Gender equality in movies.

So why is it that in movies they are now depicting gender equality but why the hell do they do it by having chicks tell guys to suck their dicks? Chicks dont have dicks.  It frickin pisses me off.

Suck my puss...

Hmm on second thought, never mind. That doesnt
 Seem to work as well. So why is that? Is there no such thing as gender equality?

No, there is no such thing as gender equality.

The term was created so that it became more acceptable for women to be degraded to the level of men who they were mistakenly deceived to think they were inferior to. 

In doing so, morality was degraded to the point we have now.

With morality degraded, perverts are able to get away with more then if they were not.  Hence all of the scandals going on.

I would tend to agree that gender equality does not really exist, nor does the idea that we are all created equal. I don't believe in natural law. However that does not stop societies from putting rules in place to sort of set us all at a common starting point so to speak. But that is far from a perfect system and so there is inherent inequality always built into those systems as well.

I believe that, just as the individual, a gender has certain strengths and certain weaknesses that are in contrast to their counterpart gender. This demands cooperation among genders if they are to be a most effective species.

I'm curious about what you mean when you say the degradation of morals?

The fact you have to ask that for starters.

To boil it down to its most basest of positions... the fact that it is common that one person (typically male, although their are cases where females are alleged to do this)  can be seen taking advantage of another (typically a female, but their are instances where males are encountering this as well).

As can be seen all over the news, it is common for their to be people who will utilize their position or authority to take advantage of those less lucky.

We hear that everyone knew Matt Lauer did what he did or Harvey Weinstein.  It was accepted and even now, where their was a huge brouhaha about this, it is starting to die. Except against Trump, anything against Trump must be explored until he is impeached, steps down, or dies, all of which are acceptable.  But Franken... who had a picture of him going to grope a sleeping woman is now being asked to not resign.  Because for some, this is OK.

That's what I thought you meant but wanted to clarify, reason I asked.

Yes but do you think those are a result of degrading morals or has that sort of thing always gone on? I think it happens both ways, both women and men of power abuse that power in this way and its always happened. I don't think its any different now in govt than it ever has been. There is just more focus on it now because its become an easy tool to use against trump.

I remember when Clinton got impeached over the same crap. I was incensed at the idea that he was impeached for lying about it and yet the act itself seemed to be just fine to the ruling party at the time - and he got to still be president!!!. And now just because of, not even an act, but a comment by Trump they are rioting in the streets! The hypocrisy is dumbfounding.

The issue here is that it is only now a problem when select people say it is.

I mean really, going back to Clinton, the only reason why it was bad was because he lied.  Otherwise it was completely consentual.  

But also, this would be the moment feminism would take a tailspin.  Nina Burleigh highlighted the turn in her quote of stating she would give Clinton a Lewinsky if he would keep abortion legal.

Sex for money is illegal, but yet this was acceptable.

It places a monetary value on women.  Which is disgusting... and sometimes women are valued... sometimes they are valueless.

Which means what Femanism did as of that moment was make sure women, who used to be priceless, were now AT BEST equal to men... but often less important.

Which in my eyes is sad.  Degrading anyone to a dollar sign is nothing less then slavery.

The inconsistency is what gets me. People get up in arms if you say you're an atheist and running for a govt position, or even heaven forbid a Satanist!!! Could you imagine the backlash that would happen if a presidential candidate came out and said he was a satanist! Even though religious practice should have NOTING to do with his job as president people want the warm fuzzy that their president is their idea of a moral person. Oh but when it comes to adultery, which is a sin according to their same moral bias, oh well that's ok. We give that a pass because hes a cool guy, right? Bulls***

It's only a sin if either party is harmed.  Otherwise it is man who condones adultery... not the bible.

I think its funny that you bring up the Satanist ideal.  For one of the greatest things held against JFK... was that he was catholic!

To be clear, you are probably right about any Satanist.  Atheist bring a lot of their issues upon themselves.

Here in New Mexico, it is still fresh in many minds how an atheist organization brought a case against Los Cruces demanding it change its name.

They felt that NM was too poor and would just change the name... we banded together and fought it as a state for the name has multiple meanings (the main one being the mountain range nearby looking like 3 crosses).

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/meet-the-women-worried-about-metoo/20639#.WjglOD-Wzct

Isn't adultery one of the 10 commandments?

Thall shall not commit adultery. Doesn't that make it a sin no matter whether either party is harmed or not? In the Clinton case, Id say the girls were harmed, quite badly and the kicker is that the bitch Hillary was the biggest perpetrator. At the very least Lewinskys dress was probably ruined!

As for the Las Cruces, that's just stupid. The atheists took it to far. Its no different than trying to change all the sports teams names from indian names or tearing down all the Civil War southern statues or banning the Southern flag. All that is just SJW being idiots.

And yet David had 300 wives, God knows how many concubines, and was a favored son of God.

And David sent a man to the front lines to die so that David could bed his wife.  And all God did was send a prophet (Nathan) to chastise him with a punishment that his oldest son would nail his wives later. (2 Samuel 11 and 12)

The only way this is possible is if the definition of adultery has changed to more accurately reflect the society it is used in.  Which it has.

For to be honest, back then Adultery meant only a wife did not have sex out of wedlock.  Which is where David messed up.  Not only in killing off Uriah (which harmed him) but in refusing the bloodline (The greater issue to God back then)

If her husband died before they could create children, then the widow could mate with her brother in law... which points out the need of bloodlines back then.

For it would harm the family if she mated outside of the family and create a child.

This is why I have concluded that the biblical use of adultery is to avoid causing harm to others.

Think about it.  Lots Daughters deceived him into having sex with them.  Genesis 19:33  That's far worse and their offspring led to become nations god would use against isreal when he needed them.

Today we utilize the word adultery to suggest any sex outside of wedlock causes harm so should be avoided.

But that is more because society has changed since back then.

This is one of the plethora of reasons why I will point out that it says very clearly, 'Judgement is mine sayeth the lord'.  For we as humans redefine things on a whim then apply it to the teachings of the bible.  And then are surprised when it no longer makes sense.

Sounds like a justification of the inherent hypocrisy and contradiction of the bible to me.

Because you did not stop and think about it.  On its surface it does look like that until you realize it is a lesson in humility.

For me, I will not do such because to do such would harm my wife.
My kids.
And that is without having an idea of what it would do to the female I did it with.

So for me, it keeps my focus on what is important to me.  My family.

Furthermore, it removes it from the realm of the hear and now which is so often the cause of adultery as we know it.

As long as I look at it as a function of what it would do to those I love.  It never gets even close to being a possible thing to me.

to deny her place within that part of my life is to deny her me.  So for me it is far more profound.  And far more effective then to just say it not right to do it.

FOR THEN I cast judgement on an entire slew of people I love and do so negatively, and that's not my place.

Thats cool. Whats even more interesting about your stance is that you base your actions upon your own moral standard and do not just rely on some dusty book to dictate to you what is moral and what is not moral. I for one think that almost every human I have ever encountered possess an innate higher moral standard by far than the God of the bible. Those that buy into that bibles crap wholesale and put it higher than that internal standard are just in denial. If they were to truly take an honest look at the incredible amount of immorality and double standard dealing of their God they would be shocked into appalled silence.

That right there is the very problem we have in this day and age.

Too much negativity, not enough objectivity.

The bible is the accounting of human beings and how they live their lives.  The teachings from the bible which can be attributed to God is really a fraction of the total work.

As a parent, I read the bible from the position of a child who has children who all think they know better, but like you did, don't stop all the time to learn.

The reactions that we see come from God.  (Flood, Sodom and Gamorrah, etc) are the actions of a parent utilizing their abilities to teach... sometimes the lesson is not always fathomed and so he corrects.

My dad has done a lot of things bad in his life.  But always for the right reasons.
He probably should not have punched me twice in the face when I was 17... I will tell you I darn sure deserved it for stealing his car.

He probably should not have grabbed that marine by his shirt and dragged him out of the car and beat him.  I know the marines wife was way OK with not getting beaten by the marine any longer.

The thing is... I would say the same thing about Mein Kompf, the necronomicon, Koran, and any other form of journalism out there.

When you limit your intake, regardless from the source, you take a conscious step to refuse data.

Yes that is my own moral standard, but the standard was initially derived from the bible... and found true in my own personal walk through life. 

Where I will disagree with you that far, their is one place that you are spot on.

We all... regardless of what we read, hear, or learn, have our own moral code.  And it will always be better for that individual then any one publication fits all.  Reality is no human being can live the life the bible says we should... we just can't.

That does not put it on a higher scale anymore then a lower one.  It is simply a single morality code which is attributed to God.  Which he himself has to alter so that he can still deal with us.

For to be honest, if God himself followed the morality of the bible... we would be extinct as a species.

So an argument can be made ours is better for it is tailor made to each of us.  And he does have to not follow it periodically... thankfully.

It just fascinates me that people can be so against the bible.
I myself was like that for 35 years of my life...

Then I read it once.

Cover to cover.  And it changed the way I looked at it.

It did so because I stopped relying upon others interpretations (be them people against it or for it... all mess it up) and started focusing on my own.

Well I don’t feel I was being negative. In fact I think I am being more objective than most others in my view of the bible.
 
The bible is not a simple accounting of humans, it is touted as the actual word and law of God, cover to cover. I think you are minimalizing that point so you can make yours.
 
As for reading it as a child would read it, well I would never punish my children infinitely for finite crimes, I would never destroy my children for bad behavior and I would never lock them in the basement and torture them endlessly because they said they didn’t accept my views.
 
The data is corrupted in the Bible. It is supposed to be the word of God who is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. He foresaw every event to ever happen and yet he still chose to torture. That is in his character – not compassion but cruelty.
 
I also spent many years trying to understand the ways of Christianity. I used to be told constantly I was a failure as a wife because I was not living up to the standard of what a Christian wife should be. I was not subservient enough and I was not silent in church and I was not obedient and that was why I failed. I struggled with this for many years, struggling to be better, something desirable, something honorable.
 
I finally stopped struggling and gave myself over in frustration. At that point I dedicated myself to learning the ways of Christianity and not questioning. It was when I finally did this, learned the ways of the Christian faith, studied the bible from cover to cover that I finally realized the true horror contained within its pages. I was worshiping a God that was a monster. It started my journey to where I am now.
 
It was not a journey that came without fear though. For years after my indoctrination I was terrified I had done horrible things, I was ashamed of who I had been and yet terrified at the prospect of the changes that were happening inside me. It was only after years that I broke those chains of slavery and became a free, whole and healthy individual, not ashamed of who I am or what I believe. No more FEAR. Never again.

Having a pagan as a wife has given me quite a different perspective then other Christians and it pains me to see this was done to you.

And I am sorry if I came off as judgemental.  I did judge you had not read the bible, and I was inaccurate in that. 

And no, I will not try to alter your perception of it.  You are set and have found a way that works. 

But when I speak of negativity, like I said about the Koran and the Necronomicon.  Looking at them as negative, you will find negativity, same with the bible. 

You dislike it for how it was used against you and I can't deny you that. 

What turned me away from it for so long, when I was a boy we used to go to church.  Then one day we went without my dad... who had to go to work a second job.

The preacher asked my mom where he was.  To Which she responded he was at work, to which he responded that this was not the Christian thing to do...

So we left (To this day I doubt he never understood he said that while he was working).

So I get it.  I remember telling army buddies how if I went to church I had to take my sleeping bag.  So I could then be sacreligious.

It wasn't until I looked at it without the influence of the world around me that I could then appreciate it... and to be honest I spent a long time comparing it to what others had told me.

So no, I am not going to sit here and tell you anything except for that in reading it, it has helped me. 

I will also say what I do know about you, you are a good person.  I like debating you because we both have different perspectives and yet seem to come together mentally on a few subjects. 

So in that, I spend time learning how you got there... I figure you know how you will go from here... so it isn't for me to point that out to you.

Im glad you find value in it. I know it has great potential for inspiration. But it also has great potential for control and destruction. For those reasons it is one of the most powerful tools ever to be fashioned on this earth. The problem lies when people fail to see that or see that too well and use it against others.

Religion in general has that potential I think. Its fear of the unknown, fear of being different or not accepted. When you can find the strength to face that and turn that fear into acceptance it becomes power as well, but it is a power over yourself, and that is the greatest power of all because it leads to freedom.

Freedom of mind is no freedom at all. It leads to choice, which was always free. But, you still pay the price to exercise it. There is no freedom; there is only liking the bondage or not.

"This is the threat to our lives. We all face it. We all operate in our society in relation to a system. Now is the system going to eat you up and relieve you of your humanity or are you going to be able to use the system to human purposes? … If the person doesn't listen to the demands of his own spiritual and heart life and insists on a certain program, you're going to have a schizophrenic crack-up. The person has put himself off center. He has aligned himself with a programmatic life and it's not the one the body's interested in at all. And the world's full of people who have stopped listening to themselves." Joseph Campbell

Quite inescapable regardless of the tapestries.

David wrote:Freedom of mind is no freedom at all. It leads to choice, which was always free. But, you still pay the price to exercise it. There is no freedom; there is only liking the bondage or not.

Maybe I missed something but this makes no sense to me? Freedom of mind leads to choice but that is not freedom at all because it has consequences?

Can you not chose the method of bondage or not through this mechanism and as long as you are willing to accept the consequences choose no bondage at all? Is this not freedom?


 No matter what the body experiences we are not our bodies, we are our spirits and if that is free, nothing can touch me. I do as I please. I think this is really a basic difference in our philosophies and one of the reasons I have hesitated to take our interactions to a deeper level.





I believe in an internal component to my existence that needs nurtured and you do not seem to?

There is no need for agreement to take it as deep as you can, my friend. In my past I have experienced levels of freedom that most people can only fantasize about. I am here now, speaking from experience - not theory.

Micheal knows better than freedom also. XOXO

My burden is easy and my yoke is light. Be good little boys and girls and you might get ran up a flag pole like papa J.

Freedom is a self deceiving tool designed to make it easier for one to subjugate themselves to another.

Take your nurturing.  Nothing wrong with it at all.

But with respect to freedom, it takes away from it.  When the need arises, you have to take care of it, you see freedom in it, but it does take away from your ability to do as you like.

That isn't freedom, but is a choice you have made in order to feel free.

But please, do not take this as a rebuke or disagreement.  I have many things I do so that I can feel a certain way. 

I go to work because I like the financial ability to do as I like.  This is a choice we all make where we loose freedom willingly in order to gain a perceived benefit.  But it is pure denial to think making an agreement with an employee to own a period of your time is freedom.

So instead of focusing on that, we free ourselves of that burden and focus on the good that money will do for us.

And I reiterate, this is not a bad thing at all.  We do this constantly.  Give up A so we can have B.

The worst times in my life have been when I allowed myself to be as free as I can be.  Some of the best times have been in that as well.  But the truly rewarding parts of my life have came when I regimented my life in detail.

Not to mention, its amazing what you learn about yourself when you set limits upon yourself then watch how you react to them.

For my natural tendency is to challenge myself.  So when I limit myself, I get to watch to see how I accept that challenge and overcome it.

I nurtured my spirit until it swole like a tick.
I exercised my mind until thoughts evade me like rats.
I spoke until I had nothing left to say.
I meditated until music became the silence between notes, and I the doorway between the abyss and sensation.

I am up for whatever. Especially chocolate chip cookies still warm from the oven.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/20/california-teen-says-had-booze-filled-sex-romps-with-married-english-teacher-cops-say.html

Here is an example of what I mean.

Forget that this is illegal and that the woman is being brought up on charges.  It is a classic example of thinking one is free... and yet she is very captive to her needs.

This is a type of freedom not needed for it harms another who does not know any better by a woman... who also does not know any better.  For she lacked the personal introspection to avoid something which would lead to negativity within her life.

I mean really... her husband at current has full custody of their children because of this.  I know how this affects women and that it harms them more. 

But she will argue that she just wanted to be free. 

Freedom is anything but free.


To be clear... the argument for freedom or regimentality of life is not the discussion.  Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

It is knowing the totality of effect your actions will have which is important.  I personally think the best life is lived by those who can regiment or be free at will.  But it is a conscious effort, not a need for one or the other.

First off, not sure why the last part of my text got super big, lol   - stupid phone. If an admin wants to fix it, feel free.

Secondly, I think there is a difference between discipline and freedom. In the case of money, yes of course we give of our freedom in order to gain something. But that sacrifice is a choice just as much as any other. We could just as easily choose to rob banks to get money, or go prospecting in the mountains. Its not the sacrifice that takes our freedom, our freedom is a result of the choice we have.

But do we just make the first choice that comes to mind just because it sounds yummy? Its much easier to rob a bank than to work 8 hours a day for money. Sounds great lets do that! No, that's not the way we operate because there are consequences for our choices. If we do not take the time to contemplate those consequences and the inherent risk for our potential choices then we are fools. This is introspection. Am I willing to accept those consequences or am I better served to make a different sacrifice in my choice.

I see freedom in this double sided context. We can do anything we want if we are free but how free we want to be is our ultimate choice. When that choice is taken away by an abuse of power through implied or direct force or coercion or indoctrination, we need the ability to recognize those things and it then becomes the choice to accept or not. Freedom is not a physical thing, it is a thing born of self awareness and self knowledge through constant internal introspection and external challenge both.

In your last example Micheal, that is an example of the use of those techniques I described by the teacher against the student. Her choice to use those to violate his freedoms without being willing to accept the consequences. Her job was to protect him and she took advantage of that trust and abused her power.