Therapy Culture leading to Barbarism - Why we need to be Repressed

[Julia248]

I think what I’m reading is that the government (secular) should literally dictate (fine, jail, disband) any group that has any “community guidelines” since these would be considered exclusionary, biased, anti-someone/some group and therefore should be “illegal”.

You are missing the point. I’m saying the church can be harmful for children who are forced to go. That’s the only reason I can see for it not to exist.

Should it be legislated that the S-He’s Global Community of Transexuals must allow both the Sisters of the Poor with their 12 students along with the Black Lives Matter Men’s Group join their Mediterranean Rainbow Cruise for Inner Peace and Harmony, or face fines, jail time, or group disbanding? Should the Trans community be “allowed” to reserve the local park and hold their Annual Transsexual Picnic and Dance Contest with only those that “opt in” to their ethos in attendance? Should the Church of Lesbo’s be “allowed” to teach that humanity was created when 2 Lesbians and a Non-Binary Transexual all conceived simultaneously from Divine Immaculate Conception to found the human race?
I know these may sound like absurd examples, but I fail to see how we can legislate religion without risking tyranny of the Administration.
With separation of religion and state, the St. Mary’s Mother’s of 5-7 year old group can hold their own Halloween bake sale and event meanwhile the Church of Lesbo’s can hold their own no-weenies themed costume party

This isn’t an equal comparison at all. If it was said or insinuated that the only roles you as a man could have were virgin; father, while being in a relationship with another man; or whore to other men, that would be more of an equal comparison.

Also, if any of these organisations were harming anyone’s individually, e.g. saying it was wrong to be male, then that would also be a problem.

Children and Parents: My parents committed human rights violations against me when they stopped my allowance once I started my own lawn mowing business, forced me to practice for violin lessons that I didn’t want to take any more, and study to make good grades for the entirety of my K-12 enslavement. There was massive oppression (turn down that music, go to bed, turn off the lights), abuse (withholding my physical freedom), indentured servitude (my house, my rules, rake the leaves, clean up your room), thought control (no comic books until homework is done), hypocrisy (no drinking our wine even thought we drink wine) and outright slavery (you will finish raking the leaves before dinner and don’t start them on fire again with the neighbor kids - leaf raking and no fires were a bummer). Did I tell you about the time my parents grounded me when it was my sister’s fault or that mom yelled at me because she was going through menopause or that Dad cussed at me for smashing his thumb when we were pounding plant stakes into the ground?

This isn’t what I was talking about. Parents having fair rules isn’t the same, though I’m sorry for any difficulties you experienced as a child when your parents did behave unfairly or were angry towards you.

Do meetings open with a ritualistic prayer, moment of silence, or community “welcome”? Do meetings end with a small ritual? Is there any kind of hierarchy and who determines agenda? Are meeting times regularly scheduled? Do you have recommended readings or activities? Are their shared beliefs?
What’s the difference between a spiritual organization that’s non-religious and a spiritual organization that is religious?

I dont know much about this organisation, but it’s an example of what could/does exist.

Here are a couple of articles describing differences between religion and spirituality:

Religion vs. Spirituality: The Difference Between Them

The 6 Fundamental Differences Between Religion and Spirituality

[Julia248]

I would claim that the Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or Zoroastrianism practiced today is likely quite a bit different than that practiced in 610 AD, 0 AD, 1984 BC, 572 BC, or 917 BC. If the practice is actually considerably different wouldn’t that make each of them an adapting, progressing, growing, expanding, shrinking, stopping over time hierarchy?

I agree, they have changed, but e.g. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are still based on the same books, and people at the mythic level will take it’s messages literally.

Is there any value to having hierarchies that are more stable, less reactionary than the latest election cycle? Or do we want our latest election cycles to also dominate every heirarchy we interact with, development shared concepts and visions with, derive our sense of belonging and community with?

I don’t really know enough about these last questions to answer.

[FermentedAgave]

I’ve read the two articles contrasting Religion and Spirituality. Without getting into very basic errors, they both take a very “flat” and highly incomplete view of Religions and a very “rich” and presumptive view of Spirituality If these are the basis of peoples beliefs about religions vs spirituality I can see the confusions. I particularly liked Chopra’s use of a Krishna Baghavad Gita quote as spiritual, but not religious.

This actually illustrates the point I was trying to make for separation of Church and State. We, at least in the US, can choose literally any religion we want - Satan worshiping, Earth Mother, multitude of Islams, multitude of Christianities, Main Stream Yoga and Meditation, or none at all - without State intervention. But of course, the Main Street Yoga likely will expect it’s adherents to practice yoga, perhaps pay dues, not try to change the group into an MMA group, etc… Whatever the “common bonds”, those define the community itself.

This isn’t an equal comparison at all. If it was said or insinuated that the only roles you as a man could have were virgin; father, while being in a relationship with another man; or whore to other men, that would be more of an equal comparison.

Also, if any of these organisations were harming anyone’s individually, e.g. saying it was wrong to be male, then that would also be a problem.

I was pointing out that, at least in the West, we already have the freedom to do whatever we want with whomever we want. Only twist that can get in the way is that whomever I want to do what I want to do with also has to want to do it with me. As soon as we lose separate of Church and State, the state can then mandate with threat of property siezure (fines, confiscation) or imprisonment that the Trans Cruise has to admit Bubba’s Hunting Club, which effectively destroys the Trans Club from having their own church, club, cruises. Likewise, Bubba’s Hunting Club now has to let the Anti-Hunters with Noise Makers join their hunting trips. It’s a quick devolution into complete dominance of everyone’s lives by State bureaucracy.

[raybennett]

Hey Ray, Why do you think Christianity hinders development at higher levels?

Bottom line: I accept that Christianity, interpreted appropriately, has much value to contribute to our evolving cultures. But it carries too much anthropocentric Creationist baggage. I think that a synthesis of Christianity with our semiotic sciences and Eastern religions will be far more productive, and the more appropriate way to go. It is important to factor in culture, what culture is, and its role in integrating the self with culture. The culture is the thought. I think that our new synthesis will be in a better position to incorporate these concerns.

I find it very strange that I agree with @steljarkos on “big picture” items, but completely disagree on many of the details and how we each arrive at the same conclusion.

Rather than deal with “why Christianity is Wrong” or “Why Christianity Doesn’t Make Sense”, my list is limited to “Why Christianity Limits Development at Higher Levels”
Here is my list:

• Original sin. You are bad. Not just superficially, but at the core of your being. You were born into sin and your progeny will be born sinners. Babies are sinful.
• Dependency. According to Christian Religions, the only way out is the 7 sacraments. Reduced to two in Protestantism. Baptism and Eucharist. You cannot “DIY” salvation in Christianity as in other spiritual systems. You have to join and return every week or at least semi-annually. It’s not just that Christianity says the only way to salvation is through Jesus - it’s that each flavor of Christianity says the only way to salvation is their specific flavor and there is no other way except through their organization. Contrast this to Buddhism, Taoism or other Eastern Mysticism, and probably many other traditions - where Devotion to the organization is one option, but not required. You can be a monk and devote your life 24/7, come to gatherings, or just read the manual and DIY. DIY salvation also has varieties - out in a cave in the wilderness, or “part time” devotion for those who have to work and live in a community.
• No real methodology. There are many things required in Christianity that Christians just don’t know how to do - like prayer. When I was growing up I mostly heard prayer as a kind of bargaining with God or request for special favor or intervention. The strangest was prayer in a football huddle. “God help us win” or “God, we are engaging in reckless behavior but please intervene so that we do not get hurt”. At the dinner table or evening prayer people get a bit more into blessing others and expressing thanks - but even then they’d put in some low key intervention requests “God, please forgive all the sinners (everyone who does not agree with me)”. There is no “manual” for Christian Prayer as there is for various schools of Meditation, for example. There is also no real explanation of how to become good. Just commandments. In or out, all or nothing. There is no understanding that transformation is a process as with any kind of behavior modification. Again, this is in contrast with other spiritual practices where it is understood you can be on a range, and you are given practices to assist you in attaining the next level.
• Conflation of Religion and Spiritual practices. For Judeo-Christian-Islam traditions, religion = spirituality. It’s very difficult for people from these religions to understand that valid spiritual practices exist outside of religions, and that a spiritual community can be completely nondenominational.
• Externalization of Evil (the devil). In a kind of schizophrenia, Christianity first believes everyone is a sinner, but also believes the Devil / Satan causes people to sin, and following God causes people to not sin / commit evil. As a result, not a lot of self-analysis happens. It’s very difficult to accept one’s own shadows (clean up) when they are seen to be caused by an external actor. This is where we get into the whole culture war thing. “Those people make me angry so they are bad.” Rather than “Those people make me angry so therefore I have to look inward and see why they are triggering me.” The latter leads to higher levels of awareness and performance while the former leads to lower levels of dysfunction until we as a Nation are where we are today, and will descend further as long as we externalize “Evil”.
• Femininity. Western culture just does not understand femininity in the same way that other regions of the world do. Of course there are exceptions and thankfully they are growing, but Christianity has doubled down on the unwillingness to understand. As a result we get the movement and term “Feminism” - which people in the west love to be against and externalize their anger towards. Westerners are socialized to believe that masculinity and femininity cannot exist in the same being. In the United States, a man who acts feminine is a faggot. A woman who is masculine is a dyke. A transexual has no right to exist. Notice the hate in the modern language the West has created to describe people who combine masculine and feminine characteristics. And again - rather than looking inward and finding some kind of balance within themselves of the masculine and feminine - Western Society and and particularly Christian organizations externalize their anger and sees queer as “evil” and the cause of all society’s problems, even when there is zero sex involved, lol. A grown adult man might just want to dress like a lolita or he might love “My Little Pony”, for example and be completely heterosexual - but society automatically sexualizes his choice of wardrobe or community and Christians jump to the conclusion that it is “wrong”.
• Ignorance that “Higher Levels” even exist. In other languages with other traditions of Spiritual practices, there is a Lexicon to describe specific levels of spiritual attainment and how to know when those levels are achieved. One example is “Samadhi”, which might be considered to mean “enlightened” if it is maintained constantly, but it’s also possible to go into and out of “samadhi” for a brief period of time, which I don’t consider “enlightened”. In Christianity this might be equivalent to being “Born Again” but as we all know, people who are “born again” rarely walk the path of Christ 24/7. This is because they did not do the prior stages of spiritual development of pratyahara (withdrawal of the senses), dharana (concentration), dhyana (meditation). These in turn were taught / achieved through yama (abstinences), niyama (observances), asana (postures), pranayama (breath control). Finally, it’s possible for a person to voluntarily leave the body. Many of these voluntary deaths have been documented. We can question and conjecture what is going on with this, but again the concept just doesn’t exist in Christianity at all.
  Before we go on - I don’t think that this is the ONLY way to get to “The Kingdom of Heaven” (Enlightenment) - it’s just that Christianity doesn’t have a methodology to achieve it step by step. It’s kind of like a “sink or swim” approach to learning to swim, and unfortunately most people don’t learn a healthy attitude towards “water” this way.
  I think it’s easier to obtain something or develop into something if there is a specific way to do it and if that is broken down into manageable stages.
  I also think it’s easier to move along a path when the landmarks on the map actually resemble what is in reality, and a lot of times the Christian map says “here be dragons”, or “edge of the world” while other spiritual traditions have much more accurate maps of reality.

[FermentedAgave]

I too agree with much of @steljarkos post right down to the very end where it’s all about semiotics, not that semiotics doesn’t have value just as Eastern religions have value.

@raybennett - I’m really sorry for whatever you went through growing up, but your understanding of Christianity is very immature if not outright malicious.

Let’s look at each of your statements in a perhaps Integral viewpoint.
Original Sin - Think of this as a warning that your Ego and Shadows are an innate part of you. They are always there to rear their ugly heads. Be vigilant across all quadrants and all zones.

Dependency - You might be mixing up the Sacraments with the Commandments. Christianity has a “code of conduct” with “thou shalt not’s” that regardless of IQ or developmental Altitude can be understood. So yes, someone at an Orange or Green or Teal development level sees these Commandments as amber or red or literal mythic. THAT’S EXACTLY the point since Christian Churches look to engage with and support spiritual development for the entire population, not a select few that are intellectually gifted.
No Real Methodology - Show up, keep your mouth shut when reading Scriptures, pray before meals, be in conversation with others of your faith sounds a little like a methodology. I do agree that many of the Christian branches are very light on Methodology, but then again you can cherry pick others that have rituals out the wazoo.Just as their are “good Episcopals” there are “amazing Buddhists” and in-name-only Muslims.
Conflation of Religion and Spiritual practices. - What if we are spiritual beings living in a material world? What if how you live is one of the most spiritual practices available? I don’t know any Christians that don’t think you can have spiritualality outside the “faith” or spiritual experiences at the drum circle or sports bar. But as KW says, so “practices” have better efficacy.
Externalization of Evil (the devil) - I don’t know what Churches you have been involved with, but mine is all about “discerning externally” (friends you keep, activities you practice, …) as well as “internal discernment” on where your heart is, if your ego and/or shadows are running the show. But I will grant you that discerning external peoples intent and motivation is of particular interest today. Is most of it mean spirited from Christians? Not really. But there is enough discernment now to “Resist” those that want to utilize hierarchies for anti-Christian behaviors (teaching minors to get abortions would be a two-fer example).
Femininity - I’m not a female, but as I’ve pointed out the origin story for Christianity holds Mary, a woman who gave illegitimate birth to the Son of God in the most holy of spaces. For the rest of your diatribe I’ll ask “compared to what?”. Is all of your ranting actually about Christianity or about humanity in general? How’s life for Hindu women in Indian or effeminate men in China or Buddhist women in Thailand or gay Muslim men in Pakistan? Again you paint with an extremely broad brush that’s woefully inaccurate.
Ignorance that “Higher Levels” even exist This might be the case in the branch of Christianity that you grew up in, but in the branch we practice in there absolutely is the notion of “development” both as an individual and as a community. Does anyone mumble “Teal with a wing of Red” or “MGM” or “Orange”, of course not.

I think it’s easier to obtain something or develop into something if there is a specific way to do it and if that is broken down into manageable stages.
I also think it’s easier to move along a path when the landmarks on the map actually resemble what is in reality, and a lot of times the Christian map says “here be dragons”, or “edge of the world” while other spiritual traditions have much more accurate maps of reality.

I absolutely agree that it’s much easier when the map is simplistic and well defined. That’s one of the things that drew me to Integral Theory. If we look at “rubber on the pavement of life” it gets much more problematic. IT itself isn’t making much impact. But what about Buddhism or Hinduism? Sure the religious practices have much merit, but when you look at the practice of and society/cultural impact both Buddhism and Hinduism have a very mediocre track record once you wander outside the beautiful Ashram or Temple and into the domain of “humanity’s living conditions in the real world”.

All mental rationalizations and critiques aside, where in the world do you want your daughter to raise your granddaughters?

[raybennett]

All mental rationalizations and critiques aside, where in the world do you want your daughter to raise your granddaughters?

Definitely Central Europe (where she is). Alternate location for the Zombie apocalypse or WW IV is Hawaii.

[raybennett]

I’m really sorry for whatever you went through growing up, but your understanding of Christianity is very immature if not outright malicious.

You are nothing if not completely predictable.
Malicious? lol.
You specifically asked me for my opinion - which I was reluctant to give and considered my response for three days to just make 100% sure I had very little emotion when I wrote.
My upbringing was 30-50 years ago, lol. I came to terms with it at least 20 years ago. It wasn’t actually bad. A lot of good memories but trying to put lipstick on a bull is absurd.
Your own words show more malice than mine towards the Christian methods, lol:

Show up, keep your mouth shut when reading Scriptures, pray before meals, be in conversation with others of your faith

I humorously hear you in the voice of Arnold Swartzeneger when he played Conan and answered “What is Best in Life”.
If you constantly see any disagreement with your ideology as malicious - the problem is 100% you, but you try to invent a story where it is not you.
I know you enough that you are someone who likes to ask questions - LOTS of questions. Surely this approach of “don’t ask questions” chafes on you, but rather than look at that you determine that I am being malicious, lol. I won’t “shut up”, will I? Deep down you probably know this is not just - I can say whatever I want but you have to “shut up”. Neither can liberals be forced to shut up - It must be maddening how unjust that is that you have to shut up but myself, Liberals and others do not shut up and do ask questions. So malicious of us.

Is all of your ranting actually about Christianity or about humanity in general?

Ranting - another emotion you are projecting outward. Did you forget you asked me to post my opinions? lol
The topic was Christianity, specifically. That’s the question you asked me. You did not ask me to voice my opinions on humanity in general.

All predictable, repetitive and circular. Start a topic - get offended by the replies - use that as a reason to continue the crusade against Liberalism, real or imagined.

[steljarkos]

I find it very strange that I agree with @steljarkos on “big picture” items, but completely disagree on many of the details and how we each arrive at the same conclusion.

There is, actually, more that we agree on than perhaps you might like to admit. Some nits with which we disagree might be resolved upon further introspection (or they might not, depending on how stubborn we remain):

You do realize, don’t you, that feminism is just a contemporary manifestation of old-fashioned chivalry? Not kinda, not sortof, but absolutely, through-and-through. Our cultures have changed in superficial manifestations, but remain the same as they’ve always been, at the foundation. The failure to acknowledge women’s role in their own “oppression” is to fail to recognize the role that they play in, for example, the indoctrination of their children, requiring men to be the providers that provide for them, and requiring men to fight their wars for them. There is no such thing as unilateral oppression of one gender by another. Never has been, irrespective of how “ignorant” some people might disparage the assertion of such a fundamental truth to be. Far from bolstering the power and authority of the feminine, feminism decimates it. Women wanting to be like men is hardly an affirmation of the power of the feminine.

Western Society and and particularly Christian organizations externalize their anger and sees queer as “evil” and the cause of all society’s problems, even when there is zero sex involved, lol.

I agree. I recognize the hatred that homosexuals have been dealt in smash-face sporting culture, particularly that of the anglosphere. But instead of the fashionably victimized forming into flag-waving coalitions to create false definitions and sow further division, how about just respecting one another? Shaming others for past wrongs is not the way to go… not just because it’s “not nice” but more importantly, because it fails to acknowledge everybody’s complicity in Culture-the-Thought. Or to put it another way, sure, there were past wrongs that needed to be fixed, but projecting hatred for the perpetrators of those wrongs, while “fixing” them, does not quell them. In this context, an authentically spiritual christianity, one that resonates with the Hinduism of Mahatma Gandhi must surely have a place. [Consider the notion of “original sin”. I like to think of it in the context of Culture-the-Thought, and we all carry culture’s baggage, regardless of our status as self-imagined victims]

Bottom line, as I see it. Sure, there is much about our occidental cultures that is dysfunctional. But the universe is a big place, and there are many possibilities within it that we can scarcely conceive of. Getting bound up in our parochial, earthbound obsessions and definitions is not a healthy way of responding to the infinite possibility with which we might otherwise wish to connect.

[steljarkos]

Definitely Central Europe (where she is).

Good choice. And the weather is beautiful at this time of year.

[Julia248]

I’ve read the two articles contrasting Religion and Spirituality. Without getting into very basic errors, they both take a very “flat” and highly incomplete view of Religions and a very “rich” and presumptive view of Spirituality If these are the basis of peoples beliefs about religions vs spirituality I can see the confusions. I particularly liked Chopra’s use of a Krishna Baghavad Gita quote as spiritual, but not religious.

I would say that religion and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. One can be both religious and spiritual, religious without being spiritual, or spiritual without being religious.

I have to admit I only read the first couple of paragraphs of each article before posting. In my view, that Baghavad Gita quote would be both spiritual and religious. Also, religion doesn’t necessarily equate to seperatation between people and a lack of inclusion, and spirituality isn’t necessarily inclusive.

I was pointing out that, at least in the West, we already have the freedom to do whatever we want with whomever we want. Only twist that can get in the way is that whomever I want to do what I want to do with also has to want to do it with me. As soon as we lose separate of Church and State, the state can then mandate with threat of property siezure (fines, confiscation) or imprisonment that the Trans Cruise has to admit Bubba’s Hunting Club, which effectively destroys the Trans Club from having their own church, club, cruises. Likewise, Bubba’s Hunting Club now has to let the Anti-Hunters with Noise Makers join their hunting trips. It’s a quick devolution into complete dominance of everyone’s lives by State bureaucracy

We both agree on this it seems, and I think we’re both talking about different things. What I’m saying is the views many religions have of women and lgbtqia+ people is harmful compared to most of the rest of modern societies, and a big reason for that is they still follow the same books they followed thousands of years ago.

But people are free to practice these religions if they want to. The point is not enforcing people to practice these religions if they don’t want to e.g. parents shouldn’t be able to force their children to go to church in my opinion - this makes sense rather than getting rid of religions that can be harmful to people.

Christianity can also be very helpful for children in other ways, I think. For example, knowing Jesus and God are there and love you unconditionally is likely conducive to developing a secure attachment style.

[FermentedAgave]

We both agree on this it seems, and I think we’re both talking about different things. What I’m saying is the views many religions have of women and lgbtqia+ people is harmful compared to most of the rest of modern societies, and a big reason for that is they still follow the same books they followed thousands of years ago.

But people are free to practice these religions if they want to. The point is not enforcing people to practice these religions if they don’t want to e.g. parents shouldn’t be able to force their children to go to church in my opinion - this makes sense rather than getting rid of religions that can be harmful to people.

Seems we do agree on much. It does seem that you do want to “regulate” in favor of LGBTQ++ to change the more established religions. I personally don’t think this legal or even necessary in the US. I think say (for example only) if the T’s and Q’s want to gather and worship they can do so WITHOUT interference from others or the State exactly how they like and with whom they like. It’s literally no one’s business except for their own. And yes, they should be able to “make” their children attend as well.

But this must be reciprocal or the entire system becomes arbitrary, capricious, and very quickly devolves into totalitarianism. I know here in the US we are free to worship where ever, how ever, and with whomever we like with no fear of persecution. I think confusion ensues when a religious / anti-religious group moves into the political arena to impact policy - funding one religion/anti-religion or another - regulate specific religions/anti-religions. This moves out of “religion” and into the “political” domain.

[raybennett]

You do realize, don’t you, that feminism is just a contemporary manifestation of old-fashioned chivalry?

I myself never really got into feminism. For sure never called myself a feminist as is / was fashionable in my social circles. I don’t really have a horse in that race. My personal view is that the modern feminist movement is modeled on patriarchy and wants to enable a female led patriarchy, which is very different than equality or even a matriarchy. But I don’t think focusing on that benefits anyone.

What I do see is that education and support of men can be healthy, but the longer it remains focused on anything except the man, the more unhealthy it gets. I think also dwelling too long on “History” isn’t productive. Where does this dynamic manifest itself in the current life of each individual man (I might get to women later, but my focus now is men). I’m interested why half my male friends can’t simply tell their women “no” and stand their ground, or why they feel their status or self worth is in any way related to how attractive that woman is. I can go on and on - but none of the answers to these questions will be found in what’s wrong with feminism or what’s wrong with women. These men can literally choose from dozens of women - why do they pick the most psychologically unhealthy ones? Because they are “hot”, lol. Great. Ruin their career / business / financial security because they have an unhealthy relationship to femininity - then double down on that and teach them to focus on everything wrong with women and feminism and form MGTOW movements that talk constantly about how bad feminism is - but never actually focus on what is “wrong” with them.
Yes - mothers raise boys to men, and usually keep the men in some kind of boy relationship throughout their lives. Or at least try. That’s what mothers do. It’s each individual man’s work to at some time in his life tell the mother “no”, and look at the world through his own eyes. That’s the man’s job. It’s pointless for the man to keep talking about how his mommy didn’t let him do whatever as a boy, or still doesn’t “let” him do things as an adult, lol. That’s just unhealthy. Today we have men who are over 50 and are still wanting permission from mommy - and when mommy (represented by feminism or a partner) doesn’t allow things, the 50 year old little boy throws a tantrum and calls mommy bad words. In my opinion all that is pointless.
In wars - at some point the elder men of the “tribe” bear ultimate responsibility. At some point in their lives, the men fully had the ability to cast off whatever control their mothers or wives have on them. So while I see the point of women sending sons to war and many other things - at some point men have to accept 100% responsibility for themselves and their well being.
Maybe in my next life I’ll be reincarnated as a woman. If that happens, then hopefully I’ll work on the other side of the equation. But as a male, I see it as counterproductive to even attempt to “fix what’s wrong with women”. I’ll get a much bigger bang for my buck working towards fixing what’s wrong with men, which doesn’t involve complaining about what’s wrong with women.

the universe is a big place, and there are many possibilities within it that we can scarcely conceive of. Getting bound up in our parochial, earthbound obsessions and definitions is not a healthy way of responding to the infinite possibility with which we might otherwise wish to connect.

Yes, I completely agree.

[raybennett]

Seems we do agree on much. It does seem that you do want to “regulate” in favor of LGBTQ++ to change the more established religions. I personally don’t think this legal or even necessary in the US. I think say (for example only) if the T’s and Q’s want to gather and worship they can do so WITHOUT interference from others or the State exactly how they like and with whom they like. It’s literally no one’s business except for their own. And yes, they should be able to “make” their children attend as well.

If we look at the facts, it’s actually the religious groups that constantly want to pass laws to enforce their religion through the law. I grew up under religious censorship in the USA - Networks were not allowed to display things on TV that Christians disagreed with. This reached the absurd point on an episode of “Murder She Wrote” where the scene was in a Drag Club but not a single person in the club was queer (because then it couldn’t have aired in that time slot)
Christian attempts to force their religious beliefs on the public in the form of censorship is well documented

More recent incident of Christians trying to pass their beliefs into law are the “One man, one woman” marriage laws, and the “check for penises at bathroom entrances” laws.

As is typical, the right wants to try and point the finger and accuse the opposite side of doing the very thing that they have been doing for decades (actually centuries).

[raybennett]

On the lighter side
Talking about COVID and Politics in 2021:

[FermentedAgave]

What I do see is that education and support of men can be healthy, but the longer it remains focused on anything except the man, the more unhealthy it gets. I think also dwelling too long on “History” isn’t productive. Where does this dynamic manifest itself in the current life of each individual man (I might get to women later, but my focus now is men). I’m interested why half my male friends can’t simply tell their women “no” and stand their ground, or why they feel their status or self worth is in any way related to how attractive that woman is. I can go on and on - but none of the answers to these questions will be found in what’s wrong with feminism or what’s wrong with women. These men can literally choose from dozens of women - why do they pick the most psychologically unhealthy ones? Because they are “hot”, lol.

Your Hawai’ian culture has some excellent male-rearing history that we could learn from. As with most tribal cultures as boys move into puberty they transition from being Mommy led to Dad/Uncle/Male Sibling led. In healthy instances the men teach the boys how to be good men and also how to pick good women. You bring up an excellent point regarding picking psychologically unhealthy women. The most common example is a man being attracted to the exciting, vivacious, sexual borderline personality disorder woman. In my experience BPD women are WAY MORE FUN, at least initially unleash our maleness, but then eventually pull men into unleashing our “Momma’s boy” inner Co-Dependency Disorder that Mommy happy ingrained in us. This is the world of Pick Up Artists as they cycle thru singles bars filled with men looking for the fun BPD women. Note that its “usually” BPD women (something like 20-25% of population) and CDP men, but they’re actually two sides of the same coin. Normally a BPD man would be labeled as a Narcissist instead of BPD. Our current culture fuels and reinforces this BPD / Co-Dependency cycle, witness the Facebook phenomenon.
Best “how to” guide I’ve found is David Dieda’s “Way of the Superior Man” on who to be a better man so your woman can be free to be herself. Dieda’s work is essentially what’s on the other side of the PUA training and enables true compassion for women, how to give them what they need, when they need it.

[FermentedAgave]

More recent incident of Christians trying to pass their beliefs into law are the “One man, one woman” marriage laws, and the “check for penises at bathroom entrances” laws.

As is typical, the right wants to try and point the finger and accuse the opposite side of doing the very thing that they have been doing for decades (actually centuries).

I don’t know anyone that cares if you have a “husband”. What many Christians, Righties, “those people” are weary of is the Left continually usurping language to suit their needs.
Why does the Left demand that Gay men or Lesbian women be able to “Marry”. Why not just call it “partnership” and everyone is happy. In the secular world go right ahead with bestow the same property rights, benefits, etc - but that’s all secular.

A weird twisted example is with many large companies that grant benefits to LGBTQ+++ “partners”, but do not grant these same benefits to heterosexual partners (real example). e.g. If a woman has a live-in male partner but is not married, he cannot share her benefits. But if she claims to identify as a transexual cis-woman gay male, now she can share company benefits with her male partner. Twisted but true. LOL

[raybennett]

Your Hawai’ian culture has some excellent male-rearing history that we could learn from.

I’m not Hawaiian, but yes - Polynesian cultures of Hawaii, Samoa, Tonga, etc. traditionally have a healthy mix of masculine and feminine. They also tend to be predominantly Christian and family oriented, with family defined as the extended family. Their core values seem to be a bit more “community property” oriented and the more financially well off automatically “give back” to the community. An interesting side note is that transgendered people have valuable roles in the community.

Best “how to” guide I’ve found is David Dieda’s “Way of the Superior Man”

David Dieda is a good “first step”, yes. But I’d like a man to be a better man so that he can be free to be himself, give himself what he needs when he needs it - not so a woman can be free to be herself, etc etc lol.

In my experience BPD women are WAY MORE FUN

BPD women are only “fun” if the man is unable to live through himself, and needs to live vicariously through another.

Why does the Left demand that Gay men or Lesbian women be able to “Marry”. Why not just call it “partnership” and everyone is happy. In the secular world go right ahead with bestow the same property rights, benefits, etc - but that’s all secular.

Marriage is a secular affair that is stamped and approved by a government official. That’s just the facts. Being married by a Priest or other religious official is irrelevant and the marriage is not valid until it is stamped and licensed by the secular government official. So yes - that is pretty much what the various laws want - to make it so that gay people can get issued a “Marriage License” by a secular government official. If you want to pass laws that call the licenses for everyone something else, then that’s fair. You and your wife (if you are married) would also be issued a “Partnership Agreement” or something similar by the secular county official. But as it is now, the term for that document issued by the secular government is a “Marriage License”

By the way - I’m not gay. That’s another race I don’t have a horse in, lol. But I recognize convoluted logic when I see it.

[FermentedAgave]

The first “macho” mistake a woman might make is to jump into bed with a man. Playing it casual, says Lawson, just means you get treated casually. If women want to be valued, they have to play hard to get: “In days gone by, when we understood the importance of femininity, men wooed women and, if they were successful in their pursuit, considered these girlfriends a great prize,” she told the Mail .

The second mistake is that, even if a woman does manage to get a man to stick around after she’s flopped into bed with him, she’s still liable to sabotage herself by acting like the boss of the couple. Women who are used to being in control at work feel like they need to be in control at home as well, and men are happy to sit back and allow it. Wunder calls this impulse “mothering”, and according to Lawson, it creates “all kinds of tensions and resentments” which ultimately doom the relationship.

https://unherd.com/2021/10/do-women-need-dating-coaches/

[raybennett]

@FermentedAgave

The first “macho” mistake a woman might make is to jump into bed with a man. Playing it casual, says Lawson, just means you get treated casually. If women want to be valued, they have to play hard to get: “In days gone by, when we understood the importance of femininity, men wooed women and, if they were successful in their pursuit, considered these girlfriends a great prize,” she told the Mail .

The second mistake is that, even if a woman does manage to get a man to stick around after she’s flopped into bed with him, she’s still liable to sabotage herself by acting like the boss of the couple. Women who are used to being in control at work feel like they need to be in control at home as well, and men are happy to sit back and allow it. Wunder calls this impulse “mothering”, and according to Lawson, it creates “all kinds of tensions and resentments” which ultimately doom the relationship.

[raybennett]

The ultimate hilarity is weak men blaming women for being too strong.
“Oh, please don’t be so strong and confident so that I can be the strong one.”
“Please at least pretend to be a virgin so my I don’t have to wonder about how I stack up to other men you’ve had sex with.”
“Please let me be in charge. Can I be in charge?”
“I can’t stand up to mommy, and when you act like a mommy I can’t stand up to you. Please let me be a man.”

Men have to make a choice.

• Be the submissive one and accept the woman’s leadership
• Be capable and emotionally strong enough to EARN the woman’s (or lgbtq partner) respect

I respect men and have friends who are in both situations. I have a friend who loves scrubbing floors and doing housework for women. It makes him happy, so more power to him. I also have female friends who just love that mental / emotional space of surrender and trust - but not just with ANYbody. That level trust has to be earned.

What does not work is to just expect women to be less than 100% of who they are just because the man isn’t up to the task of being 100% of who he is. Or substitute whatever genders are involved.