Posted by: Sk | February 15, 2009

9 On top of all …

Seen the kind of what would be seeming to me ultraconservative positioning towards more or less general questions, having already covered my back with hypothetical answers to possible agressions coming from all sorts of gay organizations and related, the less you expect is to get a comment where a someone ‘hopes you will be sued for the kind of stuff you link to’ (home of page). Now, what am I linking to? Three e-mails, an Ines de la Fressange page made all by myself without any dubious material whatsoever, which, as remarked by Prince Vladimir, could unluckily not be found, at least in our surroundings, and other links to extremely heavy pychology dusted pages or some having still some traces of electronical shocks and third phase encounters, as subject of this page. What can there be possibly shocking about that and even, yes, put in danger children’s innocent view on reality?

Before I could go over in detail to analyze which contents may have been at the origin of such a violent reaction, I stop thinking that at least for internet, there is an option in the computer allowing to block the appearance of what may be considered ‘adult contents’ or of whatever page that may be considered not fitting to someone’s personal moral criteria. But except if someone blocks that page in particular, I’d had to ask myself, if the page may infringe any general law that may put it on a very black or red list, and even getting into the depth of memory (the page regroups in fact material of 5 different pages going back to January 2007) I can’t really find anything that may be shocking for a youngster.

Of course there are some quite veiled images under ’sexual life’ that may be some reason for objection, but to my greatest satisfaction, nobody falls on them, as the text accompanying them is very little, on purpose. I guess a child won’t make the effort to go back 7 posts in order to find them, and on the other hand, they serve to illustrate a subject. Which is to say, their nature is denouncing and not inviting, which makes a great difference.

To say the truth, I was quite angry myself with the kind of pop up that makes your stomac turns upside down the moment you’re just going through your stats in the very morning, and that was parts of their reason to be. Among other.

Now. Profiting of the occasion, and just in case the opposite site may not launch another virulent agression, as this more likely to my own way of seeing, sooner or later, concerning the very sharp distances taken mainly to homosexual worlds and realities and other, I hope to be considered, more or less random practices, the facts are the following:

As I’m just a poor lonesome thinker, trying to put an order into a certain number of thoughts from a personal point of view, I may be allowed to express the same as it is not supposed to be of ‘forming’ value, from the point of view of education, which would be the case if I were talking on behalf of an organization, school, university or other pretending from its position to more than just a point of view. Thus, a point of view may allow to another to ‘configure an opinion’, which is to say, taking many different point of views, to get a more or less global view on a subject, that may include even more radical positionings both sides, until he/she forms his own opinion on a subject.

Personally I don’t think that even complete subjective rejection of something can be rejected as position, as it exists. People having had a traumatic homosexual experience, for example, may develop an intuitive sharp rejection to ‘all’ belonging to the sphere, and it is very difficult to try to reason these people with arguments of tolerance and socially correct statements. What is reprehensible is the use of insulting or agressive terms or of statements that may induct to violence against some determined parts of population.

Of course, what is the result of a negative experience can’t be ‘didactic’ or a subject of teaching, and as such should be banned from schools, newspapers and parliaments. But even those have necessarily to consider negative impact due to determined interactions and this impact can only be evaluated if those involved are left free to express their real feelings. This implies also negative experience in realms where religious, ethnical or other differences are considered.

To my understanding, most of the trouble arising and main cause of heavy crashes that finish by reverting in violence if even the possibility to say is banned, is the constant confusion between the moral and the legal, the subjective experience and general statements.

It’s not the same to say ‘All homosexual are criminals’ and ‘I was raped in prison’, the first one being random legal or even illegal, and the second just the expression of a personal experience, whose reality should though have consequences in the consideration of a problem, as the fact that some experience be ‘traumatic’ tending to proof that the sexual choice does not remain on arbitrary subjective criteria but on deeper essences that may have moral implications, and whose lack of consideration is making every day larger parts of population become violent and agressive against those who pretend to special protections.

The thing becomes more difficult in consideration if you are treating a homosexual or a ‘race’ as a psychic type, which is to say, from a general point of view, which all of a sudden, makes the little ‘all’ appear in a quite ambiguous way in front of whole tons of people who may consider the characterization as insulting, reducing, or other.

In fact, following a reverted path of thought, you may conclude first, that perhaps not homosexual (in first consideration) but repressed homosexual show a very strange way of integrating into society. Why? Let us think first that the whole stuff around the sexual is just bullshit. That we, as human beings, are not orientated towards a determined sexual appearance, but linked to another human through links of psychic dimension, appreciation of intellectual qualities and, in a most general way, the possible compatibility with a different character in the consideration of a long lasting relationship.

Seen this way, it is silly to consider that I may restrain my attention to one sexual pole or another, as what is of my interest is the remark of the somewhat blinding feeling that makes us forget the day we were born, and which we usually call ‘to fall in love’. If this is this way, we state easily that the ‘repressed’, through the very fact of refusing the recognition of such a fact, is denying a fundamental functioning of his intuitive perception that may have two bad side effects: first, he will adapt his behaviour to a general abstract pattern as he conceives it, he understands as ideal and more perfect, and who he will try to make his reality submit to, second, he may develop violent agression against a society where he doesn’t fit excessively well, because there where for others their behaviour is natural, for him (or her) it is the result of constant distortion of his natural perception of things.

In fact, it is easy to state that greatest parts of terroristic activity is linked most directly to homosexual repressed types.

You would conclude from this, that the promotion of homosexuality as a free and natural alternative, may have as result the lowering of pressure and thus the diminishing of factors of agressivity. It’s though not the case.

Two reasons seem to stay behind this state of fact: homosexuality would only have a moral justification if the possibility were considered that a soul had a determined ‘psychic mark’ that may appear in bodies with different sexual determination. The soul characteristic ‘female’, may thus appear in a ‘male body’ and this explain why a ‘man’ may fall in love with a ‘man’, which is to say, just a ’female’ falling in love with a man. In this case, the term ‘homosexual’ becomes obsolete: it is not whether someone is interested by a general x of the same sexual determination, it is whether a ‘different pole’ does feel real attraction for someone of opposite ‘pole’.

But this fact is rarely accepted as such. Most homosexual men or women do claim for undetermined attraction to a ’same body’, which does rather allow thinking that there is highest repression concerning the factual psychic orientation. Not only. Due to different historical reasons, which may be more or less justifiable, homosexuality sees gravest sins pending on its head, which has very often as effect that those people are rejected from their families, professional environment and social surroundings if they claim too loudly what they’re really at, which pushes them either to random legal activity or to a hypocritical double life. In many cases they become the object of blackmailing if their ‘real’ or ‘double life’ is reveiled. This makes affective stability very difficult, as this is only obtainable through the support of a surrounding that gives a more or less explicit agreement to a determined state of fact. To hide away who we love destroys strangely love as if this could not be considered only a private fact but needed of a social embedding. Which explains on the other hand, why humankind has always given so much importance to marriages and witnesses and other reliable proofs of the acceptation of a relationship by a larger groupment. The homosexual does not find this environment, which on the other hand make him appear very often linked to excessive promiscuity and to psychic pressure diminishing factors, such as alcohol and drugs. Nothing to please a more conservative surrounding.

Considering this whole amount of facts and after many turning around the subject, I finished personally by agreeing to what I called the British ‘butler’ solution. I thought that someone’s private life is someone’s private life and that it isn’t of anyone’s concern after all. I saw it difficult to insert ‘homosexual families’ into general contexts, reason why I thought of a ‘professional environment’ positive to a certain type of relationship, without this being excessively determined towards the outer world. A professional environment may even allow to share an appartment without too much of a scandal, even more so if this be a choice taken by others, who’d just share financial weights, home tasks etc. after some divorce or other. The diffuse thus created assures up to a certain extent a relatively secure affective environment, that does not attract any kind of agression if wisely dealt with.

In more conservative environments, I thought the ‘Natasha’s cousin’ solution extremely practical, as largely in use apparently in many countries for many centuries without bothering anyone, and consisting in discovering a thousands of kilometer’s away living cousin who appears all of a sudden and who you’re in the moral and social obligation to keep at home.

My radicalization in positioning comes from the further discovery that my most wonderful solutions are under constant agression of … homosexual, mainly men. I discover that most of them maintain social position and get financial benefit from the fact of ‘providing women’ to the eagerly waiting malehood, which thus ‘pardons’ irrelevant side steps. Thus, innocently sharing flats women are treated as ‘lesbian’ with an almost insulting frequency, just because the very fact of having who to share sorrows with does make them less weak towards men’s pretension to facility. High pressure does also come from different prostitution nets who see easy prays protected by an almost virtual environment.

It’s not that strange to state that to say ‘homosexual’ does not have a negative connotation, usually, but the term ‘lesbian’, even more so if said by homosexual men, may very easily take an extremely insulting, depecting tone that may be the cause of familiar or social trouble and of the complete isolation of those concerned with almost frightning easiness.

To create a tolerant environment, which would be, I suppose, the desire of the most, implies thus, sometimes, the very cold distance taken towards those who may be wanting everything for themselves without granting this to anyone else, which is unluckily the case for most of the male homosexual world. And this explains even agressions that are just the result of the statement of gravest agressions occured towards other parts of population arising from those.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: