Spirituality and Feminism

Perdita said:

Anthony Perez9 said:Creationism was the starting point.
Jesus, Paul, and Peter were pure creationists. Just like all the early American Christians and church fathers.
Everyone believed in Noah and his flood, a young Earth, the transformation of the universe when Jesus returns, the three hours of darkness at the crucifixion, and all that. I mean, how could they not?
As science progressed, even the Church had to slowly crawl toward symbolism, basically playing along while secretly acknowledging scientific breakthroughs—like evolution and stuff.

The same goes for women's rights.

It’s obvious you don't even grasp scientific terminology if you're calling creationism a "phenomenon" of early Christianity ( 😂 ). And this whole thing about the church fathers is just laughable. If it weren't so pathetic, I might actually find it funny. 🙂

Well, since you've got it all figured out, why don't you enlighten us mere mortals? 🙂

Anthony Perez9 said:It’s obvious you don't even grasp scientific terminology if you're calling creationism a "phenomenon" of early Christianity ( 😂 ). And this whole thing about the church fathers is just laughable. If it weren't so pathetic, I might actually find it funny. 🙂[/I]

Well, since you've got it all figured out, why don't you enlighten us mere mortals? 🙂
Well, since you've got it all figured out, why don't you enlighten us mere mortals? 🙂
Well, since you've got it all figured out, why don't you enlighten us mere mortals? 🙂
I’d like to think people are mature enough to handle it when someone brings up certain *ahem* specifics, like hermeneutics and exegesis , or dives into historical lists; surely they can digest those little *ahem* details. 🙂

dustyskipper3 said:Even though we talk about post-feminism today, patting ourselves on the back because we supposedly live in a society where genders are equal, I guess many vital questions remain unresolved. For instance, introducing a female substitute for the male God—some kind of goddess, a Diana who hunts alone and such—it feels like it just deepens the existing dualism. These newer pagan movements or similar faiths that promote matriarchy and a dominant image of women are often perceived as "the other" compared to the religious mainstream, which, well, remains patriarchal. There is also the issue inherent in language itself; as Master John once noted, language is necessarily dualistic because, I suppose, "no one has invented a non-dualistic language yet," so even within our speech, the feminine is understood as the "other." Perhaps a new feminist spirituality should move away from symbolic language entirely as a means of communication and instead utilize other mediums to convey spiritual truth, like music, for example. It is interesting to note that even Chinese and Japanese Zen seemed somewhat averse to women, which is why we have so few female Zen masters or nuns. Even though Zen, in principle, should transcend the male-female dualism, it seems that sexual instinct is often too much of an issue in Zen monastery settings to allow them to be co-ed. There is that famous story about a Zen master who was only accepted into a monastery after she intentionally disfigured her beautiful face—not just to prove the sincerity of her devotion, but perhaps to ensure she wouldn't trigger desire in the other monks. And so we arrive at the fundamental dilemma of feminism, and indeed spirituality—can a beautiful woman truly be a feminist or a nun? Does it even make sense, given that, from birth, the earthly gates of admiration from the entire male population are essentially open to her? Does it make sense, despite everything?

Lately, we see Angelina Jolie stepping into the role of a human rights advocate fighting for abused children, and I suppose Nives Celsius has started following somewhat in those footsteps. But, in my view, it all stays at the level of attracting attention through a beautiful face and body, without much in the way of spiritual substance. On the other hand, it would be difficult to take them seriously in the role of Mother Teresa, who, God rest her soul, was a physically very unattractive woman, a real Yaga, though they might be more easily perceived as a Diana or a goddess of fertility. I wonder, does a woman's physical appearance dictate the type of spirituality she can realize? I suspect feminists would be quite incensed if that were actually true—but maybe it is. 😍

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

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.

dustyskipper3 said: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.

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.

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.

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

dustyskipper3 said: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.

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.

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.🙂

Susan Price30 said:The physical realm and the spiritual realm are mutually exclusive by definition—at least, that's my take on it!

And where exactly was this check performed? 🤔

I suspect this is just a common prejudice. I honestly don't see why some people insist on treating it like some absolute, undeniable truth. 🤷

Anthony Rodriguez58 said:And where exactly was this check performed? 🤔

I suspect this is just a common prejudice. I honestly don't see why some people insist on treating it like some absolute, undeniable truth. 🤷

We are totally on the same page here. I truly believe that when a person becomes more self-aware, they start taking better care of themselves. They aren't going to go overboard with booze or those kinds of wild parties—they become more responsible. After all, your body is a temple, and you have to keep it in shape!

But, if the body becomes the *only* goal—if every single bit of attention is focused solely on physical perfection—then something is definitely off. It's like some strange, glitchy program has taken over our spirit.

wearyowl29 said:We are totally on the same page here. I truly believe that when a person becomes more self-aware, they start taking better care of themselves. They aren't going to go overboard with booze or those kinds of wild parties—they become more responsible. After all, your body is a temple, and you have to keep it in shape!

But, if the body becomes the *only* goal—if every single bit of attention is focused solely on physical perfection—then something is definitely off. It's like some strange, glitchy program has taken over our spirit.

You're probably right. 🤷 But honestly, looking at our conversation... personally, I am incredibly irresponsible when it comes to my own body. I put in the bare minimum to maintain it, mostly because I don't really view it as a temple; it feels more like a beat-up old shell. If I had to rank my priorities, it would look something like this:

- spirit
- mind
- body

By the way, regarding this idea of a temple, isn't it actually the word and the work that "lives" inside it? Purely from a logical standpoint—it's about the content, not the container, right? Whether it's a meadow, a shack, or a cathedral, does the setting really matter for the spirit, the word, or the deed?

What is it that gives things vitality, radiance, and soul? Is it color and shape, or is it the inner gaze? What good are bright red lips without a genuine smile? Or hands that don't move? (I could go on, but you get what I mean, right?)

When it comes to women’s sexual freedom, the backlash from patriarchal society has become such a predictable cliché that, honestly, I don't even find it shocking anymore—it’s just an annoying reality to acknowledge.
What really gets me thinking, though, is how women themselves perceive all of this. Even though they are living within that same societal structure, so many just drift along with the current. People talk about them and judge them based on someone else's arbitrary yardstick, yet many women accept those standards as the "default" setting for how they should act. I’m specifically talking about *reactions*. Even when we think we’re making our own choices through our actions, if we’re simply reacting to pre-set social parameters, we aren't actually being free—we're just responding to a script. We end up turning our own behavior into these mental projections, viewing ourselves purely through a physical lens where a woman's beauty becomes one of the most critical deciding factors.

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.

You really went on a roll there, didn't you?😬

dustyskipper3 said: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.

True enough. But then again, what is life? It’s a collection of experiences and realizations. Disappointment—or even suffering—is just part of the journey. Whether you view those moments as setbacks is entirely up to you. Personally, I tend to see them as progress. To me, they're usually just stepping stones that open up new doors.

If you buy into astrology, some people just have tougher aspects in their charts, like squares, which makes it pretty hard for them to stay in a relationship for very longor requires them to have a lot of "breathing room" in their partnership.

😁
That's basically the Achilles' heel for every Aquarius.🤣

Anyway, feels like we've drifted a bit off-topic here.🙂
Good luck finding those spiritually enlightened women.🙂

I heard a great joke about feminism last night, so I just had to share it with you all:

Three feminists—one from England, one from Germany, and one from the States—are sitting around debating their rights and how they’ve managed to get their husbands to actually show them some respect.

The American says, "I told my John, no more bowling nights or hanging out at the pub. You can't just go out and have fun while I'm stuck at home after work, doing everything for the kids." Well, nothing changed the first day. Nothing on the second day. But by the third day? He cleaned up the living room, dusted the whole house, and took the kids to the park!"

Then the German woman says, "I told my Hans, no more fishing trips or hitting the bars. I can't carry the weight of the finances, the house, and the kids alone—you either help me or move out." Again, nothing happened the first day, and nothing on the second. But on the third day, instead of heading out, he made dinner, served it, and then did all the dishes!"

Finally, the American woman says, "I told my husband, no more late nights at the pub with the guys, no more football, and no more sitting in front of the TV. You're going to help me with the kids and the housework." On the first day, nothing. On the second day, still nothing. But on the third day, I noticed a little bit of a twitch in his left eye."

😁😂😁

Sandra Morgan2 said:I heard a great joke about feminism last night, so I just had to share it with you all:

Three feminists—one from England, one from Germany, and one from the States—are sitting around debating their rights and how they’ve managed to get their husbands to actually show them some respect.

The American says, "I told my John, no more bowling nights or hanging out at the pub. You can't just go out and have fun while I'm stuck at home after work, doing everything for the kids." Well, nothing changed the first day. Nothing on the second day. But by the third day? He cleaned up the living room, dusted the whole house, and took the kids to the park!"

Then the German woman says, "I told my Hans, no more fishing trips or hitting the bars. I can't carry the weight of the finances, the house, and the kids alone—you either help me or move out." Again, nothing happened the first day, and nothing on the second. But on the third day, instead of heading out, he made dinner, served it, and then did all the dishes!"

Finally, the American woman says, "I told my husband, no more late nights at the pub with the guys, no more football, and no more sitting in front of the TV. You're going to help me with the kids and the housework." On the first day, nothing. On the second day, still nothing. But on the third day, I noticed a little bit of a twitch in his left eye."

😁😂😁

Honestly, it’s just that classic American marriage struggle, and it’s more sad than it is funny...

wearyowl29 said:Honestly, it’s just that classic American marriage struggle, and it’s more sad than it is funny...

well... 🙂 back in my day, there wasn't any of this regional drama or cheap fruit (I'm talking about the stuff my husband used to look at, or none of that fancy stuff either) ☕

Sandra Morgan2, I’ve been reading jokes all day and I kept thinking I was finally getting close to something juicy—maybe something erotic, feminist, or just something spicy... but then, boom.. just a plain old plum.

Oh, please... spare me the drama... 😢(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
what kind of wild stuff are you guys dealing with over there lately? 😢 😢 😢
it feels like the Middle Ages 😲
women being stuck in those old roles again 😢
things aren't even like that anymore here in the States

@wearyowl29 @Adam Ross6 - Looks like my dark humor hit a nerve. Let me make amends with something a little more lighthearted and cheerful instead:

Three feminist friends decided they were officially done with being submissive in the bedroom. They wanted to take charge, so they decided to run an experiment: wearing provocative outfits—think leather gear, high heels, and blindfolds—just to see how their partners would react. One was engaged, one was in an affair, and one was married. A few days later, they compared notes.

The fiancée said:
- When he saw me, he lost his mind! Then he just looked at me with pure devotion, told me I was the woman of his dreams, and we spent the entire night lost in passion!

The mistress said:
- As soon as he laid eyes on me, he grabbed me instantly. We didn't stop until sunrise!

But the wife? Well...
- When he walked through the door after work, he just gave me this puzzled look and asked: "Hey, Zorro, what's for dinner?"

dustyskipper3 said:Even though we talk about post-feminism today, patting ourselves on the back because we supposedly live in a society where genders are equal, I guess many vital questions remain unresolved. For instance, introducing a female substitute for the male God—some kind of goddess, a Diana who hunts alone and such—it feels like it just deepens the existing dualism. These newer pagan movements or similar faiths that promote matriarchy and a dominant image of women are often perceived as "the other" compared to the religious mainstream, which, well, remains patriarchal. There is also the issue inherent in language itself; as Master John once noted, language is necessarily dualistic because, I suppose, "no one has invented a non-dualistic language yet," so even within our speech, the feminine is understood as the "other." Perhaps a new feminist spirituality should move away from symbolic language entirely as a means of communication and instead utilize other mediums to convey spiritual truth, like music, for example. It is interesting to note that even Chinese and Japanese Zen seemed somewhat averse to women, which is why we have so few female Zen masters or nuns. Even though Zen, in principle, should transcend the male-female dualism, it seems that sexual instinct is often too much of an issue in Zen monastery settings to allow them to be co-ed. There is that famous story about a Zen master who was only accepted into a monastery after she intentionally disfigured her beautiful face—not just to prove the sincerity of her devotion, but perhaps to ensure she wouldn't trigger desire in the other monks. And so we arrive at the fundamental dilemma of feminism, and indeed spirituality—can a beautiful woman truly be a feminist or a nun? Does it even make sense, given that, from birth, the earthly gates of admiration from the entire male population are essentially open to her? Does it make sense, despite everything?

Lately, we see Angelina Jolie stepping into the role of a human rights advocate fighting for abused children, and I suppose Nives Celsius has started following somewhat in those footsteps. But, in my view, it all stays at the level of attracting attention through a beautiful face and body, without much in the way of spiritual substance. On the other hand, it would be difficult to take them seriously in the role of Mother Teresa, who, God rest her soul, was a physically very unattractive woman, a real Yaga, though they might be more easily perceived as a Diana or a goddess of fertility. I wonder, does a woman's physical appearance dictate the type of spirituality she can realize? I suspect feminists would be quite incensed if that were actually true—but maybe it is. 😍

The question is really about a closed-off male world rather than about women. Men are trapped, and the real question is what they are equal to. You talk about a free woman and her approach to the spirit, but you wrap it all in a form that doesn't resonate with women. Just as it doesn't for men.
The approach to the spiritual unfolds differently in women and men.
Men require certain spiritual techniques that women don't, but if we're talking about social progress, those achievements need to be united.
Can a man break free from his isolation?

Where does this whole concept of gender even come from? What does it actually mean to be female or male?