyway. I mean, bodies tend to fade pretty quickly, and even a strong mind can crack under enough pressure or just eventually wear down. But a spirit? Once that spark is lit, it stays lit forever. It doesn't just go out. At least, not in people who actually possess that kind of extraordinary soul—the kind of thing you're searching for. Though, I suppose you can't exactly see that from a distance or at first glance. You sort of have to experience it to know. And there is always that risk, I guess, of being disappointed if you realize too late that what you found isn't actually what you were after.

I guess I should probably start by saying that... well, maybe it's just me, but I've been thinking quite a bit about what was said earlier. It feels like there's a certain weight to these discussions, though I might be overthinking things. Perhaps. I suppose one could look at it from another angle, if they wanted to, but I find myself stuck on this particular point. It’s all very complicated, isn't it? Anyway, I digress. I really do.

I suppose solitude is a bit of a relative concept, isn't it? Some people seem to handle being alone much better than others do. Personally, I’ve always felt more like a lone wolf type, I guess, so being by myself doesn't really sting as much as it might for someone else. And when it comes to relationships... well, why get into one just for the sake of it if I'm perfectly fine on my own? It's not like I'm looking to be swept off my feet. I don't exactly think I'm some unique, one-of-a-kind woman who needs constant company to feel complete. Maybe that's just how I am.

It doesn't bother me all that much, I guess. If you don't end up finding exactly what you're looking for, you just end up being on your own, or maybe you just keep experimenting until you find something that actually clicks—if you're even in the mood for that. I suppose if you're someone who believes in astrology, some people are just born with harder combinations in their charts, like those difficult squares, so it can be pretty tough for them to stay in a long-term relationship. Or, maybe they just need a lot of breathing room in a partnership to make it work.

silentridge8: I guess... maybe if we look at what was said... I mean, looking back at the discussion... Quincy:

I suppose... they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Or something like that. I guess it’s true, though. Maybe. 😬 You explained everything so beautifully, you know, but... I guess I just can't quite bring myself to believe that every woman who isn't particularly striking spiritually or physically stays single just because all those stunning women exist. Why? Because, like you eventually pointed out, a lot of them are just pretty on the surface, and maybe you just wouldn't be their type, or perhaps they're looking for something else entirely... and so on. In practice, I suppose there are many more combinations and possibilities than what you find in theory.

Well, I suppose in practice, anything can happen, really.

Mark Torres14 said:The full thought goes like this:

Whoever fights monsters should look to make sure they don't become a monster themselves. And if you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you.

If you're going to interpret something, you've got to do it holistically.
But I want to bring Nemruth Dag into this regarding what was said about him "eating interpretation."

In the book "above good and evil," Nietzsche says:

"Every deep thinker fears being understood more than being misunderstood. The latter might bruise his pride, but the former wounds his heart—his compassion, which always asks, 'Why must you also suffer as I do?'"😁

I suppose... it means that the moment you start fighting against something, you have to internalize it. All the real battles, I guess, they happen within the soul first and foremost. And Dostoevsky... he used to look at the human soul as if it were a battlefield.

Paul Jones7:

I suppose, if one is truly going to attempt an interpretation, it really ought to be done by looking at the whole picture. It seems to me that you shouldn't just pick at bits and pieces... it feels like you might end up trying to eat interpretation rather than actually understanding it, if that makes sense. One should probably consider the entirety of things. Well, I suppose I should probably quote Nemruth Dag here, specifically regarding what dustyskipper3 said about him having "eaten interpretation." Nietzsche says in his book "above good and evil": I suppose... I guess every true thinker might actually fear being understood more than they fear being misunderstood. It’s a strange thought, isn't it? Perhaps, if that's true, the fear of being understood is just a matter of pride—of vanity, really—but the fear of being misunderstood... well, that hits the heart. It stems from a sort of misplaced compassion. A sort of pity, maybe. Like they're looking at everyone else and thinking, "Oh, why would you want to go through the same struggle I have to endure?" It's a heavy way to live, I suppose.😁

So... there it is. I suppose any true deep thinker eventually has to trip themselves up—sort of jump into their own mouth, if that makes sense. It feels necessary, really, because you can't truly claim depth unless you're willing to be contradictory. Maybe. And then there’s this idea of "compassion," too. I've been thinking that maybe compassion is actually just a form of vanity. It's probably just a question of which type of vanity is more powerful. Or perhaps I'm overthinking it. I guess. 😬

silentridge8: I suppose... if one were to consider the implications... maybe? It seems quite possible that the situation is evolving. I guess I am just thinking out loud here, but perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye. Or maybe not. It is hard to say for certain without further evidence, I suppose.

copperfox22 said:I’m pretty sure when you sayirrelevant you aren't being 100% literal, so looking at it from that angle—yes, it's possible. Am I my hair, my eyes, or... (my chest)? No. Those are just "irrelevant" parts of me when I look at myself, or when someone else looks at me. I was the exact same person even when my hair was shorter and burgundy (just a little callback there). So, we're back to the point: it really can be insignificant.

Does she need to become a feminist first, or does she have to be autistic enough that society can't get a grip on her at all?

Why does a woman have to be a feminist just to be immune to (unwanted) social pressures??? You're surprising me here.

If she doesn't care about being beautiful herself, how can she stay indifferent to the fact that guys are absolutely head over heels and throwing themselves at her feet?

Well, that's exactly why it doesn't matter to her. Her vanity is dialed down to the absolute minimum. Believe it or not, it's possible. In the beginning, it might be flattering, but very quickly, you stop paying any attention to that guy's admiration, and having him throw himself at you becomes almost laughable.

And what about all the women who envy her and try to set her up?

Sorry, but I find this hilarious. I simply don't think that way. I clearly hold a different perspective since these kinds of things don't cause me any trouble.

Since I'm talking to you (and hoping you'll understand what this old lady is trying to say 😁).... the strongest doors are the ones left wide open.

So, is it essential that she be a bit ditzy, or have low self-esteem for other reasons?

I don't follow this logic either. What even is "ditziness"? Personally, I don't necessarily see being ditzy as a flaw. And self-esteem? In short, it's just viewing yourself as a valuable individual in the grand scheme of things.

Not exactly. But I suppose if you happen to be physically attractive, there are plenty of people out there who don't actually want *you*, they just want your body. Though, you seem like a spiritual person to whom the physical side isn't really the priority. In my view, you basically have a few paths you could take: 1) you give them your body because you actually like them; 2) you give them your body as a way to try and reach their soul, hoping they eventually see the real you; 3) you don't give them anything because you worry they'll label you as "easy," and you're looking for something deeper; or 4) you decline because you find them repulsive—it’s hard to be with someone who only sees the surface and ignores the spirit. I wonder, which of these options feels the most spiritual, and which feels the most feminist? Which ones would be considered traditionally feminine or even more of a femme fatale move? It seems to me that beautiful women, perhaps more often than those who aren't, run into this situation where men only crave their looks. Because of that, they might react more like "traditional women" or "temptresses." On the other hand, maybe women who aren't conventionally attractive tend to react in a more "feminist" or "spiritual" way, simply because they have fewer options and, when given a chance, they have to aim for a serious connection if they don't want to end up alone. So, I guess it's quite a challenge for us men to figure out if a woman is truly spiritual, or if she's just being spiritual out of necessity because she lacks other options. Personally, I think I prefer the spiritual types, so I tend to go for the beautiful ones. If a woman is both beautiful and deeply spiritual, then I assume it's because she actually is—not just because she's performing spirituality to secure a serious relationship. And on top of that, she happens to be stunning. It’s a bit of a dilemma... it means that women who aren't conventionally attractive might end up either alone or strictly married. Or perhaps they stay within female circles. It seems to imply that for them, spirituality takes on the role of a "Mother Teresa" type—the devoted wife, the nun, or perhaps someone like Martina Navratilova. But beautiful women? They can express their spirituality through so many different roles—from the sinner who finds redemption and renounces the flesh, to a humanitarian angel, or even a Tantric Goddess of sex. I guess it all depends on how you look at it.

Quincy:

I guess I'm just a bit surprised by that take... why does a woman necessarily have to identify as a feminist just to be immune to those unwanted societal pressures? It seems like a heavy requirement to place on someone, I suppose. Maybe there are other ways to navigate it, though I might be wrong.

I suppose I'm just joking around a little. It isn't strictly necessary to take me seriously. But, I had this thought that maybe even someone like Serena Williams wouldn't be immune to those kinds of pressures, so she eventually started leaning into that whole image too. It seems like it happened with Monica Seles as well. And then there are so many other female players who transitioned into modeling, like Anna Kournikova and Martina Hingis. I guess one of the few people I feel truly didn't care about their looks was Martina Navratilova. Though, if I'm being honest, men aren't really her primary focus either, at least not when it comes to sex or long-term relationships. 😬 It’s almost like the exact opposite of what happened with Anna Kournikova—you know, when the athlete pivots into modeling? I mean, just imagine if someone like Goran Ivanišević decided to trade the tennis court for the runway. It's a wild thought, I guess. Maybe it could actually work, though I'm not entirely sure how that would play out in the fashion world. Just a random thought that crossed my mind, I suppose. 😉 It’s a really rare phenomenon... I suppose maybe Bjorn Borg had to do something similar once, though I suspect that was only because he was facing some serious financial struggles. But, looking at it objectively, society feels quite patriarchal. It seems to place women in this position where they are treated primarily as sexual objects—things that attract men mainly through physical appearance—whereas for men, physical looks don't seem to carry nearly as much weight. Personally, I find it quite unsettling, and I truly wish there were more equality in that regard, but then again, who am I to try and reshape the entire fabric of society? Or even you?? I guess. That being said, I have actually started diving into feminist literature lately, just to get a better sense of how women view these issues, and I suppose I’ve become a male feminist in the process.

Well, I suppose it is precisely because she doesn't care. Her vanity is, I guess, kept to a bare minimum. Whether you believe it or not, it really is possible. In certain beginnings, perhaps it seems impressive, but very quickly, you just don't pay any attention at all to that guy's admiration, and honestly, tossing it aside feels almost funny.

But if he manages to win her over, he might try to admire her spiritual qualities, though I suspect it is just a way to get to her physical self. It means you have to reduce both your ego and your spiritual pride to a minimum. Maybe it doesn't matter to you right now, since you are still young and beautiful, but once you grow older, you might see... Besides, looking at your avatar, I gather that physical appearance isn't exactly irrelevant to you, so I suppose you do want some level of attention, even if it isn't outright worship.

Forgive me, but I find this absolutely hilarious. I simply don't think in those terms. I hold a different view, which clearly irritates you, because things like this can't really cause problems for me.

I might be exaggerating a little, but beautiful women often deal with jealousy from other women because of their looks, mostly because certain doors open more easily for them. A beautiful woman can quite easily become successful in many fields without much effort, whereas someone with an average appearance has to grind, endure being stepped on by other women, and won't have some man rushing to help her, because they won't recognize her inner qualities as easily. But "Aquarius" women are truly special, I suppose, because they value equality and put universal humanity above gender, etc. So, it doesn't surprise me in your case, but the problem still exists for others who don't think that way.

Since I am talking to you (with the hope that you will understand what Auntie wants to say 😁)... the strongest doors are the ones that are wide open.

😁

I don't quite understand this logic either. What is silliness? Personally, I don't necessarily see silliness as a flaw. And what is self-esteem? In short, I guess it's viewing oneself as a valuable individual in a general sense.

So, let me give you an example. Marilyn Monroe had, I suppose, an average intellect. She succeeded primarily due to her physical appearance and the men who recognized that. If she had relied solely on her "spiritual" side, she would have likely failed miserably and ended up working as a high school teacher or a clerk in her hometown. However, I believe she had quite low self-esteem, because she wanted to be loved by one smart man—a director—who actually preferred a woman who wasn't such a bombshell but had a bit more going on upstairs. All she was left with was a fading fame. I feel that women who can be with men like that—men who only choose the beauties—must be either a bit silly or have low self-esteem... they can't really see themselves as fundamentally valuable individuals, except perhaps through a man's admiration or the financial benefits they get from him.

Well, I suppose N. was quite specific about being "a certain kind of man," mostly so people wouldn't just twist his words to fit whatever narrative they felt like following. He definitely wasn't a nihilist—I mean, how could he be if he wrote "God is dead" and then actually took the time to stare into the void left behind by His absence? And you really can't just lazily label that void as "evil." Not when you consider he's the same author who penned "above good and evil" and spent so much of his life trying to construct a new system of values—something that sits above our usual concepts of "good" and "evil"—to distinguish what truly affirms life from what simply stifles it. Though, I guess the real struggle is even defining what "life" actually is, or what exactly it is that suffocates it. It’s possible that the author's own life, and the massive influence he exerts even after his physical passing, is actually what stifles him through over-analysis. Looking at the endless mountain of academic papers, essays, and various critiques regarding N., it feels as though he didn't just die physically; he died as an author too. He basically had to
eat interpretation.

copperfox22 said:Not necessarily. I think it really boils down to a few different things:

- How she actually perceives her own physical self
- Just how much weight she gives her looks when it comes to her sense of identity
- What role her physicality plays in her life as an individual

Is it actually possible for her physical appearance to be completely irrelevant to how she sees herself? I mean, does she have to become a feminist first to achieve that, or maybe she just needs to be neurodivergent enough that society can't really get under her skin? If she doesn't care about being beautiful herself, how can she remain indifferent when guys are constantly hitting on her or tripping over themselves, or when other women might feel envious or try to undermine her? Maybe it's vital that she feels a bit awkward, or perhaps she struggles with low self-esteem for other reasons, so that her looks don't act as a sort of compensation—because, I guess, she wouldn't want to be viewed as just a pretty doll, but rather as a real person.

Lawrence Patel9 said:Basically, you have to fight against what the abyss represents. Once that abyss starts staring back at you, you're already too late.

This one is quite interesting too, I think. Because of some sort of optical illusion, it almost looks like the darkness is spilling out of the hole and moving toward us.



In this shot, the guy is staring right into the abyss, though he doesn't even realize that I'm watching him. 😁

wearyowl29 said:That sounds like some deep introspection right there! I always feel like if you wander too far out into those dark thoughts, you’ll need a few breadcrumbs (and maybe a birdcage😲) just to find your way back home... otherwise, you might just get swallowed up by your own personal abyss.

You really have to try and visualize it, sort of paint a picture in your mind, then things might become a bit clearer.



It isn't quite a literal abyss, I guess, but if you stare into this stuff long enough, it starts to feel like there's something on the other side staring right back at you.

Yeah, I suppose if we stare into the abyss for too long, we might eventually just fall into it ourselves.😁

Actually, I think we really ought to start by asking what an abyss even is. Some people claim it's this "evil" force that threatens to swallow anyone who dwells on it or even tries to tolerate it. Personally, I find that interpretation a bit too simplistic... it stays trapped within that old dualistic, linguistic structure of good versus evil and things like that. To me, the abyss is simply that which separates two sides of a thing, under the assumption that we can grasp that "thing" through reason. But when you're staring into an abyss where reason itself gets lost, well, maybe the abyss starts staring back at you. And then, I guess, those connections that reason managed to establish just begin to unravel. It’s interesting how in some languages there's a play on words between falling and the pit itself, though I suppose in English there is a similar tension between the abyss and the ambiguous. In the abyss, language isn't clear—not in the way Sartre might have intended—but rather it becomes ambiguous; ambiguity takes hold. The abyss is the boundary of reason and the boundary of language. There is no clear distinction between essence and existence there, because such signs only produce meaning within a specific structure. But in the abyss lies what Derrida calls Différance, a term that signifies the very foundation for producing difference between two things, which is how structure arises. Différance isn't quite a concept or a word, nor is it essence or existence. When looking directly into Différance, we can no longer draw a distinction (a difference) between the abyss it represents and itself, because to make that distinction, we would need Différance again (which we could then just stare into indefinitely, recursively and all that...), so that's how it "stares back." An abyss isn't merely "evil" or "nothingness," because even those terms are just concepts and words that can be dissected. The abyss is that which can no longer be dissected, the place where our very identity ceases to be. That's why I think it’s impossible to truly 'explain' a Nietzschean sentence without creating ambiguity and stepping right into the abyss. It might be better to just leave it as it is, without any explanation, because by explaining, I guess we are actually moving further away from its meaning. As Laozi said: "He who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know."

Jeremy Davis7, let me try to explain this better. It’s kind of like soccer, or maybe handball or water polo—you know, those sports where one person has a very specific job. I suppose you might wonder why anyone would even want to be a goalie in the first place. For one thing, they practically have zero chance of scoring a goal, unless they somehow blast it from their own end and it just happens to roll into the opponent's net by pure luck. 😬 And then there's the other thing... when the team gives up a goal, the keeper is usually the one who gets the blame. They aren't running all over the field or making constant passes, but they have to stay constantly alert and ready, whereas a regular player can sort of zone out for a bit if the ball isn't near them. So, what's the secret? I guess it's just that they actually enjoy the role. If they save a penalty kick, they're the hero. They don't have to run much, yet they can decide the entire game with one good save. There are plenty of players on the field, but there's only one goalie. And they aren't facing mediocre midfielders; they're going head-to-head with the toughest, most skilled players—the strikers and the scorers. I suppose every role has its own charm and can offer a certain kind of satisfaction. Some people just find joy in writing, while others might enjoy reviewing what others have posted, correcting things, or cleaning up poorly written text.

Anthony Perez9 said:Luckily, the Christian world has mostly outgrown that biblical way of treating women, thanks to education and secularization. 😛 👍

That biblical perspective is essentially rooted in creationism. The Creator made the world, the plants, the animals, and then, as the peak of creation, He made Adam in His own image—followed by Eve from his rib to be his companion, though she was led astray by the serpent, and so on. So, when people blame all the evil in the world on women—that whole cherchez la femme idea—well, even Bora Čorba acknowledges that sentiment. But the theory of evolution offers a different view, I think. It suggests our genes aren't inherently more valuable than those of a fruit fly; in fact, we carry quite a few of the same genes. Similarly, a woman's genes or her X chromosome can't be a priori less valuable than a man's genes or the Y chromosome. The issue, perhaps, is that how much certain genes are "valued" is determined by whoever holds power in society, which has mostly been men, so suddenly the traits carried by the Y chromosome become "superior." There isn't really a difference, if you think about it, between gender discrimination and racial discrimination—it all comes down to genetics. Those Nazi racial theories claiming an "Aryan" race exists, while others like Slavs, Black people, Roma, or Jewish people are "inferior," aren't any worse than the widespread theories regarding the genetic inferiority of women, which both rely on a creationist worldview. In the past, the Bible was used to justify slavery, claiming Black people were lesser beings in the eyes of God, but today we understand that the New Testament actually forbids all forms of slavery. I suspect the same logic should apply to women, though I suppose it depends on how believers choose to interpret it in practice. On one hand, the right to choice should mean liberating women from a kind of servitude, yet on the other hand, some see it as violating human rights—specifically the embryo's right to life. It’s not a simple problem, maybe, but I personally don't believe an embryo can be considered a person. I’m not sure if that’s just a product of secularization, because I suspect that historically, people didn't consider a conception to be a person either—only someone who was born or could potentially survive birth. Yet, today, our knowledge of evolution and genetics has somehow birthed a new way to subjugate women, based on the idea that humanity begins at conception. So, education and secularization don't always lead to progress in consciousness; they might just lead to new types of fundamentalism. For instance, there is very advanced science in Iran—oil engineering, for example, and they produce enriched uranium—but still...

Brian Foster3 said:Feminism is basically just what happens when you crank collective human egoism up to its ultimate fourth level—the Malchut stage. People love to blame women for everything, but honestly, they’re only "to blame" because men haven't actually reached true spiritual enlightenment yet; women essentially dictate how men act and what they do through their own desires (Malchut). If the women of America actually demanded that men focus on being spiritual leaders first, this whole world would be fixed overnight, but instead, they go after completely different things...

I guess William Shakespeare was actually hinting at all of this back in his brilliant play *Macbeth*. It’s almost like how Slobodan Maddox demonstrated those same patterns with his Baba Yaga, though I suppose that's just my interpretation. Then you have Josip Broz Marshall, who clearly loved women, but he was careful enough to never let them dictate how he acted. He certainly had an appreciation for women, but... MamićI don't quite understand Bandić, I guess. He doesn't seem like the type to show much affection to his wife, but I have this feeling that Dropulićka has been pulling the strings behind him for a long time—she feels like that "missing link" connecting the old Communist Party to the Republican Party. Speaking of which, even though most of them are married just for appearances, I think many male members of the Republican Party are, IMHO, at least latently homosexual. It seems to be the nature of relationships in parties led by a single strongman—an alpha male surrounded by betas, much like how things work in the Komaj community, at least until the Prime Minister arrived, which changed everything to look more like Snow White and her seven dwarfs. So, they all (along with their wives, I suppose) share this collective Malchut that performed exceptionally well during the transition and privatization era of the 90s, and even later on... if you want just one example to prove it, you could look at former Prime Minister Sanders, and even that leader Haider showed similar inclinations. 😍

If it weren't for that constant, petty greed, we probably wouldn't have these massive shopping malls, or people like Todorić, or the national debt, or the way the government keeps buying more and more expensive cars for federal agencies... which, I guess, makes you wonder, why does the American government act like Vlatka Pokos? And it isn't just since Jadranka became Prime Minister; it goes back to Sanders's era, too. Maybe things were slightly more frugal during the time of the late former Prime Minister Račan, though even he had to satisfy various little opportunists around him—and by that, I don't just mean how he handled his personal life with Agatha and Dijana Pleština... but also things like Čačić's roads, Fižulić's messy Magma, and Jakovčić's fire sale of California... all of which seems to have been driven by the whims of people like Vesna Pusić and Biserka Fižulić... I suppose the worst example is Kerum, whose name literally translates to having a dog's mind—you know, someone stuck in a deep ego trip, constantly bowing to every kind of opportunist. ☕

slymaker9 said:Since I have this little corner dedicated to Stella, I might as well brighten it up a bit.😁
I haven't figured out how to build a time machine to revisit the past just yet, but I have taken a step inspired by what Harmony suggested: I officially requested a transfer to a different work environment. If it goes through, I believe a fresh start would be incredibly significant and beneficial for me. 🙂
Generalizations are dangerous. No matter where you go, if things are broken, you’re just stuck in the same spot wearing a clown hat.
I've decided to try and find—and move to—a much less toxic workplace. We'll see if my request gets approved,🤷 but I am glad I took the initiative.🙂

I really hope it works out for you. 👍

Anonymous said:I tend to think that men and women aren't actually that different in how they act. It feels like the movement for equality went off the rails somewhere, shifting from seeking equal rights to just wanting to dominate men, which honestly looks like nothing more than chauvinism in a skirt.
Personally, I’m just focused on my own right to choose.

Well, sure, biologically speaking, women are the ones wired for childbirth, while men aren't. But then again, a woman with enough money can easily go through IVF or find a surrogate, or maybe just adopt... so in those ways, she isn't really different from a man. I think this idea was quite upsetting to Jovan Dučić:

Women who refuse to endure any kind of heartache in love are those who lack affection for children and motherhood. Therefore, a girl who makes it clear from the start that she doesn't want kids will never be a good wife, a good mother, or even a good companion. Instead, she becomes a dangerous polyandrist, someone who loves the world more than her home and herself more than any man; she’s an adventurer for whom a husband serves merely as an escort and a subordinate.

Book: "King Radovan's treasure" - chapter "O Woman" - Jovan Dučić

I guess those kinds of views stem from a patriarchal, pre-feminist society, where a woman liberated from the absolute necessity of childbearing is seen as some sort of 'dangerous polyandrist.' Nowadays, that’s just considered normal, yet somehow women still seem dissatisfied with how things are. It seems successful women don't actually enjoy winning against men. Once they've proven themselves to be superior to all the men in their circle, they end up looking for someone who is actually superior to them, just so they can feel like women again. Meanwhile, men seem to pick inferior partners just so they can feel like men.

Lisa Morales4 said:Those aren't feminists; they're more like "unlucky attractive" lesbians,

A true feminist is more like a femme fatale—someone fully aware of her femininity, someone who enjoys it and values it enough to step outside modern norms just to highlight and truly celebrate it.

In my eyes, feminism has been embodied by figures like Mother Mary, Mother Teresa, Lady Diana, and Joan of Arc.
They were all goddesses of love in their own right through their femininity—strong, standout, original, and avant-garde women who, in their own unique ways, through exceptional spirituality drove unconventional historical shifts in the evolution of human society.

They were spiritual, I think, because they used their psyche to push back against physical limitations. Lady Diana struggled with bulimia before she became a humanitarian icon; Angelina Jolie had a complicated relationship with Eros due to past trauma, and now she cares for vulnerable children globally; Joan of Arc wanted to be one with God, even if her physical presence was quite wild and unruly 😬; and Mother Teresa wanted to live in poverty alongside the most vulnerable, even though, genetically speaking, she might have been predisposed toward the kind of social climbing and wealth-seeking seen in many common folks, like some politicians in the Midwest... for example, people like Kerum or Bandić... 😁

Nemruth Dagi said:Instead, let's talk about pollination. We used to brush this topic aside back in college because it seemed funny.
If we look at it biologically, every woman possesses what we call a maternal instinct, which she can realize, but doesn't necessarily have to. This doesn't just mean giving birth and raising children, but caring for the weak, the helpless, other people's children, and things like that.
That is partially true, but it isn't a rule. There are women who don't want to be "pollinated" just to fulfill some innate biological trait.

Looking at it from a different angle through the lens of our social structures (since we have essentially subordinated our biology to our sociality 😉)—women often hold a weaker position within the community (I don't really need to explain this, considering everything from education levels to lower wages and poorer job prospects... statistically, women are more frequent victims). It is often assumed she must be passive, that her life role is centered on the family.
She might use her appearance to attract a male "pollinator," but also to resolve her worries and secure her future, ensuring that through this pollinator, she gains security, a home, and children as a permanent guarantee, along with social status.
So, pollination isn't just about biology; it has a social purpose too. That's why the cult of female beauty works so well, making the "valuation" part of a social ritual rather than strictly a biological one.
Read: The Female Brain by Louann Brizendine.

We are merely carriers of our genes. Whether we choose to be pollinated or not depends on the forces of evolution, which sometimes make certain genes more attractive than others. Genes largely dictate physical appearance, but the psyche isn't solely determined by genetics. The mind can differ greatly from physical looks. Edith Piaf wasn't physically stunning, but psychologically, she was a femme fatale. And that was purely on a spiritual level. She had plenty of love and lovers, so she could be pollinated as much as she wanted. In humans, the psyche is often a stronger erotic motivator than physical appearance, and there's a higher probability that genes will be passed on through people who are attracted to one another psychologically, rather than just physically.

The theory that women who dress in ways that don't attract a massive crowd of men (or perhaps just attract other women 😁) aren't looking to be "pollinated" doesn't really hold up, I guess. It might be more accurate to say they want to be pollinated, but by very specific pollinators who appreciate that particular style... which makes them more selective. A woman’s way of presenting herself can clearly signal how much she values quick pollination—you know, how "easy" she is—versus how much she wants to vet the value of the pollinator. Regardless of their genetic makeup, those who psychologically resist their physical nature seem more spiritual to me, because they are essentially rebelling against their genetics. Whether that means becoming a nun despite being physically stunning, or acting like a femme fatale despite being plain (sort of like Edith Piaf, I suppose). I think more spiritual people are those who seek self-expression over obeying their genes, and genes really just want to pass themselves on to the next generation. We call the genes that fail at that "recessive." So, maybe someone like Taylor Swift doesn't have recessive genes but wishes she did, while someone like Pamela Anderson might have some recessive ones she'd rather not have, which is why she opted for the breast and lip enhancements. Why did the genes for smaller features become recessive? Maybe because large lips and breasts highlight secondary sexual characteristics more, signaling higher reproductive potential. Therefore, those like Pamela, who use their looks to emphasize these traits and associate themselves with sex, want less self-expression and more focus on being pollinated, boosting social status and reproducing. Meanwhile, those like Edith Piaf or Taylor Swift, who don't emphasize those traits, likely want a partner who loves them for their psychological and spiritual (non-genetic) selves, seeking fulfillment without necessarily needing to reproduce, building their own social status through hard work and merit. As simple as that.

Can we consider breast augmentation "spiritual"? Well, maybe, since the psyche is resisting the body (the genes). In a similar vein, things like bulimia or anorexia are sort of expressions of a spirit fighting against the flesh. Such behaviors eventually lead to a greater spirituality, though usually through painful transformations and suffering. I don't think Pamela Anderson had a conscious desire to increase her spirituality when she went under the knife, but in the end, she had to endure so much more in life—including bankruptcy—to find a deeper spirituality through that suffering. Radical feminists, however, reject any kind of "primping" intended for pollination, but in doing so, they actually diminish rather than increase women's spirituality. That's my thesis, anyway—radical feminism failed because it proved to be unspiritual. I think feminism needs to be redefined to be more spiritual, making feminists more feminine and erotic, but in a way where their femininity isn't "othered" in relation to masculinity. Such feminists would be attractive to men by highlighting certain recessive genes, but wrapping them in a cloak of spirituality and psychology, which would make those recessive traits erotic and attractive to the opposite sex.

Psychological warfare units (operating 😁) probably used spirituality as a tool back in the old days within the American People's Army, too. And honestly, even in the Catholic Church, there were undoubtedly plenty of people working for them—you know, for the KLA or intelligence agencies—including some high-ranking officials who never underwent any kind of lustration, like what they demand in places like Poland or other former Eastern Bloc nations. It certainly feels like spirituality has been deeply damaged by this, sort of poisoned, and I find myself wondering if the state or the people actually gain anything from such "uses"—which are really just abuses of faith for military purposes. I suspect that those who enjoy this most are likely psychopaths and other mentally unstable individuals embedded within the intelligence and military structures themselves, along with their informants... anyway, I once had this little booklet written by an American People's Army colonel about this exact topic, including the supposed utility of psychopaths in the military. I don't recall the specifics, maybe it said they are easy to "train" to harbor hatred and feel nothing for the enemy, but the real question is how you restrain them afterward, I guess... 😉

Mark Torres14 said:Look, the concept of physical beauty carries way more weight in a woman's world than it does in a man's. There is nothing worse than a woman feeling ugly. Especially when she's young.☕
How do you grab attention? How do you gain social status?
Some women push their "spiritual" side to the extreme, claiming it totally overrides physical looks. Others just retreat inward, believing—thanks to what the media pumps out—that they are completely unattractive and that their supposed "ugliness" makes them uninteresting as people. The ones who win? They're the ones who consider themselves beautiful, regardless of trends, fashion, or what's around them. When you combine that with actual personality, intelligence, and humor, there's no stopping them.
So yeah, physicality absolutely impacts spirituality—or more accurately, the *flavor* of that spirituality.
A beautiful woman (by standard measures) isn't going to cling to some spiritual crutch like "only ugly women can be smart" or "my looks don't matter."😁

I suppose... if we look at things through a certain lens, physical beauty is what defines women, whereas for men, it’s intelligence and capability. This makes me wonder, maybe, if men who lack those specific traits cultivate a very particular kind of spirituality—one where only the incapable can truly be considered "spiritual." Perhaps that’s why the Church finds it so difficult to recruit more capable people into their ranks. It’s not exactly a new phenomenon, either. Back in the day, in rural American farming communities, families would sometimes send one child into the priesthood simply because there wasn't enough bread to go around for everyone. And the girls? They often joined convents because they weren't seen as marriage material. That's been happening for a long time. In a way, spirituality seems to have formed around people who had nothing else left to turn to. It was born out of material necessity and a desperate need to survive. Among them, I guess, there were only a few who felt a genuine, true calling within themselves. Then again, you also had cases where a lady of the court or a noblewoman would retreat to a convent due to some social scandal, or perhaps because she had crossed someone more powerful than herself. Or maybe just in search of peace. It reminds me, somewhat, of these sudden spiritual transformations we see from modern-day celebrities. Only, nowadays, it feels much more like a business move—a way to maintain relevance and stay in the spotlight. Some people just become addicted to that attention, I suppose. It's less about strict social norms forcing your hand and more about a desire to stay famous.

Brandon Wright54 said:Look, feminism isn't some single, monolithic entity—it doesn't exist as one unified body. It splits off into all sorts of directions. You've got feminists who are poised and feminine, and then you've got those who aren't. It's not all one thing.

It's true, I think. There is such a thing as militant feminism, and then there is the more "feminine" approach—where women might still choose to be soft and graceful, though I guess that doesn't make them any less 'strong' in the end.

Anonymous said:I’ve always leaned toward the idea that you don't need any specific movement (not even feminism), institution, or set of beliefs to achieve "higher" spirituality. To me, fighting for fundamental human rights—rather than just women's rights—is more about having basic decency and culture than it is about spiritual depth.
Whether I feel more or less sexy is honestly just a tiny drop in the ocean of self-reflection. It can lead to total frustration or even slip into narcissism, mostly because we get so caught up in how the world perceives us.
People love to say that women are driven by intuition while men are driven by logic. But in my opinion, as long as we’re only leaning on one side of that coin (regardless of gender), our spiritual growth is going to be seriously limited.

So, I wonder... who is actually more spiritual in the end? Is it Angelina Jolie, or maybe Rade Šerbedžija, who supposedly invited her over to America? Or was she perhaps invited through her connections as a UN Goodwill Ambassador by a former American Minister of Justice, Ivan Šimonović—a very spiritual type (some might even say Jesuit-like) who just became a UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights? And then, she sort of broke free from that control, opting instead to grab some good street food in a local market district. American everyday spirituality always feels somewhat synthetic to me, like a spirit in a bottle that you have to constantly shake and call the press for just to get it to show up. Honestly, those old-school, smoky little corner markets were always more spontaneous and soulful than all the big fancy festivals in cities like New York or Los Angeles combined. And I think Angie recognizes that. After all, why else would she wear a drop of her husband Billy Bob's blood in a special pendant around her neck? That seems like a truly primal way to express spiritual connection and devotion. Not to mention the S&M rituals, which probably involved actual physical binding; I guess Angie had to spiritually "rise above" and sublimate those emotional traumas—which manifested as an obsessive-compulsive erotic relationship—into something positive and universal in order to become a spiritual person. And in a way, she did achieve those feminist ideals of being a "strong woman," where a handsome guy like Brad Pitt is just a sort of accessory, much smaller than that little vial of blood she used to wear around her neck.