pinkfloydpsw's Blog

I’ve used that title very deliberately, mainly because I wish to speculate, as I often do. And as usual I have to point out I have no proof that what I am about to say is verifiable, it just makes sense to me, and it’s interesting to think about…

It strikes me that if we believe in the validity of the Christian values and all their implications in concern of the “trad wives” of prominent Right-Wing men, those we see on TV in government and other positions of power with their conservative clothes and their oh-so wholesome difference and false humility, then we must by biblical implication suspect that these, supposedly pious women have not known many men, or maybe any other man than their current husband. In a sexual sense I mean. Taking this maybe true conjecture as a starting point we can extrapolate from it a secondary suspicion, that they are inexperienced sexual actors. Bear this in mind while I set up the next point, we will revisit…

You get good at snooker by playing better players that you can learn from, you develop in academia by meeting intellect with argument and getting shot down repeatedly until you’re good enough to be valid in the conversation, you become a wiser person by having experiences and making mistakes, you interact with people and gain from them constantly if you wish to progress and better yourself. You may get lucky and progress others as you journey through life too. Development as a self is not helped by being insulated from facts and truths. I’ve set up a second point, bear that in mind also… on we go…

The Republicans are conservatives, they are a natural progression of European Protestantism, a socio-religious political perspective that values Abrahamic stoicism. It is this baseline of belief structure that is expressed in the building of their desired conservative social fabric. Created from this approach and its accompanying psychology we find traditions of male dominance and patriarchy emerging, and male dominance warranted by biblical texts will of course continue to oppress women in the same demonstrable ways it has always done. This is not arguable, it is a known and well practiced trajectory. Think witches and the Maleficarum (look that up), think the vote being withheld from women because they were thought to be intellectually feeble, think property rights denied, think inheritances withheld, think the idea in religion that a father gives a bride to a husband and pays him to take her as if she must always be referred to as a property, think husbands committing their unhappy wives to asylums when they became menopausal, think of all the oppression of history associated with the relations between the sexes. Men fear the liberation of equalised women, I take that as a truth simply because one would never oppress anything that one does not fear. In fact, oppression arises from fear, it must, a perceived danger in the view of the person who then oppresses. Oppression is a tactic to gain an advantage, that is its goal and its reward, to have exclusively what one might have had to share, negotiate toward, or compromise over otherwise.

I see psychological weakness in the actors of the modern Republican US governance, and a bunch of weak men led by a physically and intellectually weak man (the orange one) will of course make a weak unit overall. I think they have established their position on the Dunning-Kruger curve by this point right at the top of mount Stupid, we can all see they are “styling it out” rather than expressing expertise, since none of them have expertise, that fact is as obvious as the sun in the sky. If we assume that weak men seek bolstering company, those that will boost their ego rather than challenge them in any way, we can speculate I think that the obviously overconfident modern Republican power actor would seek a submissive and sexually inexperienced partner. Maybe a fire-breathing whore would make them shoot in the holster if you know what I mean?

Men who fear the power of a woman’s sexuality will always seek the unblemished, the empty head that’s waiting to be filled, they’ll look for a wall-flower submissive that’s never had an argument with, or disappointed, their daddy. I think this is because they are scared, ever avoiding failure, sidestepping being tested and maybe exposed. Psycho-sexually weak men value virginity, subservience, unflinching support, a trophy rather than a partner. Kirk’s widow did not speak of the strength of her convictions other than the conviction she had to him and his interpretation of his Christian trajectory. She is the epitome of the “trad” and deliberately so, that is the look she is going for, I think falsely believing that her moral fibre was ensured by her adherence to an Abrahamic, stoic, dogmatic, idea of being a good serf to her immediate master so that he was a good serf to his masters so that they could all be good serfs to their perceived heavenly master.

This can only be a falsehood, nobody has a perfect alignment to any other person, we all have a differing set of experiential data objects to draw from that shape our perspectives. I haven’t lived the same life as you have, so how could I align with your thoughts 100%? We can be mostly in agreement, but not totally, that’s cultish behaviour. My partner and I share some thoughts on some subjects, but I would think her a lunatic if she agreed with everything I thought and said, and I wouldn’t then want her because I would realise that that falsehood would make me weaker not stronger. I don’t want to start thinking I am right all the time, I don’t want to be overconfident, I will only grow from being challenged and corrected when I am in error, that is the journey in doubt towards an enlightenment that one lifetime will never be sufficient for (hence we have books so that the start of the journey can be further down the road for the next folks that think).

How did I get to thinking about this subject in the first place? Well I had a very open conversation with an acquaintance recently where they expressed the opinion that men had often been a disappointment to her in the past in a sexual sense. Fumbling around, not knowing what they were doing, not knowing what a woman wants or needs, not even knowing well the anatomical features. I did get the opinion that there was an attempt to shock in this chat, a little bit of playfulness, maybe a slight challenge meant to put me on the back foot. I don’t mind though, I’ll converse on any subject, and unlike the Christian Republican man I am speculating about (and maybe getting wrong), he who needs a wall-flower to boost his fragile ego, I am not intimidated by a sexual woman in deed or in rhetoric. That is no brag however, I make no claims.

I actually enjoy this sort of banter because I wish that women would be more expressive more often, and that outcome would be better for men as well. I need to tell you why of course, it’s because repression in men leads to the incel mentality, it leads to the hatred and oppression of women by men because they are weaker physically and stronger emotionally than we are. Repression of self is a delusion that doesn’t fool the self, it merely acts as a poor psychological trick, in fact it often needs a secondary falsehood, ‘the brag’. What is the brag then? It is simply an attempt at convincing others, as if gaining positive response could ever block the disappointment within, a mistake of course because it cannot work. If you think you are unaware of yourself then reach for Freud, even if you don’t think you know who you are you actually do, and you reveal it in your inner turmoil and your outer act. The US administration tries so hard to appear strong and serious that they cannot be, and we cannot buy it. Remember Rumsfeld and Schwarzkopf, did they seem angry blowhards or people who could be taken seriously?

Another interesting thing about bragging is that it’s the opposite of what capable people do, folks that are actually capable do not brag because they do not need to convince you, to recruit you into their psychology, so as to convince themselves. The respect you gain for them arrives as a sort of awareness, not a narrative, nobody needs to big them up or brag for them. Expertise, effectiveness, gravity, these are apparent in the acts and words of capable persons.

Now how did I get to being so stable (if I am, may be wrong about that too)? Simple, I’ve been around a bit, I’ve been an unlucky and lucky man, and I’ve been a failure, communicator, a winner, a loser, and a learner. The last one is key, you can’t learn anything unless you first realise that you do not know, and through open mindedness and good communication, and of course mistakes made, I think I may have learned many things. Am I claiming to be perfect? Not at all, I have much yet to learn I suppose, but at least I don’t know nothing at all, and at least I know there is much I do not know. Who is it that knows nothing though? I’m going to say people who have not learned from experience yet hold bags of confidence, I think that makes sense. People who think the performance of pornographic acts viewed in media are sex, people who believe the brags of their male peers, people who look for the truths of women in religious literature, people who think they already know because they are men and they should, and people who have had their egos fluffed by women that either wanted to please them, excuse them, or hang on to what they can provide, rather than wanting to be actually pleased or act honestly.

Let’s not go into my personal sex life or history, save to say that I would want to know if I was disappointing so I could stop being disappointing. Who wants to be disappointing anyways? The man that thinks he came out of the womb knowing how to be a great partner is the guy that women are pretending with and for some other purpose. That’s another good point, and it apportions some blame on those women folks too for not feeding back, or for just telling lies. I asked my partner why would any woman not tell their fella that he needs to step his game up, to give him indicators, to lead him a bit? I mean in a subtle way, not a declaration of “you’re shit, try harder”. Her response was that men tend to have such fragile egos and all women notice this, it’s not an easy thing to say negative things to someone that you’re in a relationship with, so you put up and shut up because the relationship may be good in many other ways. I wonder how many disappointed women are out there? I sincerely think the uptight trophy wives of Republican power men must be seething internally with the frustration of unfulfilling physicality, and it’s no wonder they seem so angry at anyone that isn’t just like them.

Why did I use the words “professional smilers”? I figure this frustration over sexual disappointment, combined with a constant stoic questioning self-hatred (speculated on by Nietzsche in the Genealogy of Morals), combines to create a being that is internally in turmoil. The unfulfilled life of a serf that wishes for emancipation, as we all do, leads to an unhappiness that must be smiled through if smiling is what is required of the submissive, if smiling is expected by the master. These ladies smile far too much, and it’s a false looking one at the best of times. They smile between the questions, they smile when they are answering the question or responding to the query because they have not the right answer they try to “style it out”, they smile as an autonomic well-practiced habit to mask the tortured nature of unfreedom or a lie they are aware of. They smile like they are being beaten in private and acting trophy in public. They smile like the barmaid smiles to make you think they have a thing for you, you know that smile that keeps you from going home and watching tv with your plump wife, the smile that makes you buy another beer and hang a bit longer?

We know stoicism because we are taught it in the western religious tradition in schools. It is the most useful tool in the toolbox of the power base, it prevents revolution in a way that armaments never could. An idea, a religion, a shared pseudo-moral framework based in an original falsehood, an ideology that comes from power long ago, will incarcerate the mass psychology of a body of people in a prison with no guards, bars of their own making, and it will do so in a way that is stronger, longer lasting, and harder to escape from, than any physical barrier. The mind, once won over, is stronger than the body, fear or belief will hold you in place or retard your momentum.

We must know that even in this falsehood the psychological self will be in turmoil, no person is ever fully convicted beyond doubt, a conflict will arise between what is felt and what is adopted or adhered to. Even the most religious of persons internally know that it is a falsehood because the world they observe does not match the narrative they have absorbed or been fed. I do not believe that there is a true believer that is not a dangerous radical because to be so is to deny everything you will learn, but there are degrees of course. We call the degrees ‘cherry picking’. The almost convinced will maybe blow themselves up in a busy shopping mall, the somewhat convinced will deny themselves worldly pleasure for a reward they think they’ll get after they die in a physical sense, the socially indoctrinated will defend a system of belief they do not practice themselves, the culturally affected will avoid giving challenge motivated by a false sense of respecting those that seem convinced, the atheist will even avoid challenging nonsense if they wish to get along in a society that clearly suffers the Emperor’s New Clothes effect. There are few that directly seek to challenge, these are the brave ones. I am one of these sometimes, but I wait for someone to open the door to it first.

I went down this trajectory of thinking because I think it has a great effect on the sexual self. Pre-Christianity, which takes hold in the 4th Century as the dominating religion of the world, we see empires and cities where people are not ashamed of their desires or to express them. Polyamory, bisexuality, orgy, these are in the cultures of the Persians, the Etruscans, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Roman Republic before Octavian etc. While it is true that coupling has always had a usefulness, I think the perspective on what people actually do in a physical sense was maybe not raising the ire of many folks in these times. That’s a cultural difference and it’s based in the idea of moral harm, that what you do has consequences. I agree, what we do does have consequences, but if the consequences are a social creation then they are not a moral truth unless morals are defined by what is acceptable in a social system. I personally think that morals transcend social systems, that real harm is always objectionable and dignity applies to the peasant as equally as to the wealthy land owner.

The smilers will keep smiling though, but you might see it differently now.

Paul S Wilson