Distinctions - Part 3

"As for the rest" ... well. I didn't think it mattered - but there's still stuff, twisting and turning in my being ... stuff that wants out. So - I suppose ... I'll have to find some way to put it into words.

Now, I suppose this is supposed to be some kind of Helldive - talking of the pervy stuff; Or so some impulse within me suggested. And that possibly helps me direct my attention unto that. Instead of focussing on everything else instead.


And I guess there's an impetus for this to not be boring. In some sense, this is supposed to be for - if not about - "them boys". But, thinking of it so ... it doesn't seem to be what should concern me. Instead I think I'd be better off referring them to Natalie Wynn's (ContraPoints on YouTube) video on Twilight. It's really interesting stuff that's pretty far outside of what my mind dwells upon. They should also watch in on repeat. Like ... for a while.

So, it's not like I have all the answers.

But, eventually I also have some thoughts of my own.
Maybe the best way to get started there, is to speak of a warning contained in the Bible. I'm not sure where or the exact words - but it is possibly the only verse that might imply that our souls could be taken. This I however usually thought of as a metaphor - saying that if we fall for lies, deception, there's a chance that we fall into some weird state between right and wrong. Believing in a lie for once implies that the things we support in that state - have a different meaning to us individually, than how they stand in actual reality. So we might believe in something evil, thinking that it's good; Are therefore however a pawn of evil - but if we don't know that, is it truly evil?

That's like ... what I think "theft of the soul" means. Hellboy I think is a Character that brings that to a good point. That is: Hellboy is hellspawn implied as the bringer of the Apocalypse. That's his "fate" or "destiny". Yet the plot bestows free will upon him - and with that, there are really only two options. Either he is evil and summons the apocalypse of his own accord, or he is not evil and thus has to be tricked into believing that he has no other choice.


And this "soul theft" is maybe the only way I'd come to seriously speak of corruption. The thing is that good and evil are concepts that I'd argue supercede concepts such as truth and deception. And so the issue becomes, whether or not we are receptive for the various properties of the one or the other; And how we deal with them. So, again not corruption in the "ordinary sense" - but, a corrupt heart may attract corrupt things - and given that the human heart is somewhat corrupt by nature; Falling for Evil is like a simple and basic fail.

One example to look at was brought to my attention just recently. I've seen a video in which someone establishes a strong case for the matter, that people - or entities - who previously spread the idea that climate change isn't real, are nowadays spreading the idea that it's too late. That it's pointless. And stuff like that. And sure enough ... it's where the focus is at now.
But why?
Well ... the thing is this: Why transing the kids? Why spreading the gay agenda? If you can believe that that's what evil does - you also don't seem to have much of an answer to it, other than "because evil".
But, it goes further. Because Evil.
The way I see it, doomerism creates a pessimism that envigorates a kind of carpe diem/yolo attitude that finds itself at peath with the ultimate breakdown of societal rules. A breeding ground - a really fertile breeding ground - for all sorts of dark ambitions. Ambitions that then have no problem aligning themselves with the most nonsensical rhetoric, as all of the talk is really just a front for what darkness lies beyond.


Such as ... a new World Order - built on the ruins of our righteous ambitions.


Talk then, of how dominance and submission are inherent to the sexes - spiced up with the desensitation unto violence by drawing a big target onto trans and other queer people - further helps consolidate that idea. Where if you're a woman you better find yourself a man that can protect you - or you're in risk of ... getting a taste of the apocalypse.

It sure is a nightmare~ish vision - but I don't think I live in a world where I have to make a believable case for that because ... the world pretty much makes it for me. I mean, I sure get the vibe that that's where things be going. Except they're not - because ... "duh" - however, you might not know that.

And so you also wouldn't find someone, but in the fringes perhaps, say these things out loud. But if stuff like misogyny, a passive aggressive support for slavery, subtle or not so subtle xenophobia and the worshiping of a "strong man" are like on the same plate - I don't wanna stick around to find out; If you catch my drift!

And also - and that's also something that people with emotional vulnerabilities should keep in mind: I for sure don't want to pay for 'them' to have a shot at their "paradise". And the preying on emotional vulnerabilities - is like the bread and butter of "soul theft" I'd argue.


As to say that inaction makes you complicit - we may also say that reluctance leads to complicitness which in turn leads to inaction.


But as Natalie Wynn points out in her video - at least that's an impression I've taken from it - much of that protrayal of masculinity and femininity is a lie. I really like the idea of gender she closes the video with. Regarding Gender as a Binary. Not like 0 and 1 however, but like Yin and Yang. I would go further and add that we all do have a dominant self. This dominance doesn't imply outward dominance - but simply refers to that part of the individual that they would call their identity, or being. Or so does "my Gospel" then suggest, that we have to make it be dominant. For if we let it be submissive to external demands - it ... eventually is as dead.
And so there's what she called DHSM - Default Heterosexual Sado-Masochism. The idea that male=dominant=top=active=lover and so on - versus female=female=bottom=passive=beloved. That these properties are fixed; That there cannot be a dominant female, nor a male bottom. And it is an adherence to this idea, that generates toxic masculinity via the deception of how one is to conduct their sex.

And yea. It is a broad subject. I've tried to address it - you can certainly find concerns of this kind scattered throughout my work. And I'm glad that someone managed to condense it in such a manner that it ... can be comprehended. Better.


And make no mistake! These things concern us all. Or, at least are we free to be concerned of it - and the concern is unto a greater understanding of human sexuality. The thing that ... we allegedly ought to be smart about so that we may be able to separate truth from fiction, sensible policy from authoritarian insanity.


Now, when it comes to the matter of Yearning and Craving - well, you can sure find support for her conclusions in my book. But what's missing - and so within the remainder of our cultural heritage - is Clarity.
With Clarity, the matter becomes that knowledge of it becomes reality - this inherently creating a state in which we hold priority over our true self. Or - as true as it can be in the Light of the Divine. So, besides what I've already written on the matter - something I had to realize is that it gives me an idea of what my internal balance is. Or, how it feels to be alive - or how it is supposed to feel to ... be yourself, to be allowed to be yourself - to have the freedom to exist as yourself; And that not in defiance unto the Divine. And it is from that, that I can navigate the real world in a way that's ... healthy. What my clarity is, is entirely irrelevant. What matter is that some things satisfy it more than others - next however else my well-being is or can be affected.

Occasionally I find a yearning, a desire; And so I get to write in my Diary. For instance.
But ... I suppose that's not the interesting part.

As for what I at least think the interesting part here is - I'm not entirely sure either. I know that I get off on different things. The one night I'm sure I found the thing that definitely does the thing; And the next night it doesn't work and instead I'm getting off on something else entirely. And by 'getting off' on a thing I mean ... I can lay there for what might be an hour or more, "rubbing away" and not getting closer to a climax; And then in a matter of what feels like seconds be taken over the finish line. Not that I'd want to skip on the what feels like hours part - except when I'm tired. It can be really exhausting.
And it sure seems like desire is what enables those climaxes. That once I've ticked off enough of them, it'll take a while for me to be able to enjoy it again. Although some of them implied that they were the solution to just that. By of course playing a trick on my mind to twist an often enjoyed desire into a new form of pleasure.

And maybe there a problem is my own anticipation - mixed with an expectation that wants to get something out of the effort I'd put in. Like so are there things I cannot emulate into my masturbation fantasies. Like, the feeling of being tied up and exposed. Parts of it, sure. But ... since my mind is actively working on getting myself to climax - the whole thing becomes warped. And thus, finding the right idea that "gets me" in such a state ... is like a challenge.


And so I'm not sure. But, the only part of it all tha thas any kind of real bearing on my life as it is right now - is the part where I'm Queen anyway.
The rest is up to whatever, whenever.


I mean, life can be a lot of things. I suppose there are people who'd love to be Ents. Basically. In on the other hand find that stress ... is a good thing. Sitting in front of my computer, writing stuff - or various games I play, wouldn't have me notice just how much stress I usually expose myself to. Now, the kind of stress I do expose myself to, or am exposed to in terms of work, isn't really ... well ... THE kind of stress I'd need or want; Which is something I notice whenever the balance is off ever so slightly. I mean, I do smoke - for instance. Consuming poison, as it were, as another source of stress. For the most part that also gives me pause as to collect my thoughts, but sometimes the stress has a negative impact on my intellectual capacity. It's one instance where I realize that things don't ... synergize really well. They're basically just held together by ... hopes and dreams let's say.

And I suppose that people have reasons to doubt that ... what I think this means is what it actually means. I'd call that for now the fallacy of normalcy. So are kinks, possibly, just symptoms of some kind of inner twisting. So, the desire to get raped being the Kink, could simply stem from a desire to be loved. So would the kink be an illusion we, or in this case I, adhere to in order to cheat myself into a state in which I allow myself certain indulgences that I'd be too ashamed to admit to otherwise.
What follows is this idea that we can all be 'fixed'. That we shouldn't so much indulge our fantasies - not in real life at least - but to use them as tools to disclose our deeper truths.

Anyway - I'm not a fan of that idea. And that has to suffice for now. I don't know if I can make a solid argument against it - other than some version of "it isn't so!". But I can still try. As - from Clarity.
So is there a part of me that I have certainly come to express here and there. By it, I am the mother of my lover/beloved. And the last few weeks I've come around to experience that a little bit more deeply. One thing I hadn't fully realized before, is that there's this 'room' as part of my 'mansion' (side-view) - as the bottom-most level of the central thing. I usually would say that it is where he/she would make me "his mother" - while being too ashamed to explore or expand on it any further. It's just so - and if I consider myself to be a mother, that'd be "the place for it".
But since I've come to indulge in the fantasy some more, I've also eventually found a ... "bottom" of sorts. The point that now "decorates" my understanding of what "he making me his mother" implies. It also fits quite nicely with the rooms and stuff that surround that room - or connect with it - so that all in all the Kinkiness of it all, the Kinkiness I desire, isn't only maintained, but exalted to greater glory.

So - it may be so that there's some "normal version" to all this. And that maybe with enough work and effort we could work it out - and we could be as a normal mother and son. Except - maybe that's the wrong take-away given what past that would exist on. But I do also have problems, overall, to ... captialize on my sympathies. Like, I don't have the mental resources to be motherly; Or caretaking. I however do have the desire, or the ability - at least in a rudimentary sense. But in as far as I'm usually occupied with other things ... . Well, I assume that the things I occupy myself with "work for me". Like, say that activities have a "stress profile" - and the matters of 'motherly love' don't work for me because my innate stress profile is like ... overbearing. I guess a modern term for it, the condition, is autism.

So, my argument then proposes, that we can't necessarily remove or fix the things that make certain things odd.


To go on a little tangent as ... hmm. Anyhow, my internal ramblings recently took me into the matters of difficulty. And whatever's up with that, somewhere around that I also had to think of competitive gaming. And I had in mind to start expressing my honest displeasure over it - in that every "shmuck" is given the ability to be on equal fotting, if not superior, to me. So, within those environments. To then say that I think it's a good thing however. Well, because ... obviously. So, while I'm special - there are environments in which that doesn't matter much. Which in turn means that if you're like the opposite of how special I am, there are environments in which that doesn't matter much. So much however for the history of how I got around to the concept of the "mudborn".
Well - for visual context; I was watching a video that had me wonder what I think of the PVP aspect of the Souls Games (the Invasion aspect).
I for instance believe, that we got conceived within different conditions. So, originally. Or so, different magnitudes of chaos - different magnitudes of social involvement - different magnitudes of personal freedom; So that some of us are obviously just born better off than others. Better equipped to overcome the challenges - and so, some are just inherently more compatible with the demands/desires of God. Which in turn however means, that it's not your fault if you got born in the proverbial (or perhaps sort-of literal) mud.
What it means to be "mudborn" - hard to say. I'd assume that depending on some nuance here and there - there are different directions. A natural urge however would be to align to "the standard", so to be clean and ... whatever. As by the image I suppose we're prone to envision someone who feels more comfortable in dirt - but it's not meant to mean anything concrete. It's just ... an abstract.

What I'm getting at is, that we might have certain impressions that trigger us - things that arouse a negative response as in comparison to what we might think for normal. And so we'd try to propose fixes. Because, sure enough - why not? But upon digging deep enough, we eventually find that the problem is like the very essence of a being. It's not that they got tricked into liking or disliking certain ways of life - but that their very essence has certain dispositions we might think of as odd. And there it is. The oddity.


But I certainly also don't like to come accross as giving people the permission to be filthy swine. I would argue that there's a very specific hell set apart for ... "people who ...". Just like for cheaters. But then again, I'm not the judge of these things - and maybe that's a good thing.

Well, it probably is. I certainly wouldn't wanna bear that responsibility - to be serious.


But so, Kinks to me - or say: Honest or Enlightened Kinks - are a way of indulging in my truth. In being myself. But what Natalie said on the matter still stands; For once on its own but also in that ... our social conditioning adds another layer to the matter of Kink that imposes a proper abstraction to our internal realities.


Like so - I'd assume that for your average straight-cis-white-USAmerican-male, diverging from the DHSM comes with a certain amount of stress. Like, if the memes are to be trusted, are there people so afraid of being called gay, that they refuse to wipe their ass. Because touching an anus is gay or whatever. And anyone who is that stressed out over maintaining a sense of masculinity - is probably so utterly stuck in that mindset that they either a) have a diametrically opposed set of kinks that they secretly indulge in (Chicks with Dicks?) or b) have a very unhealthy way of relating to the opposite sex. If not both. And that I'd say would further come with social needs that a healthy society could not possibly satisfy.

And that's like a layer to the matter of Kink - except that if it doesn't really involve Kinks it's ... something superficially different. So would someone infer happiness or joy from a relationship that fits the DHSM model - and subsequently a degree of humiliation or dissatisfaction for anything that might defy it. Thus the need to dominate the woman; Not only as an expression of ones own sexuality, but to also ascertain that this internal dominance is outwardly visible.
"To not be dishonored/brought to shame" or something like that.

And while that might be a sweet idea or dream in some aspects, to some people, one is to wonder how that ought to translate into internal sweetness. I suppose the idea goes a little some like: The woman is supposed to feel pleasure from wiping your arse. Because she's like ... supposedly ... intrinsically submissive. She was like ... made for that. Like, she doesn't need an orgasm, what she needs is to suck your cock!?

Now, reasomable people might respond to the question of: Is that however how to treat/what to expect of another human being?
Because that's something "the DHSM" fondly ignores.


The thing to me is that DHSM and Healthy Gender Roles aren't the same thing.
[... not sure if I was supposed to write something here before I move on to ...] TO me, for instance, men - or boys - are like dogs. And you can note that down as for the record, as my official opinion/stance on the matter. With proper domestication they at some point stop being filthy animals - and become good pets and even companions that can be trusted with certain things.

I mean, what I'm trying to get at is a matter of gender roles and the DHSM infered demand that men rule upon women.
Some might then woosh out the Bible and give us a quote of how the woman is supposed to suffer and how the man is supposed to rule over her. But ... the refutation of that interpretation is in the verse itself. If we so can negate the suffering a woman goes through while giving birth - why shouldn't we?

There also this dude who does YouTube shorts (_magnify) - I don't know the name - covering the linguistic nuances of the Bible. It's interesting. So, on the matter of the woman being the 'helper' he pointed out, that the hebrew word used for 'helper' - in this case - is in other instances translated as 'savior', when referring to a man. Or God. And I think that this truth is mirrored in a lot of "the boy gets the girl"~esque romantic fantasy. While sure she is the prize, in some sense, or the damsel to be rescued, her affirmation of the protagonists action is his redemption. Him doing good by her afforded her gratitude - his prize so being the woman as a savior of his status quo.
To then go and say that the man has the right to insist on her submission goes against this so far, that he who would do so is typically the villain of the story. He who would keep her against her will - he by whom the damsel is put into distress.

What may within those fantasies be dressed up as a pure, submissive tradwife is merely sugarcoating. To sell the idea of the reward. Yet, with the sugarcoating removed, her support of him would be a voluntary one. To imply that these fantasies propose an inherent harmony between the two - thus creating or further consolidating the idea of the legitimacy of their relationship.
A relationship that depending on the story is more or less fleshed out - as contextualized through adversity; And grown in face of their individual flaws. She is thereby quite possibly a strong independent woman, and he an upright independent man. Both know what they want; And thus no one may object to them being together.

A side effect of these stories seems to have become that the sugarcoating produces a kind of obsession over the given appearances. Be it beauty standards or characteristics. Of her but also of him. Him being independent, perhaps even full of himself, doing is own (plot relevant) thing - is perhaps too easy in alignment with the idea that being in love is the only thing missing.
That being in love is therefore the right to claim her - whomever - and that her defiance must therefore be due to some dark force manipulating her.

But that's beside the point.
The main reason why I want to stress that men to me are like dogs is ... well, for once it's an honest comparison. But it's also - perhaps by accident (if there is such a thing) - "intentionally" provocative. Because, DHSM suggests that men really don't like it. Unless the woman in question is a cat. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that men are like dogs; And that women are their masters. And regardless of how much men like to see themselves as prince charming, underneath it all the truth is that the woman has a certain sway over the man. Due to toxic masculinity the man might try to denounce that - and emphasize this objection by force - but that isn't something I would then call a sacred relationship anymore.


So, wooosh out the Bible and quote how God is the head of man and man the head of the woman. Fine. And yet God serves man; And so should the man serve the woman. As the head so tends to do. When the stomach grumbles, the head must eat.

The point is not to humiliate men - but to accept that dominance isn't a one-way road. It's more like an open field. Or a central node of a railway network. Now, once she insists you wear a collar that identifies you as her property, sure, you may have reason to be concerned. Or if she likes to humiliate you by excessively demonstrating her sway over you in public ... well, maybe she's a cunt and you'd be better off without her.
But if people merely call you a cuck because you don't insist on humiliating your wife in public - or because this lingering idea exists that men are like dogs and women their masters - that's just a mental construct that is being played upon.


I mean - I'm a whore; And in my paradise I'm a sex-slave - more so on the devote and submissive side of things. If that were now physical reality - I'd clearly be the one that is dominated. But, it only takes one single thought - that to me men are merely extensions of the cock I crave - to turn it upside down. And what is reality now?

Well, in as far as the Gnostic Satanic hierarchy may be a matriarchy, the story is simple. You can't fit in if you can't find your peace with it. If you can find your peace with it, your priorities are probably somewhere else - and if there's one thing I should really emphasize here, it's that to us - those priorities matter. That is, the enlightened ones.


PS: Watching Porn is Gay because dicks! Or women getting on without men! Pick your poison! (Also: Getting off on Porn is like being a cuck in training! Or just part of what it means to be part of a sexually liberated society!)
Also: If you don't respect trans people, you don't respect me! If you don't respect me, you don't respect God!