Saturday, November 24, 2012

RE: "The Cost of Justice: The Psychology of the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Part 1" (Psychology Today article)

This film is so often associated with women's rights issues, but I think it's so much bigger than that. I have personally been able to identify with the title character more than I do with most movies I see. I can't say I've ever felt sexually victimized (not directly, anyway) ... I also can't say I'm a woman - and yet in the scene they reference here from the film, I was practically cheering along during the scene where Lisbeth avenges the rapist. So why is that?

It must be fundamentally the same experience -- the sense of (near-absolute) powerlessness with which we both have become far too familiar -- that has made her character so profoundly relatable for me.

The Cost of Justice: The Psychology of the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Part 1 | Psychology Today

When we speak of powerlessness, we have to first identify "power." I tend to perceive power in terms of impact (my go-to is quantifiable terms; so maybe that's just me.) Physics equations aside, impact here might be descriptive, a "how" or "what"; or it may in itself be a value measure, a "how much", "how big", "how many", "to what extent", etc.
(The irony of the ostensible parallel between the last sentence, and the notion of a "vector" vs. a "scalar" quantity in physics and other such disciplines, is duly noted.) ;-)

Impact in this context is of a social persuasion. Descriptively, social impact might be seen in its effect on people. Purely quantitatively ("prescriptively"?) it might be a matter of scale of a population. Combining the two, we might find the extent of the effect on people ("how much is it influencing others"/"to what extent were people moved by it?")

This might be because, as I understand "the human condition" and all that fun stuff, our entire species thrives on social prosperity, (inter)connection, and cooperation. (To refute much/most/all of this would require an inordinate and unreasonable deal of refutation, as we would have to explain away things like "friendship", telephones, the internet, why 99.9% of us are weirded out by necrophiliacs...or perhaps just the idea of "necrophilia", because, hate the game, not the player, and all that. ;-) ) For instance, it kind of irritates me that "necrophilia" and "necrophiliac" both are, evidently, "officially" acceptable words in the English language. This is probably because "weirded" (as with much terminology that is deemed "colloquial"), is, evidently, not also an "officially acceptable word in the English language." What is official, it seems, tends to be formal; what is unofficial is usually considered "informal", or "colloquial." And further, what is informal or colloquial, is usually dismissed as unfounded, based on ignorance, perhaps even immature--and subsequently, less "valid."

To say this might present a problem in family dynamics with respect to children/upbringing, would be a vast understatement.

In effect, one must learn to work within a system in order to truly work against or above it.

If you find yourself, however, in a system wherein you recurrently are in situations that have you thinking, "holy shit, society's been fucking me up! TIME TO FUCK SOME SHIT UP!!" --what, then?

Well, fundamentally, you're quite possibly in a last-resort scenario. "Fight-to-the-death", in other words. "Either I stab your back, or you stab mine."

The dark nature of much of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo lies in the fact that there is a zero-sum survival component inherent in a last-resort, duel-type battle like this. (That's probably why duels are kind of outlawed now. Although that's a whole other issue of "over-formalizing", given that we are all still intrinsically built to duel in a Final Death Round, if our life could be saved by it.)

Justice is always going to have a "cost", because its nature is one of reciprocity. It may look "costly", certainly, when it becomes a battle to the death--although, it is costly descriptively; that is, only insofar as we (humanity) deem each individual life to be valuable.

The cost-benefit balance here, as far as Lisbeth can see, is quite possibly "rape or get raped." (Or, in more abstract terms, "screw over, or be screwed over.") Seemingly, it would make sense that if one had been screwed over countless times in their (relatively short) lifetime, to such an extent that they've ended up homeless, jobless, penniless, perhaps without food or clothing, declared legally insane, possibly repeatedly abused in any way (physical, sexual, emotional, and so on)--and by extension of all of the above, had to fight to survive in spite of all this--the best decision may very well have been a "two wrongs make a right" one. Because as far as she was concerned, the "wrongs" were many, far more than two-- the "right" though, was her own life and dignity.
(Obviously, anyone can use this premise to justify being a "two wrongs make a right" maniac; I'm not saying this in itself is justified, rather that if your life depends on it...whatever "it" may be, it is justified, by definition.)

Personally, I've never gotten that far to the extreme end of "survivalist" lifestyle and mentality, but I've gotten close enough to have at least many aspects of the latter. The "aspects" here refer to mainly an over(t)ly defensive, vengeful, short-fused, brooding mindset, at least sufficient for me to be secretly "applauding" the life-death, "costly" course of action in question.

Monday, July 9, 2012

"Bottom-Up" or "grassroots" Social Darwinism (warning: the cynical content may break your balls, or your wimpy little heart, or something. Reader discretion is advised.)

(Or, "Natural Selection, thou art a heartless bitch, why the hell won't anyone leave you alone?!?")

I realize what I am about to say is probably going to make me sound sociopathic, but, guess what? I don't give two fucks. :D

"Social Darwinism" is usually defined in terms of law, or in terms of public policy that intends to resemble the "laws" of natural selection, in its original, biological conception. The problem I personally have with this, essentially a moral one, is that this is basically the creation and self-imposition of a megalomaniacal God Complex onto all involved policymakers. All it is really, is a replacement for the archaic beliefs of oppressive, persecutory monarchies and their belief of divine right of kings. Except we're replacing religion as justification for such an abuse of power and a totalitarian regime (yes, that is all this is) with a "scientific" one.

I do think that the best way to strive for "perfection" in society is through what can essentially be described as Social Darwinism; however, I am a total hard-ass about it, that is really the only difference here.

At first glance people seem to have this idea that if authority is doing it, it must be good. Or more specifically, that if authority is actively striving for a greater cause, i.e. improving the "human condition", it is morally justifiable, morally right... humane. I don't think I need to get into all the problems we as a species have encountered historically under the rule of authority figures who became a little too passionate about "betterment of the human race."

I firmly believe that yes, the "weaker" members of society should be essentially "weeded out", just not using any sort of force or coercion of authority! Tell me -- what is worse, as far as immorality goes? Action, or inaction?

Most people I'm sure, if asked that question independent of any context, would answer that of course action that is immoral is far worse than no action at all. So were we to just "leave" people to "fail" (i.e. die?), it seems impossible that this is immoral, at least in comparison with using coercive force of government who are already sticking their megalomania way too far up society's uninformatively consenting asses....

People seem to think they have a moral obligation to help others in need, even if it's some anonymous, faceless "other" halfway around the world they've never even met, or spoken to (or probably is unable to speak to due to something called language barriers.)

They most certainly do not. Your moral obligations begin and end with the consequences of your own actions on others. Please enlighten me and tell me how I am responsible in any way for, say, starving children in an underdeveloped region of the world?


So what the fuck are you gonna do about it?? Well, it seems like what has been done is to force people --  after deceptively convincing them that they are morally obligated to feed starving children whose source of nourishment they personally never took away from them -- to burden themselves with the rest of the world's problems. Well, you know what? Third-world starvation is not MY fucking problem. I've got my own damn problems to fix. Everyone does. Get your head out your ass and stop trying to be the Good Samaritan all the time, at every damn turn you take in life. There's a point where it becomes masochistic, not to mention turns people into sadists who get off on watching others in pain, with the exception of those they've been morally guilt-tripped by political indoctrination into dedicating all of their souls to....

People seem to be shocked by my lack of "empathy", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, so I will repeat: Human pain and suffering, poverty, starvation, and on and on.. are not my personal moral obligation to fix, so long as I am not personally responsible for such pain and suffering. If I WANT to be altruistic, I can be, anyone can be, but not without INFORMED CONSENT.

We are so damned obsessed with the idea of "informed consent" as far as things like consenting to sex, or medical treatment (sometimes..), so why the hell do we give authority the right to rape us all of human dignity and mental clarity, of our ability to make our own judgments and moral decisions?

If our ancient human and "pre"-human ancestors ever had exploitative, manipulative, and deceptive rulers usingn thought control to fulfill their own corrupted self-righteous indignations... it would never have been the strongest that survived. It would've been whoever the fuck these damn sick, twisted motherfuckers that cavemen were taking it up the ass for whilst simultaneously putting them on a pedestal.. it would've been whoever THEY deemed "fittest" to survive, whether that be only one of the two biological sexes (along the vein of "kill all female babies" type of mentality, but in prehistoric context), only those of certain skin colours, only couples who were as tall as one another were "fit" to cohabitate in a cave and fuck each other lest we end up with inferior babies whose heights are inappropriate... you name it, who the hell knows what they could've come up with, and perfectly brainwashed everyone into believing to be just and moral at the time for the "betterment" of everyone. And ultimately, that really could've have fucked us all up in some very disturbing ways, as we stand (in all senses of the word) as a species today, if that's how it'd gone down.

Tell me that viscerally, you do not feel that type of thinking is fucked up.

There is nothing morally wrong with letting the "unfit" fail. There's nothing wrong with wanting to help them, either. But using coercive force, deception, social manipulation, and the like, to manipulate people into truly, wholeheartedly believing they are entirely, personally, morally responsible for all the wrongdoing that goes on in the world? That is absolutely fucking morally abhorrent.

Update (11/24/2012): I was not suggesting that it's okay to "leave people to die", or " the dust", or what have you, because they just are somehow disadvantaged severely. Everyone is somehow "disadvantaged"; the problem with our collective mentality ("consciousness"; at least in America, at least this century...) is the idea that we can preemptively cover ours and everyone else's asses, if we have not done so preventatively. 

Preemptive action suggests we know exactly what's happened, to an extent that is sufficient to universally implement it. Slippery slope and I'm not saying this to be all "DARE TO FEAR THE REAPER AND DIE!", but isn't this the same premise, conceptually, that underlies eugenics? ("Social Darwinian Extremism"?) Nobody to this day, in the course of human history, knew enough about an extensive issue to such a degree (i.e., all that is human) that justifies "covering" it in execution.
Otherwise, Jesus would've been a dictator.*

In other words, what is ethically questionable, is implementing (executing) something, some sort of prescriptive/mandate (e.g., a "law"), that applies equally to "everyone", because we supposedly know enough about it that we can say it will exclude no one. This is so profoundly dangerous, as is anything so perfunctory: it tends to follow, practically speaking, that if even an individual case arises in which someone expresses (or attempts to do so) a countering position that "this rule doesn't seem to apply to me-- and here is why..." the case (and the person who dared to raise it) is dismissed, marginalized, ridiculed, condemned, ostracized, socially disposed of, and/or belittled to such an extent that any resulting negative consequences in said individual's own life/lifetime become (mis)attributed as a personal weakness (needless to say, this is counterproductive, and ultimately, socially destructive), or other negative quality ascribed to said individual. To the extent that whatever we implemented and declared "universal", was not universal, this is a self-perpetuated, downward spiral. The preventive action comes in, in our ability to recognize when we are wrong; identify our own margin of error before it actualizes and leads us (usually) to self-righteous delusions.

What stands out about human evolution is our brains look like those of gorillas, but on steroids. If we need to preempt anything, it's that we don't lose our high reasoning ability (and likely, with it, anything else that is exclusive to this species.) For example:

I. Knowledge is power.
II. Power is evil.
Conclusion: Knowledge is the root of all evil.

Only humans know how to do that... for least in theory...


*Not a religious statement; theoretically, when we think of a "Christ-figure", all personal faith(s) aside.... that's all I was getting at.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

“My Body, My Choice”, My Ass! (The Lattermost of Which I Can, in Theory, Cover in Piercings if I So Desired….)

I don’t watch the news -- at least, I don’t ‘watch’ what is conventionally referred to as ‘news’, which is broadcast via television – due to my being very highly susceptible to intermittent explosive disorder triggered by such hogwash. Ironically, a recent study indicates that American adults remain highly skeptical of their news sources, which is usually a good thing – skepticism was the meat and potatoes of the Age of Enlightenment and (the development of) the scientific method – except that the skepticism is mostly towards internet news sources, not mainstream news broadcast networks. WHAT?!



…Aaaaannywho, that’s a rant for another post, I suppose. This is about the fact that I overheard probably not even 30 seconds of a news story over 5 hours ago, and my pissed-off-ness is still sizzling under the surface. Like a steak at Sizzler. Except probably a burnt one, by the time it stops sizzling.
It was a story about the following, summarized today by the Associated Press, and Wall Street Journal Online:
ALBANY, N.Y. — New York lawmakers have passed legislation that would require minors to get parental consent for body piercings other than their ears..
Sponsors say that about a third of people with piercings get them before they turn 18, and complications like allergic reactions, skin infections, scars and discomfort are common.
Some piercing studios currently require written consent for minors. The law would require owners or operators to get a signed parental consent and keep that on file for a year.
Sen. Joe Robach (ROH'-bahk), a Rochester Republican and sponsor, says he believes the new requirement will be supported by parents across the state.
The bill goes to Gov. Andrew Cuomo for signing or veto. A spokesman says Wednesday that Cuomo hasn't yet taken a position on the bill.

—Copyright 2012 Associated Press
Before I proceed to further bash the Pathetic State of (what is supposedly) My Species, at least from a Western 21st Century societal perspective, I would like to also make note of Wikipedia’s information about what is referred to as “bodily integrity”:
Bodily integrity is a concept that refers to the inviolability of the physical body. It emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. It considers the violation of bodily integrity as an unethical infringement, intrusive and possibly criminal….
The Human Rights and Constitutional Rights project, funded by Columbia Law School, has defined four main areas of potential bodily integrity abuse by governments. These are: Right to Life, Slavery and Forced Labor, Security of One’s Person, Torture and Inhumane, Cruel or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Two key international documents protect these rights: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
So. Huh. While political activism is busy arguing and playing blame-games over the question of at which point in human gestation an embryo and/or fetus is determined to be characteristically, definitely, scientifically, morally, philosophically, whatever, human; and while many are ruthlessly, perhaps passionately, fighting for pro-choice-esque legislation from a more modest perspective – specifically, that female minors who seek abortion should be required to obtain parental consent to do so – we nonchalantly have a state (NY) passing legislation that would require minors to obtain parental consent for any bodily piercings besides their ears. Not as huge I guess, as a metaphysical question of whether or not a prenatal life is in fact a human one that has been granted all possible rights that all post-natal human beings have been assumed to have; it is nonetheless, the same ethical question re: bodily integrity. Only reason it receives less dissension, it seems, is because political activism is more concerned with an issue's emotional burden than the principle behind the very arguments made by said activists (hypothetical ones, that is.) It also implies that all bodily piercings other than those on the ears are questionable in taste, which, in keeping with the theme of comparison to bodily integrity as applied to 'women's rights' (or whatever you want to call the abortion-related stuff), as I see it is kind of like saying: "A woman looking to purchase a prom dress in high school, if at the time under the age of 18, by law must provide the store of purchase with parental consent, if she decides to purchase a dress of X shade of red, or black, e.g.; if she is to purchase a dress of less than X hem-length, or with more than Y skin showing of the lower limbs (aka legs, primarily upper region/thighs); or if she is to purchase a dress that exposes X amount of cleavage, or showing greater than or equal to Y precentage of tit...."

Ask any feminist male or female who is beyond reasonable doubt, mentally functional and rational, and who does not hate members of the latter sex collectively, and they will tell you how fucking ridiculously laughable the above legislation sounds. So how is it any different to legislate where and at what age it is of reasonable 'taste' (whatever the fuck that means...I have yet to write about that topic!) to put holes in your body that are put there artificially? 

Another analogy would be the fiasco that is the political controversy aurrounding male circumcision. Again -- that has become a big, controversial political mess, as has the abortion thing; female circumcision is outright considered inhumane and taboo; so, again -- this begs the question, how is this really any different, other than in the fact it is simply less emotionally weighted? How is this really any different in principle?

Umm… okay, all you mature, responsible, 13, 14…17-year-old teens in New York State (assuming you still actually exist and I’m not having a conversation akin to those of the main protagonists in films like Black Swan or Snake Pit): if Mr. A. Cuomo does not veto this piece of shit legislation, good luck going to your parents any time before your 18th birthday, and being all, “hey, can you sign this consent form for me so I can get my clit/dick/nipples pierced?” That’ll be a highly amusing scenario to hear about repeatedly on, for instance, social media outlets. 

Here’s the problem I have with this, and it’s a lot less to do with abortion and pierced genitals or assholes or whatever else, than with the arbitrariness of this type of legislation (not that it’s the only type that reeks of arbitrary power!) And by “arbitrariness”, I am referring to the rationale (or, maybe irrationale….how is that not a real word in the English language, when one based on a term like ‘rational’ is??) for this kind of legislation. At its core, politics is really just morality. All political debates, or at least any of substance, are fundamentally disagreements over moral philosophy, ethics, etc. Now is probably a good time to reiterate an important part of the concept of “bodily integrity”: “…It considers the violation of bodily integrity as an unethical infringement…”  

Now, under the assumption that political controversy and disagreement are in fact all moral in nature, why are we asking that minors be required by (state) law to obtain consent for all bodily piercings that are not on the ears? Because it’s immoral? Exactly what/where is the limit of personal choice to which those not of legal age of majority under the law, cannot consent? 

Hmmmm…. the infamous grey area of moral politics we meet once again (it should probably start being called the ‘G-spot.’) I did some quasi-research on this issue in question*, and the statements below (from the URL as cited) are so far,  I think, the most reasonable evaluations of such matters:
The majority of modification related legislation has little to do with speech or expression in its content or intent. Along with many school level bans it is claimed that the motivation is one of public health and safety. And while many people, modified and not, will support such measures as requiring autoclave testing, gloves, courses in cross contamination and the like it remains to be shown that it is the responsibility and province of the government to put such regulations into place. Such regulations can make the process of getting tattoos or piercings safer but they are also very often used to promote the interests of certain parties or views (i.e. manufacturers of certain products being mandated into use, requiring certifications and memberships from specific associations, or effectively banning tattooing by requiring it be done by a doctor or with a doctor in attendance).
The government is not concerned with your health and well being as a matter of altruism. It is only concerned with your condition to the extent that a cattle rancher cares about the health of any individual or group of cows within his herd. And much like the rancher, the government takes action to regulate the procedures and hazards to which you are exposed because it owns you and feels that it is simply maintaining and protecting its property.
You are government property. They have laid claim to you as possession and currency. The slogans may read 'Hearts and Minds' but it is the ass they're really after….
…As such, governments are committed to the management and exploitation of this resource… However, none will abide the population willfully making its own decisions on matters that affect their value as a resource. Think of the rancher analogy and imagine what steps would be taken towards cattle that display self-destructive or herd disruptive behavior. Now consider government attitudes and actions towards …to a lesser extent…many ritual body practices and body modification…Look at the abortion debates, the bottom line has always been one of the government is going to decide what women can legally do with their bodies. The argument of whether or not a procedure is allowed only logically follows after it is conceded that the government gets to make that choice and they get to make that choice because they are the ones that own the bodies.
* 'quasi-research' by my own personal self-qualifications, means that I cannot claim to have actually ‘researched’ the topic, as I did not seek out peer-reviewed (academic) publications as my primary source of reference on the topic – I simply sought out what I considered to be the best information/analysis on the topic, a judgment which is relatively subjective in nature; In everyday terms, it basically means I did a ‘normal’ Google/internet search.
Granted, yes, this does come off as basically an anarchistic view of governmental institutions and the roles they play. However, if you are amongst the majority of us who believe there is a purpose for a governmental entity in civilized society (presumably; but presumably this is not highly presumptuous a claim to make, nevertheless), it is not any less reasonable a position. If you think about it, what we commonly hear referred to as a “constitutional protection”, or, less often, a “negative freedom” – i.e., a right to freedom from governmental coercion to concede (a) right(s) to government – is essentially a means of maximizing our protection from being treated like (dehumanized) herds of cattle in line for the meat packing plants. Or, on the other side of the same coin, it’s a minimization of governmental power that can potentially be utilized for this purpose. The line between order and abuse of power, between civilized, prosperous society and tyranny (in essence, mass disorder and destruction from the top down), is so small, fragile, sneaky, absolute, and thusly un-G-spot-like, that we need law and order to protect not only law and order in itself, but the abuse of it by its makers. 
The latter is exactly what this body modification bullshit is all about. If there is any reason to think otherwise, I am yet to be enlightened.

Post-Script: Please note, I am neither a minor, a hardcore fan of body modification, prospects to become such, an advocate of piercings of publicly concealed body parts in particular, nor a woman or anyone who has ever had any personal involvement with, relation to, or acquaintance of a woman seeking out services for abortion, minor or otherwise.* I have ear piercings (count of 2 total), by choice, I got them both before I was 18 and my parents paid for it. My personal issue therefore in this situation has nothing to do with me, personally, at all. It is rather, a simple matter of principle, and in believing in a civilized society that is characteristically principled (perhaps that is too much to ask of Homo sapiens in this day and age, though.)

*And by that I mean family members, friends, peers, etc.; get your demoralized mind out of the gutter!  ;)

Like Freedom? Thank A Scientist - How Science Made America Possible

This; this is what my creating this blog was all about. This is what (I believe at present) my life and career pursuits are all about.
*time travels back to the Age of Reason*

Like Freedom? Thank A Scientist - How Science Made America Possible

Gotta jump her bonesssss  at the opportunity to increase the credbility of your viewpoints with a hottie whenever possible. And I mean, c'mon, this one's fucking scorching!!

Monday, June 11, 2012

"Lay Scientific Literacy" and Conspiracy Theory

Taking this test on "" about "Lay-Scientific Literacy"...thought I'd share the (somewhat) tongue-in-cheek cynical, snidy remark I made when I answered this question:

Interesting to think about, where does skepticism cross the line from scientific skepticism to supernatural conspiracy theorist delusion?

Because apparently, I am following a similar line of thought to conspiracy theorists who think vaccines are a way of the government making us all mentally ill so they can control us. But yet I think that to hold such an idea, you must be delusional. There is no evidence for it, scientifically, therefore to me it would come off as paranoia. On the other hand, I'm sure I can come up with sufficient evidence to at least support my own suspicions that, consciously or not, psychiatrists, medical clinicians more generally, the media, and pharmaceutical industries (who are, naturally, in bed with the FDA and in turn probably do influence public policy through the same corrupt bribery that's rampant on Wall Street, led to the housing "bubble" collapse, etc.), to name a few, are probably doing just what that answer choice was describing.

So the way I see it, I guess, the line is just based on the evidence. If you can be paranoid and justify your paranoia with evidence, it is realistic enough to be paranoid. I mean, if you think about it, just the term "brainwashing" sounds like it's coming from a paranoid mindset. ;)

Friday, June 8, 2012

The Donnas vs. Feminism, and Control Issues

Tantalizing Question: If a woman “can’t say no”, when (and why) does this constitute rape?

You’d think this has an obvious answer. Well if you are using the philosophy of predominating modern-day feminist perspectives, you’d be wrong. See the “obvious” answer would be something like “of course it’s rape, when she is unable to give consent!”

But in the context in which I came up with this question, equating “unable to give consent” with “can’t say no”, is essentially saying that men in such situations have magical powers over women, with which they are able to render women unable to think clearly, appropriately inhibit their thoughts and/or behaviours, and subconsciously coerce them into consenting to something they otherwise would not. And this is assuming both parties in the scenario are completely sober.

Considering the context, though, it is likely there was some amount of alcohol involved, which makes answering this question even more unclear!

The Donnas, who people probably would sooner identify with feminism than “versus” it, have a song by the title “Like An Animal.” Repeatedly this song makes mention of someone (a female) who “can’t say no” and “lose[s] control.” The question of whether alcohol was involved is not yet relevant here. What is important is the fact the song as a whole has got absolutely NOTHING to do with regrettable, let alone nonconsensual, sexual encounters. Quite the opposite!

So what I’ve deduced from this information, with my tiny, sex-obsessed, useless man-brain… ;) is that the hypothetical female narrative in this scenario would not think the “inability” to “say no”, nor the loss of control, to be negative on her part. The entire theme of the song in fact seems to be essentially celebrating a situation (a sexual one) involving lowered inhibitions, a lack of self-control, heightened impulsivity and, of course, primal thought processes (oh, hey, kind of like a man’s!) :)

This is what leads me to think that the idea of “a woman having lowered inhibitions = rape, regardless of whether or not the man also had lowered inhibitions”, is pretty much total bullshit. And the “pretty much” is really only in there to account for things like unconsciousness. In cases of consciousness/coherence on the part of the woman, it is simply total bullshit. Further, it leads me to think that the reason intoxication of the woman (whether by a man, or by herself) in a sexual encounter came to be, by its very nature, definitive of rape, is because of feminists who have control issues. Or, to be more specific, they may have a more submissive side to their sexuality than they deem acceptable, and feel effectively victimized by this—by their own sexuality! Tsk tsk… that’s “female empowerment” for ya.

It’s funny, because the way men are often demonized by these very same control freak-types, is by characterizing them in the same way: impulsive, with no self-control, unable to say no, etc., in sexual scenarios. In fact, I’d argue that one of the foundations of feminist theory, at least as it is today, is about controlling this aspect of male sexuality. This would explain why in situations where a man has (god forbid!) a decent amount of self-control, inhibition, etc., feminist “types” (i.e., anyone of this mentality, whether they self-identify as a feminist or not) will ultimately have to resort to guilt-tripping (“you must not love me”; “you aren’t attracted to me anymore”/”you think I’m fat!”;”why, what did I do wrong?”, etc.); ad-hominem attacks, often aimed at the infamous “male ego” (“hey, not my problem you can’t get it up!”); or the gay card (“I should’ve known any man who wasn’t a total creeper only appears that way because he’s focusing his creeping on huge cock!”)

It’s the same insecurity at play as with (speaking of gay men…) homophobes who keep themselves distracted from their own homosexuality by making fun of it in others (often, where it likely is nonexistent, or something exaggerated upon to seem quasi-existent.) By ridiculing the man’s poor impulse control or ability to “say no” to sex (again, often nonexistent faults anyway), the control freak feminist-minded won’t have to face their own insecurities with such “faults” in themselves. And I am using quotes for a reason – somehow these sort of characteristics of submissiveness are by definition faulty, because feminism has no place for a submissive woman! (And, by extension, a dominant man, because “dominant man” is obviously just a friendly euphemism for “rapist.”)

And this is the crux of it all; this is why The Donnas are blatantly anti-feminist, why potentially ANY woman who has written lyrical content of a similar nature is blatantly anti-feminist; this is why there are clearly huge problems with conflating “can’t say no” with rape: feminism by its nature does not allow for submissiveness and empowerment to co-exist. At least, in this variation of “submissiveness”, i.e., concession of most inhibition and/or higher rational thought to lust. The difference here is that unlike men (and unlike the Donnas, and many other female musicians/singers/music groups), women who have this sort of view of course end up feeling victimized by their own desires…so of course they’ve got to find a scapegoat, an explanation for why they feel victimized, that is a source outside themselves. Admitting the explanation is their own inability to “say no” that led to the transpiring events, would be like admitting a horrible weakness for someone whose entire view of sex is that only the man can lose any self-control in the situation, “giving in” means submissiveness (that much is perhaps true, and likely a reason for the type of guy considered “pussy-whipped”…), and being sexually submissive indicates weakness.

Obviously, this is certainly not the case, if women who are commonly seen as “empowered” are using a situation of loss of control in seemingly a very “dominant” way. To me that is more what empowerment is about – embracing what is there (whatever you want to call it..loss of control for the sake of consistency here); not denying its existence, projecting it onto someone else, blaming them for your behavior, and convicting them of serious crime in the process.

Then again, what does it matter what a simple-minded, sex-obsessed, misogynistic man thinks anyway? I mean, obviously the only reason I bothered to write all this - and actually made it sound somewhat intelligent! :O – is so that I don’t feel guilty for contributing to rape culture, and for my own rapist mindset towards sex!                                    

(^ sarcasm, for all you morons who can’t read between the lines.)

Monday, June 4, 2012

From Now on, if Anyone Asks Why I'm Single (It's Complicated)....

...and because so many people tend to not believe my answer anyway, I am changing the way I answer. (Admit it, anyone who asks people that, you know full well what you're really asking is "why can't you get any action?"/"so what is it, you just suck at getting girls?"/"what could the problem possibly be other than you simply aren't attractive to most men/simply have no confidence around women/are a prude/are a creep?"; you just want to hear them say it themselves. So that you can feel superior, or be patronizing by pitying them or offering "help", or fuck knows what else.... damn, humans are sick sometimes! Please, you think the hindrance is always all about dating/sex? lol!)*

So instead...I will just refer them to this song. And instead I will just say "so that I don't have to start giving this song like a speech..." --no --  "...a recorded speech playing on a broken record, after every breakup."
I don't like apologies. I am very unforgiving, and I can't apologize to someone and feel genuinely sorry, unless it was an honest mistake. Basically because apologizing to me is meant for when you genuinely went into something with no knowledge in advance of whatever it is for which you're apologizing...something you can't really be held accountable for (i.e., an honest mistake.) I can't say that I don't know how cold, bitter, cynical, etc. I can be. And usually that happens more and more the less distant I become with people. Call it a fear of commitment, if you want. In many ways that's what it is... becoming a cold-hearted asshole to protect myself. I've been emotionally and mentally violated far too many times to trust anyone to the full extent most people do, in ANY close social relationship. It's not even playing with fire, it's, why start out that's not even there?
(I will have to elaborate on that last bit at some point when I'm less lazy, more inspired, and have more time to write elaborate narratives.)

See also (not sure what "ambitious" is referencing, really, but the description itself is much more fitting for me than the "nice guy" or "jerk"/"asshole" ones ever have been!): "The Three Types of Men - The Ambitious Man"
(Yes, it is a bit oversimplified with the whole "there are three types of men and they all just want sex in the end"...but I couldn't find any hardcore science or other sorts of measurements on this one, sadly. ;) )

*Yes, I know, the link I posted keeps going on about "friends with benefits", but with friendships, as with any non-platonic relationship, I don't go out of my way to look for them. What I do go out of my way to do is avoid certain female friendships. Ones that I wouldn't actively pursuit in the absence of sexual attraction (i.e., like everyone else.) Because that obviously means I'd only be after sex. Which means they aren't a "friend with benefits" at all, as whatever thereafter unfolds, was built upon the sexal attraction...or perhaps tension..whatever the case may be. That's totally ass-backwards! If you want sex with random hot strangers then it's fine. I know, why don't I do this then?
That's a long story, again, for that longer post I'm putting off, but it basically goes back to my cynicicsm and that it's not worth the effort of active pursuit right now (as with dating in general.)
---PS, anyone (male or female) who can explain to me why it seems that most people, and especially men, don't seem to get this concept of things being backwards when you pursuit sex as a segue to friendship or to getting a girl/boyfriend; or, why it seems most people who actively pursue a relationship -- male or female -- seem to do so in a similarly backwards way? I mean why even date someone you've never even met before, if your goal is something more complex than hooking up with strangers for one night/a few times or paying for a hooker??... please do because I don't get it!


I'm sure I'll be doing some sort of "part 2" on this topic, as I've only skimmed the surface on several ideas, such as the ones in the annotated asterisk-afterthought-thingy above (forget what those are called.) ;)

Friday, June 1, 2012

Cerebral Vasoconstriction, aka I’m not crazy, I’ve been tested; aka only Freud thinks naughty things about balloon animals

Yes, the Blogosphere is well overdue for the madness to follow! I was originally going to say “major”, but this almost certainly isn’t exclusive to undergrads; emphasis on the “almost”, as there is really no such thing as 100% certainty. Even Richard Dawkins would agree. ;)

[For those who are open-minded and still willing to be confronted with some support for the claim I’m not (or, at least, was not predestined to be at birth) crazy/delusional/Sheldon Cooper, Ph.D, see also: “Psychology Makes You Crazy.”]


You Know You’re a Psychology Student When…

  1. You have created something with a title such as “Cerebral Vasoconstriction” – though this is probably also applicable to biology, health sciences, and/or medical students.
  2. When arguing with someone, you point out their subconscious defense mechanisms in an effort to discredit their argument(s) (or piss them off), just to be an asshole.
  3. When arguing with someone, you point out their logical, cognitive, formal, informal, etc. fallacies in an effort to discredit their argument(s) (or piss them off), just to be an asshole.
  4. If people ask what you’re studying and you tell them, they ask if you’re trying to read their minds; they may even give you a look, kind of like they might look if they were asking Miss Cleo or one of those girls in Girl Interrupted, if she reads minds.
  5. Usually, you’re psychoanalyzing yourself, not reading other people’s minds. Or at least, you’re trying to psychoanalyze other people much less often.
  6. You are aware that the scenario in #5 is arguably as much an indication of paranoia as that in #4.
  7. You like to read/learn about things like bizarre sexual fetishes, Hellraiser-esque torture chambers, or what goes on in the brain during an acid trip, because it makes you feel more sane and normal.
  8. You aren’t sure whether it’s better to argue for a ‘hard’ or a ‘soft’ science.
  9. You anticipate that the moment people hear or see words such as “hard” or “soft”, they are very likely to either start snickering or make some type of dick joke out of it. At which point you aren’t sure where to go with the conversation topic.
  10. You wonder whether your acknowledging such possibilities as the one in #9 says something about your subconscious’ secret taboo relationship with penises.
  11. You wonder whether your subconscious was more attuned to “soft” or “hard”, because that may hint at something.
  12. You wonder why you are still thinking about penises; this seems to make the entire thought process thus far a pointless waste of time.
  13. You wonder if, when you tell people introverts are introverts, because their minds are more interesting than what is going on in their external world,  that this was an effort on the part of your subconscious to free itself from its repressed ability to express phallic-themed thoughts.
  14. You use abbreviations like “i.e.”, “e.g.”, and “et al.”, in the majority of (at the least) your academic writing (but probably also your written communication in general.)
  15. You have had at least one professor who used at least one of the above abbreviations verbally in lecture.
  16. In colloquial/casual contexts, you omit the comma following one of the above abbreviations, so that you don’t look as nerdy as you would if you always used the comma.
  17. You actually know the difference between the meanings of “i.e.” and “e.g.”
  18. You start noticing professors’ lecture slides are APA-formatted, and then lose focus on the actual lecture and start wondering if that’s mandatory, or if it was a cover-your-ass-type thing, because they don’t want the IRB or some other ethical board on their ass for plagiarism of lecture material. Then you start thinking what a pain in the ass it must be to have to not only make all those lecture slides, but also APA-format them. And you wonder how they can possibly remember all those rules. And how many tries you think it’ll take before you stop fucking up the formatting on your hypothetical slides at sometime in the hypothetical future…then you stuff your feelings of quickly surfacing fear that won’t stop haunting you.. “Who ever said you have a future?” Then you realize you just missed a shitload of lecture notes.
  19. You wonder if there is any explanation as to why you would use the word “ass” three times in one list item, other than possibly some subconscious repressed thought screaming to get out, and take all the penis-filled thoughts with it.
  20. You then start wondering if you only started wondering this so that your mind can rationalize the images of anal sex that would follow.
  21. You eventually realize that trying to analyze yourself on the most superficially rational level, is not going to inform you of whether or not your subconscious secretly wants to fuck men, any more than staring at the cover of Maxim would inform you of the same.
  22. You explain your own thoughts/internal processes in structural and visual terms, such as “superficially rational” to represent the outermost parts of the cortex.
  23. You wonder whether being very visual is a sign something is wrong with you.
  24. You wonder whether you’ve already gone far beyond simply, “Psychology Makes You Crazy.”
  25. It is not uncommon for you to be awake at times like 12:30AM, doing things like writing a blog entry in which you list relatively ubiquitous, yet idiosyncratic scenarios that are characteristic of psychology students (which may or may not contradict a previous claim regarding self-analysis vs. that of others..?)
  26. You start to question yourself on moral principle, after someone gets weirded out when they find out you fairly confidently had long presumed something about them, that they never actually told you; or, when you somehow were able to manipulate someone (usually in a verbal manner) to get them to say something they hadn’t anticipated – nor hoped – to mention… by which point you pretty  much nod along when they call you an asshole.
  27. You understand certain women better than they can understand themselves…and you know that “certain women” essentially means (to all the “other” women as well as to men) “the ones you don’t want to engage in any social interaction with”, (and sadly, that many men don’t know essentially means “the ones you don’t want to engage in any sexual relations with.”)
  28. You love disturbing psychological thrillers – the more fucked up, the better (though not in a freaky sex fetish way…just speaking for myself here…) [Note: See #7.]
  29. If you’ve ever dipped into the world of Evo-Psych… you’ve had to put up with political extremists who either start violating your personal space to rant at you about how you sound like a Social Darwinian Marxist; or those who do the same but accuse you of pushing a right-wing agenda: Both are equally plausible statements: Marxism was an ideology heavy on the cleansing of the genetically unfit, justified in the name of Darwinian theories of natural selection; and the right-wing agenda, it goes without mentioning, has always exploited evolutionary theory as its sturdy backbone.
  30. You actually understood all the sarcasm above (or other things like it.)
  31. People seem slightly surprised when it occurs to them you are the one telling them that most of Freudian psychoanalytic theory is a bunch of quasi-pseudo-scientific-wishy-washy-hoo-ha.
  32. You don’t analyze your own thought process to death when you use terminologies such as “hoo-ha”, the way you do with terms like “ass”, “hard”, “soft”, and “phallic-themed.”
  33. There’s always about 1000 people nearby who are drunker than you on the average college campus, but you are almost always the one most likely to be talking about illicit substances.
  34. You’re wondering why a list like this one hasn’t already been made – or you’re assuming that’s impossible, and you just must not have found it (them?) yet.
  35. XtraNormal is a type of cartoon entertainment.
  36. You mentally pick apart song lyrics when you listen to music, and/or mentally pick apart the artist, often based upon the song lyrics or overall content.
  37. You have ever wondered why some musical artists are notorious for excessive, liberal use of profanity, while others of the exact same genre are not.
  38. You wonder if all the scientific/social scientific studies ever published making the claim men on average have a higher libido than women, are some sort of female vendetta-conspiracy against men, in light of the fact almost every female rock musician seems to carry the libido of about a half dozen men… though drawing such conclusions solely based on the nature and content of artists’ creative works is hardly conclusive evidence. ;)
  39. In non-academic contexts, you have actually used phrases such as “drawing such conclusions…” and “..hardly conclusive evidence”, and you weren’t actually trying to be a smartass.
  40. For at least a fraction of a second, the thought occurred to you that it would be funny to create DSM criteria for this list, and state a minimum number of items must be true of the reader to reach criteria for being a psych. student. Then you felt that choosing such a number would be largely arbitrary, unempirical, and wrongly assign to a bunch of people a label that they probably don’t want, or that will become a large goldmine of unjustified social stigmatization.
  41. You have attempted to analyze a dream you had, and by the time you get through most of the first main part of it, you’ve forgotten the entire second half of the dream.
  42. You wonder if obtaining, retaining, and simply having possession of large amounts of factual information on the topic of sleep, REM cycles, and human dreaming, but yet apparently having a memory lapse when you try to actually apply any of this knowledge, makes you in some way a hypocrite.
  43. You want to know if a personal preference for brunettes is somehow a negative indicator of personal  health or “reproductive fitness”, in light of the findings about blonde hair, a youthful appearance, fertility, and the tendency for people to pair-bond based on social rank/approval.'
  44. You’re not sure why it matters when you don’t really like kids anyway, so you don’t really want any.
  45. You’re once again curious about the irony of the frequency at which you hear about unplanned pregnancies and teen parents, vs. that about long-married couples in their 30s-50s who both appear to some degree, to be virtually infertile.
  46. …as well as the irony of the trend towards higher birth rates in lower IQ individuals, coupled with the mysterious generational, consistent increase in average IQ.
  47. You’re not opposed to using stereotypes in colloquial conversation, because you know at least a few of them that actually have empirical support.
  48. You want to know why “sleep experts” keep reiterating the same bullshit line about insomnia, that they call a “tip”, to reserve the bed only for sleep and for sex; there don’t appear to be very many people today in the modern West who would outwardly refute classical and operant conditioning theory, so these much be the world’s most ignorant experts. That is at least more likely than militant conditioning-theory-deniers, Everyone knows that given the scenario bed = conditioned stimulus, getting into bed to go to sleep = unconditioned stimulus, you will end up with horniness = conditioned response. Or, in other words, every time you go to bed with the intention of sleeping, you’d end up having trouble doing so until you find somebody to sleep with. Most likely a naked somebody.
  49. If that last sentence somehow gave you more phallic-themed mental imagery, you’re probably all the way back up somewhere around…Item #11; if it did not, you’re probably not reading this, which means I am talking to myself, which means I seem to have completely different mental health concerns to address altogether.
Psychiatry « The Magnificent Whatever

Random awesomeness. From me, Honorary Founder of Awesome.

Monday, January 2, 2012

Why I'm Here...Well, Besides the Fact Fetuses Have No Free Will

I like to rant about stupid shit. And by stsupid shit, I mean really important, in-depth shit that much of the world doesn't seem to care about..or often even know about. I like technology. I'm a poor, unemployed...full-time collge student. I will (hopefully) have an undergrad psych degree in the not-so-distant future, depending on how much more organ failure caused by long-term use of antidepressants brings my GPA down through the floor. I think a lot so I figure at least on this here interwebz there's that option to be slightly less poor. Maybe. I am a cynical asshole and a strong advocate of dark, satirical, and distasteful varieties of humour. I've thought about writing a book, if not just to watch the look's on pissed off people's faces when they read factual, honest, and more or less objective information, aand if they send me to Guantanamo for it, at least then I'll be like some sort of vigilante freedom fighting war hero. That all the Playboy and Maxim models want random hook-ups and one-night-stands with. But then I'll be dead. So that poses a problem. Plus, it's kind of disturbing. 

Also, I tend to find political correctness highly offensive on a visceral level. I'm just as deprecating with the rest of the world as I am with myself. So you've been warned. You don't have to read all my controversial, heartless, intellectual, overly analytical bullshit. No one's threatening to come after you with an FBI raid and corner you in the center of a crop circle of WMD's. Yet. That I know of. :D