The Human Brain and the Intellect, the Imagination, and the Cognitive Rational Emotions as an Erotic and Sexual Aphrodisiac
It's not a case of "All men think with their penises" (meaning that the sexual-physical-bodily biological and genital desires and lusts of all men, fuel, control, and completely influence and determine all of our thoughts and feelings), as my genitals and the whole of my orgasmic body and being, also desires and lusts reciprocally with and between my brain, and with, between, and from all my thoughts and feelings which come from my brain and from my actual intellectual, rational, and emotional cognition - both in terms of the fact that I have a very different brain and organic so-called nervous system, and the fact that this is also a different modality of feeling, thinking, and consciousness - of which I also freely choose, and which is also a different path I have chosen by my own choice and freewill.
At first, I didn't understand why I was like this, but now I have cracked it all and I now understand the structure, processes, functions, contents, and general order, patterns, and basic overall material and biological nature of all of this about me; but which have been totally misinterpreted by many people in the past as me "mind masturbating" or "thinking with my penis", but in actual fact it is all the other way around - that my brain, thoughts, and cognitive feelings - create, energise, and fuel my sexual and erotic desires and sexual-love feelings.
There are however, other things about women that turn me on, which sexually and erotically arouse, stimulate, and which sentiently and sensually create sensations, and which arouse and create soft and warm sexual-loving and emotional thoughts and feelings, but all of this reciprocal polarity between my bodily and genital sexual and erotic desires, and which overall primarily all comes from my cerebral/brain cognitive and emotional thoughts and feelings - as the engine-block and driving force or energy of all those things - is a big part of me and of who and what I actually am, in both physical, biological, material, and in social, interpersonal, and psychological terms.
The Real Contexts and Meanings Of the Terms Messiah and Vessels in the Bible and Christianity
The Real Contexts and Meanings Of the Terms Messiah and Vessels in the Bible and Christianity
I am a big fan of the Goddess Community. However, many of them have both very unjustly, very ignorantly, and very unwisely rejected, and completely and utterly misrepresented, misinterpreted, and misunderstood what Jesus Christ meant when he said he was the messiah in the Bible.
Jesus Christ said that he was the messiah, not to any man, but to a woman at a well, and he was a heterosexual and love masochist towards and with women. Jesus Christ was also in reality and in fact, half-Jewish and half-Aramaic - and the Aramaic meaning and use of the term "messiah" means servant of the divine, it does not mean master nor mistress, and in this context when he told the woman at the well that he was the messiah, Jesus Christ meant that he was a servant of the Goddess and of her and other women.
Of course, the vast amount of Christians believe just in God and not in any Goddess, as in the gentile Christian culture and religion, they tend to find a spiritual truth or truths, and a spiritual reality, and then they look for no further spiritual truths or realities, and which is a very limited, very blinkered, and a most ignorant and prejudiced very conservative tendency, whilst in the Jewish and Irish cultures, everything and all spiritual and political matters are up for further debate, discussion, and investigation.
There may be a God as the gentile-Christians say, but that does not mean to say that God hasn't got a wife, but which is the Mother and the Goddess of all creation.
Jesus Christ also said in the Bible that you cannot serve two masters - meaning the master of the patriarchal misinterpreted, misrepresented, and very-exclusive divine being of a heavenly father God, and the other patriarchal God of the Devil - but Jesus Christ meant by all these statements, that you have to serve the Goddess and who is the Mother of the universe and of all human Creation, and that you have to serve sexually and love influential, sexually assertive and sexually dominant women, a dominatrix or dominatrices, and in fact all women.
Thus, this is again what Jesus meant when he told the woman at the well that he was her servant of both God and but especially of the Goddess and of all women.
Despite what somewhat misogynist and very patriarchal religions, theologies, and college and university academia and academics claim, the real truth and reality of all these matters, are that all the real genuine and substantial political and spiritual knowledge comes from women, as contrary to the way the Bible has deliberately lied, or very wildly and inaccurately been misinterpreted about these things by describing all women as weaker vessels - men are actually the these vessels (and servants of women in these ways), as all men are the vessels of the genuine and substantial political and spiritual knowledge of which they and we all receive and transform from women, in many different ways - including socially, interpersonally in some communication between us, erotically, sexually, through the semiotic and somewhat subconscious words, tonal nature, over-lapping contextual patterns, shapes, and configurations of the languages and words women use and express, from women's body-language, and through love and emotional transference between men and women, but which again, all of these things and matters primarily come from women.
Whether any of us, actually believe that a Goddess actually exists or not at all, either superstitiously, symbolically, or metaphorically, it is an undeniable fact that women are the real creators of all human-life through childbirth, and it is also a fact and a reality that all men are really the vessels of women, as I have revealed and explained in this article, but then all of these men then steal and claim all of this political and spiritual knowledge as their own wisdom, intelligent writings, findings, new knowledge, and theories and propagate and tell the absolute lies that this is all their own creations.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
I am a big fan of the Goddess Community. However, many of them have both very unjustly, very ignorantly, and very unwisely rejected, and completely and utterly misrepresented, misinterpreted, and misunderstood what Jesus Christ meant when he said he was the messiah in the Bible.
Jesus Christ said that he was the messiah, not to any man, but to a woman at a well, and he was a heterosexual and love masochist towards and with women. Jesus Christ was also in reality and in fact, half-Jewish and half-Aramaic - and the Aramaic meaning and use of the term "messiah" means servant of the divine, it does not mean master nor mistress, and in this context when he told the woman at the well that he was the messiah, Jesus Christ meant that he was a servant of the Goddess and of her and other women.
Of course, the vast amount of Christians believe just in God and not in any Goddess, as in the gentile Christian culture and religion, they tend to find a spiritual truth or truths, and a spiritual reality, and then they look for no further spiritual truths or realities, and which is a very limited, very blinkered, and a most ignorant and prejudiced very conservative tendency, whilst in the Jewish and Irish cultures, everything and all spiritual and political matters are up for further debate, discussion, and investigation.
There may be a God as the gentile-Christians say, but that does not mean to say that God hasn't got a wife, but which is the Mother and the Goddess of all creation.
Jesus Christ also said in the Bible that you cannot serve two masters - meaning the master of the patriarchal misinterpreted, misrepresented, and very-exclusive divine being of a heavenly father God, and the other patriarchal God of the Devil - but Jesus Christ meant by all these statements, that you have to serve the Goddess and who is the Mother of the universe and of all human Creation, and that you have to serve sexually and love influential, sexually assertive and sexually dominant women, a dominatrix or dominatrices, and in fact all women.
Thus, this is again what Jesus meant when he told the woman at the well that he was her servant of both God and but especially of the Goddess and of all women.
Despite what somewhat misogynist and very patriarchal religions, theologies, and college and university academia and academics claim, the real truth and reality of all these matters, are that all the real genuine and substantial political and spiritual knowledge comes from women, as contrary to the way the Bible has deliberately lied, or very wildly and inaccurately been misinterpreted about these things by describing all women as weaker vessels - men are actually the these vessels (and servants of women in these ways), as all men are the vessels of the genuine and substantial political and spiritual knowledge of which they and we all receive and transform from women, in many different ways - including socially, interpersonally in some communication between us, erotically, sexually, through the semiotic and somewhat subconscious words, tonal nature, over-lapping contextual patterns, shapes, and configurations of the languages and words women use and express, from women's body-language, and through love and emotional transference between men and women, but which again, all of these things and matters primarily come from women.
Whether any of us, actually believe that a Goddess actually exists or not at all, either superstitiously, symbolically, or metaphorically, it is an undeniable fact that women are the real creators of all human-life through childbirth, and it is also a fact and a reality that all men are really the vessels of women, as I have revealed and explained in this article, but then all of these men then steal and claim all of this political and spiritual knowledge as their own wisdom, intelligent writings, findings, new knowledge, and theories and propagate and tell the absolute lies that this is all their own creations.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
A Key Aspect and Reality of the Spiritual, Social, Sexual, and Evolutionary Process and Progress of the Goddess in Women and/or Human Nature
A Key Aspect and Reality of the Spiritual, Social, Sexual, and Evolutionary Process and Progress of the Goddess in Women and/or Human Nature
Without having to do any study or research about this, it is obvious that the Goddess community are using the term androgyny, in both a gender-neutral and in a very feminine way and sense, and in an hermaphroditic sense as well, whilst we also all probably realise that in mainstream society, androgyny is a very male-term and use of language, because it means masculinity and making everyone and both men and women masculine and (more) like men; rather than seeing or realising any hidden or revelatory Goddess spirit in women and/or in all human nature.
Some usage's of the term androgyny, may also imply that there are only two genders, when there is in fact a third gender, and many other different types of gender to be realised and/or blended. There are some people, who are neither male nor female, they are not necessarily hermaphrodites nor androgynous physically and/or spiritually, mentally, and psychologically either, but they are a third and completely different gender.
Some masochist men towards and with women, fit into this category, as they are in way, and in basic terms, bi-gender, because whilst their masculinity goes into a kind of vacuum, it is then transformed sexually, erotically, and in terms of intellect, emotion, and love, into a blending with the ultra-femininity of dominatrix and femdom women, and thus in this way, it fades and returns as a sort of metaphorical resurrection.
These people oscillate in order to merge sexualities and genders, but do not passively blend in a way which is in a male sense mutually dominant. It is an active and assertive blending, towards a mutual receptivity and/or passivity to the happiness, pleasure, and desire of what the Goddess community would call the divinity of women and the Goddess, which in itself fades and returns as femininely assertive and dominant again.
This is an aspect and reality of the underlying spirituality of dominatrix and femdom women, which some people fail to see the process and progress of in both a spiritual, social, and evolutionary sense, as they only see the illusory surface of this as the sexuality and especially as the power, and thus they fragment and split it in the purely prevailing male sense of hermaphroditism.
Without having to do any study or research about this, it is obvious that the Goddess community are using the term androgyny, in both a gender-neutral and in a very feminine way and sense, and in an hermaphroditic sense as well, whilst we also all probably realise that in mainstream society, androgyny is a very male-term and use of language, because it means masculinity and making everyone and both men and women masculine and (more) like men; rather than seeing or realising any hidden or revelatory Goddess spirit in women and/or in all human nature.
Some usage's of the term androgyny, may also imply that there are only two genders, when there is in fact a third gender, and many other different types of gender to be realised and/or blended. There are some people, who are neither male nor female, they are not necessarily hermaphrodites nor androgynous physically and/or spiritually, mentally, and psychologically either, but they are a third and completely different gender.
Some masochist men towards and with women, fit into this category, as they are in way, and in basic terms, bi-gender, because whilst their masculinity goes into a kind of vacuum, it is then transformed sexually, erotically, and in terms of intellect, emotion, and love, into a blending with the ultra-femininity of dominatrix and femdom women, and thus in this way, it fades and returns as a sort of metaphorical resurrection.
These people oscillate in order to merge sexualities and genders, but do not passively blend in a way which is in a male sense mutually dominant. It is an active and assertive blending, towards a mutual receptivity and/or passivity to the happiness, pleasure, and desire of what the Goddess community would call the divinity of women and the Goddess, which in itself fades and returns as femininely assertive and dominant again.
This is an aspect and reality of the underlying spirituality of dominatrix and femdom women, which some people fail to see the process and progress of in both a spiritual, social, and evolutionary sense, as they only see the illusory surface of this as the sexuality and especially as the power, and thus they fragment and split it in the purely prevailing male sense of hermaphroditism.
Jesus Christ's Masochist Sexuality With and Towards Women
Jesus Christ's Masochist Sexuality With and Towards Women
Whether Jesus Christ ever existed - as some people say, along with the claim that there is some or much historical evidence for this - or whether Jesus Christ is a completely fictional character and the Bible is just a story, is all somewhat unknown and debatable. I just don't know, whether Jesus Christ existed or not, or whether the Biblical descriptions of Jesus Christ, are a falsely individual description of many people, in those Biblical times, and in that time, country, place, and society, and which still has some relevance and vital moral and ethical need and importance, to some sexual love masochist men with and towards women today, in our so-called modern world and society.
Whether Jesus Christ existed or not, there is some evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, that he did have at least one female disciple, who was also his lover, and possibly eventually his wife, and who some people say, was in actual fact the prostitute, Mary Magdelin. My very astute, most highly ingenious, and deep understanding of the Bible, is that Jesus Christ, certainly had more than one - if not many - female disciples, but that this is only apparent from reading the subtexts, semiotic messages, and disordered, and somewhat mixed-up and interchangeable historical events in the Bible, and from connecting them all up in the right sort of order, with very high and clever psychological character insight, and from paying a lot of attention to all the details, and how they relate to both the parts, different contexts, and the whole.
I very much know and understand, how these split, fragmented, and reversed historical events in the Bible - which are not actually put into the right context, or put into any overall chronological order in the Bible - are all interconnected and relate, to form a whole and complete picture, in terms of the fact that Jesus had many female disciples, but which appears to be omitted or left out from the Bible. This is all also actually written in code, in the Bible, either deliberately, or more likely out of covering up the truth of this fact, that Jesus had many female disciples as well as male ones, and it is more than likely deliberately misleading people as to the facts, truth, and reality of all these matters.
The story in the Bible of Samson and Delilah, is not about separate characters and persons from Jesus Christ, but it is a symbolic and a Freudian slip, and a character-split, displacement, or fragmentation, of Samson - who was actually Jesus Christ - for the fact that Jesus Christ was a sexual love masochist with and towards women, that many women loved and desired Jesus for this and in this way, and that some women, due to their denial and repressed desires and urges towards him, as a sexual masochist towards men, had some very intense jealousy, and very hateful thoughts and feelings against him, due to the denial of their sexual and love repression, by themselves and others.
The other character-split and displacement character and person, was Delilah - and who was actually Jesus Christ's female disciple, Judas Iscariot - and who betrayed him to the Romans and religious authorities, because of this particular female disciple - Judas Iscariot's - very strong repressed sexual love and desires for Jesus, as a male sexual masochist towards women, and her inability to both express and control, these very strong, intense, and somewhat repressed sexual desires and urges, and which led to her extreme jealousy and hatred against him. All of this, led to the betrayal of Jesus Christ, by one of his female disciples, Judas Iscariot, and to the murder of Jesus, by the Romans and religious authorities, and which is also very much related to the fact that Jesus was seen as a political threat, due to some of his radical political views and opinions.
Because since Biblical times, the lack of equal rights, lack of understanding, and lack of insight and honesty, towards, of, and about sexual love masochism in men with and towards women, in the modern-day present world and society, and the ways that women's love and desire for masochist men, is repressed and seen as deviant and taboo - and the kind of jealousies and very hateful feelings, thoughts, and behaviours by some women like Judas Escariot, towards some sexual love masochist men with and towards women, due to denial and sexual repression of their desires, love, and urges - hasn't changed hardly at all, very similar threats are still being made about us as sexual love masochists with and towards women in this way, in modern day society.
Now of course, the state and society, isn't allowed to murder sexual love masochist men with and towards women, who may also have some radical political views and opinions, but very illegal, immoral, and unethical threats of incarceration, from things like the psychiatric system, or through the doctors medical system imposing bans, and only allowing us to see doctors in far away restricted areas and places, are still sometimes being used against us, as they have been made against me very recently.
These very illegal, immoral, and unethical threats that are sometimes made against us, as sexual love masochist men with and towards women, are driven by the same denial and repressed sexual desires, love, and urges of some women, who again cannot control these desires and urges, and who's repressed sexual desires, love, and urges, leads to very strong desires and sexual fantasies, to illegally incarcerate us, in order to have power over us, and to arrange clandestine situations, where we are forced to socially interact with, and in some ways satisfy these repressed and uncontrollable sexual desires, urges, and fantasies of these women - and with the excuse that these women are punishing us for our honesty and openness, about our sexual love masochism with and towards women, which are described by these women as "Very bad attitudes towards women" - and all in order to enforce a very immoral, unethical, and unwanted humiliation, for us to also apologise about this very false, unwanted accusation, excuse and pretext, for the very immoral, unethical, and illegal incarceration of us.
Until we understand the real facts and truth of, within, and about the Bible, about Jesus Christ's sexual love masochism with and towards women, the women who desired and loved him in this way, and the role and part that some women played in his murder and crucifixion, these illegal and unethical threats, of things like illegal and very immoral and unethical psychiatric incarceration, and of forced social interaction, for clandestine sexual activities by some women towards us, will continue.
Whether Jesus Christ ever existed - as some people say, along with the claim that there is some or much historical evidence for this - or whether Jesus Christ is a completely fictional character and the Bible is just a story, is all somewhat unknown and debatable. I just don't know, whether Jesus Christ existed or not, or whether the Biblical descriptions of Jesus Christ, are a falsely individual description of many people, in those Biblical times, and in that time, country, place, and society, and which still has some relevance and vital moral and ethical need and importance, to some sexual love masochist men with and towards women today, in our so-called modern world and society.
Whether Jesus Christ existed or not, there is some evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, that he did have at least one female disciple, who was also his lover, and possibly eventually his wife, and who some people say, was in actual fact the prostitute, Mary Magdelin. My very astute, most highly ingenious, and deep understanding of the Bible, is that Jesus Christ, certainly had more than one - if not many - female disciples, but that this is only apparent from reading the subtexts, semiotic messages, and disordered, and somewhat mixed-up and interchangeable historical events in the Bible, and from connecting them all up in the right sort of order, with very high and clever psychological character insight, and from paying a lot of attention to all the details, and how they relate to both the parts, different contexts, and the whole.
I very much know and understand, how these split, fragmented, and reversed historical events in the Bible - which are not actually put into the right context, or put into any overall chronological order in the Bible - are all interconnected and relate, to form a whole and complete picture, in terms of the fact that Jesus had many female disciples, but which appears to be omitted or left out from the Bible. This is all also actually written in code, in the Bible, either deliberately, or more likely out of covering up the truth of this fact, that Jesus had many female disciples as well as male ones, and it is more than likely deliberately misleading people as to the facts, truth, and reality of all these matters.
The story in the Bible of Samson and Delilah, is not about separate characters and persons from Jesus Christ, but it is a symbolic and a Freudian slip, and a character-split, displacement, or fragmentation, of Samson - who was actually Jesus Christ - for the fact that Jesus Christ was a sexual love masochist with and towards women, that many women loved and desired Jesus for this and in this way, and that some women, due to their denial and repressed desires and urges towards him, as a sexual masochist towards men, had some very intense jealousy, and very hateful thoughts and feelings against him, due to the denial of their sexual and love repression, by themselves and others.
The other character-split and displacement character and person, was Delilah - and who was actually Jesus Christ's female disciple, Judas Iscariot - and who betrayed him to the Romans and religious authorities, because of this particular female disciple - Judas Iscariot's - very strong repressed sexual love and desires for Jesus, as a male sexual masochist towards women, and her inability to both express and control, these very strong, intense, and somewhat repressed sexual desires and urges, and which led to her extreme jealousy and hatred against him. All of this, led to the betrayal of Jesus Christ, by one of his female disciples, Judas Iscariot, and to the murder of Jesus, by the Romans and religious authorities, and which is also very much related to the fact that Jesus was seen as a political threat, due to some of his radical political views and opinions.
Because since Biblical times, the lack of equal rights, lack of understanding, and lack of insight and honesty, towards, of, and about sexual love masochism in men with and towards women, in the modern-day present world and society, and the ways that women's love and desire for masochist men, is repressed and seen as deviant and taboo - and the kind of jealousies and very hateful feelings, thoughts, and behaviours by some women like Judas Escariot, towards some sexual love masochist men with and towards women, due to denial and sexual repression of their desires, love, and urges - hasn't changed hardly at all, very similar threats are still being made about us as sexual love masochists with and towards women in this way, in modern day society.
Now of course, the state and society, isn't allowed to murder sexual love masochist men with and towards women, who may also have some radical political views and opinions, but very illegal, immoral, and unethical threats of incarceration, from things like the psychiatric system, or through the doctors medical system imposing bans, and only allowing us to see doctors in far away restricted areas and places, are still sometimes being used against us, as they have been made against me very recently.
These very illegal, immoral, and unethical threats that are sometimes made against us, as sexual love masochist men with and towards women, are driven by the same denial and repressed sexual desires, love, and urges of some women, who again cannot control these desires and urges, and who's repressed sexual desires, love, and urges, leads to very strong desires and sexual fantasies, to illegally incarcerate us, in order to have power over us, and to arrange clandestine situations, where we are forced to socially interact with, and in some ways satisfy these repressed and uncontrollable sexual desires, urges, and fantasies of these women - and with the excuse that these women are punishing us for our honesty and openness, about our sexual love masochism with and towards women, which are described by these women as "Very bad attitudes towards women" - and all in order to enforce a very immoral, unethical, and unwanted humiliation, for us to also apologise about this very false, unwanted accusation, excuse and pretext, for the very immoral, unethical, and illegal incarceration of us.
Until we understand the real facts and truth of, within, and about the Bible, about Jesus Christ's sexual love masochism with and towards women, the women who desired and loved him in this way, and the role and part that some women played in his murder and crucifixion, these illegal and unethical threats, of things like illegal and very immoral and unethical psychiatric incarceration, and of forced social interaction, for clandestine sexual activities by some women towards us, will continue.
Masochism and Phenomenology
Masochism and Phenomenology
It’s important in explaining about masochism, and understanding the uniqueness and higher awareness of it, that we understand the experiences of masochist men in relation and towards women, and how we as masochist men interact and especially experience women. This is necessary to clear up some misconceptions about masochism - related to hypocrisy, double-standards, and false and inaccurate interpretations by professionals and some others - to clear up and challenge the misconceptions that masochist men have overall central misperceptions about women, and to understand the phenomenology, and the natural or biological psychology of masochism.
Masochism in men towards women, is in a lot of ways, a more intense form of heterosexuality, as it is a sensitivity, and a more intense sexual feeling and love for women. The character, physical beauty, and sexuality of women, are experienced by masochist men, as more assertive, more influential, and more powerful, to the extent where this can sometimes overwhelm us as masochist men, or lead to acts and desires of submission and debasement towards women, as well as this sensitivity leading to more refinement and mutual respect.
On the matter of whether these thoughts, feelings, and desires about women by masochist men, are to what extent based upon the reality of the true nature of women, this is somewhat of a complex matter, related to the diversity and individuality of women, whilst some clear and concise statements can still be made about this.
The common myth about masochism, that it is idealising women, is not true, whilst it can lead to some more realistic realisations about the true nature of women - without over-generalising too much - and can lead to some foresight and cynicism. It is here that I confess, that despite my deep, sensitive, and intense desire and submissive love for women, masochism in men towards women, is much more likely to lead to cynicism than idealisation about women, and most women realise and know this.
It’s important in explaining about masochism, and understanding the uniqueness and higher awareness of it, that we understand the experiences of masochist men in relation and towards women, and how we as masochist men interact and especially experience women. This is necessary to clear up some misconceptions about masochism - related to hypocrisy, double-standards, and false and inaccurate interpretations by professionals and some others - to clear up and challenge the misconceptions that masochist men have overall central misperceptions about women, and to understand the phenomenology, and the natural or biological psychology of masochism.
Masochism in men towards women, is in a lot of ways, a more intense form of heterosexuality, as it is a sensitivity, and a more intense sexual feeling and love for women. The character, physical beauty, and sexuality of women, are experienced by masochist men, as more assertive, more influential, and more powerful, to the extent where this can sometimes overwhelm us as masochist men, or lead to acts and desires of submission and debasement towards women, as well as this sensitivity leading to more refinement and mutual respect.
On the matter of whether these thoughts, feelings, and desires about women by masochist men, are to what extent based upon the reality of the true nature of women, this is somewhat of a complex matter, related to the diversity and individuality of women, whilst some clear and concise statements can still be made about this.
The common myth about masochism, that it is idealising women, is not true, whilst it can lead to some more realistic realisations about the true nature of women - without over-generalising too much - and can lead to some foresight and cynicism. It is here that I confess, that despite my deep, sensitive, and intense desire and submissive love for women, masochism in men towards women, is much more likely to lead to cynicism than idealisation about women, and most women realise and know this.
My thoughts and Responses, on a Male Internet Friend's Recent view about Dominatrices, that they have an Illusory, and a False Identity and Persona, a
My thoughts and Responses, on a Male Internet Friend's Recent view about Dominatrices, that they have an Illusory, and a False Identity and Persona, as Sexually Sadistic and Dominate Women Towards Men, which they very Evasively, Deceitfully, and Falsely Present to Themselves and Others about Themselves
This view and interpretation about dominatrices, as recently put-forward to me by a male friend over the Internet, states and says that all dominatrices have and create a false persona and sexual identity, presented to themselves and others, of an illusory sexual character and nature, as sexually sadistic or sexually dominant genders and orientations towards men - which he also stated and said were very much conditioned, influenced by, and based-upon money and their vested Interest in monetary profit, which materially, economically, and socially and economic conditions and Influences their ideas of and about themselves in all these ways - and which he then stated also then creates a false and misleading sexually sadistic and erotic, and a sexually dominant illusion and fake or false identity and persona.
After telling this Internet friend, that I very much desire, love, and respect all dominatrices, sexually sadistic, assertive, influential, and sexually dominant women towards men, this male friend over the Internet, then said that he didn't like me talking about any of this, because he then told me that it made him think of me as less of a man, and that when I do talk and say about all or any or this to him, he said that he also has a lowered respect and regard of me as a man.
He also said, that none of these dominatrix women, are what I think or what I say they are, as they are not in fact sexually sadistic nor sexually dominant women towards men by nature at all, and that in actual reality and fact, that they are just prostitutes, who don't want to have sex with men, and so they beat men instead, in order to make lots of money out of it all.
This male Internet friend, is not a Marxist, but what he was saying about all of this, is very similar to the Marxist idea and view, that all personas, personalities, and sexual-orientations and character illusions, and all ideas, social, and gender conditions, are very much conditioned, influenced, and caused and strongly related to the social and material economic vested interests of these dominatrix women, who are in reality and fact not authentically or genuinely sexually sadistic or sexually dominant at all.
Wiliest I totally disagree with this male Internet friend, that being a heterosexual male masochist towards and with women, makes me any less of a man - nor that sexually sadistic and sexually dominant women towards men, makes them less of a woman or women and not real women - up to a point - I think he has a point about social, economic, material conditions, and social circumstances, being a primary and major cause, conditioning, and an influence, of sexual orientations and desires, and of some fake or false identity constructions and fabrications related to all of this, and as presented to the self and others by dominatrices.
Again, I agree in a way, and up to a point, with his sort of Marxists view, as many dominatrices, are not simply female sadists towards men, nor are they simply sexually dominant women towards men as they claim, as the vast majority of dominatrices are in actual fact switches who swing both ways as submissive or dominant, according to what other person or situation they are in. Also, some dominatrices, are also neither female sadists, nor sexual female dominants towards men, as they can also be either reverse female masochists, or sadomasochists - as sadomasochists, are again - a completely different and separate type of person from sadists, masochists, female dominants, female reverse masochists, and switches.
I have learned from my years of study of the texts, subtexts, shapes and order, and my deconstructed irregular and displaced patterns and motions, of the linguistics and semantics on all of the dominatrices websites, and from studying and deeply and complexly analysing their photos as well - and also by engaging in fairly long web-cam chat conversations, with many of them over the years, and thousands of MSN Messenger and email conversations with them - they are all in actually reality and fact a mixture of female sadists, female dominants, reverse female masochists, switches - and actual sadomasochists - who are again completely different from all the other types of BDSM sexual orientations.
So contrary to this male Internet friend's, rather over-simplified, very cynical, and very reductionist view about dominatrices, having their false sexual identity, personal, and sexual genders and sexual-orientation characters, conditioned and influenced my economic vested interests, and that these ideas that they have or present to others about themselves, are all conditioned and influenced by social, economic, and material circumstances, interests, and influences - I do still believe what they say what they are - although of course some of them are not be clear, knowledgeable, nor specific about what they really are or they are lying, because there are in actual fact and reality six different types of BDSM, dominatrices, and sexual female domination people - male and female masochists, female sadists, female dominants, reverse female masochists, switches - and again - actual sadomasochists, who are completely and totally different from all the rest.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
This view and interpretation about dominatrices, as recently put-forward to me by a male friend over the Internet, states and says that all dominatrices have and create a false persona and sexual identity, presented to themselves and others, of an illusory sexual character and nature, as sexually sadistic or sexually dominant genders and orientations towards men - which he also stated and said were very much conditioned, influenced by, and based-upon money and their vested Interest in monetary profit, which materially, economically, and socially and economic conditions and Influences their ideas of and about themselves in all these ways - and which he then stated also then creates a false and misleading sexually sadistic and erotic, and a sexually dominant illusion and fake or false identity and persona.
After telling this Internet friend, that I very much desire, love, and respect all dominatrices, sexually sadistic, assertive, influential, and sexually dominant women towards men, this male friend over the Internet, then said that he didn't like me talking about any of this, because he then told me that it made him think of me as less of a man, and that when I do talk and say about all or any or this to him, he said that he also has a lowered respect and regard of me as a man.
He also said, that none of these dominatrix women, are what I think or what I say they are, as they are not in fact sexually sadistic nor sexually dominant women towards men by nature at all, and that in actual reality and fact, that they are just prostitutes, who don't want to have sex with men, and so they beat men instead, in order to make lots of money out of it all.
This male Internet friend, is not a Marxist, but what he was saying about all of this, is very similar to the Marxist idea and view, that all personas, personalities, and sexual-orientations and character illusions, and all ideas, social, and gender conditions, are very much conditioned, influenced, and caused and strongly related to the social and material economic vested interests of these dominatrix women, who are in reality and fact not authentically or genuinely sexually sadistic or sexually dominant at all.
Wiliest I totally disagree with this male Internet friend, that being a heterosexual male masochist towards and with women, makes me any less of a man - nor that sexually sadistic and sexually dominant women towards men, makes them less of a woman or women and not real women - up to a point - I think he has a point about social, economic, material conditions, and social circumstances, being a primary and major cause, conditioning, and an influence, of sexual orientations and desires, and of some fake or false identity constructions and fabrications related to all of this, and as presented to the self and others by dominatrices.
Again, I agree in a way, and up to a point, with his sort of Marxists view, as many dominatrices, are not simply female sadists towards men, nor are they simply sexually dominant women towards men as they claim, as the vast majority of dominatrices are in actual fact switches who swing both ways as submissive or dominant, according to what other person or situation they are in. Also, some dominatrices, are also neither female sadists, nor sexual female dominants towards men, as they can also be either reverse female masochists, or sadomasochists - as sadomasochists, are again - a completely different and separate type of person from sadists, masochists, female dominants, female reverse masochists, and switches.
I have learned from my years of study of the texts, subtexts, shapes and order, and my deconstructed irregular and displaced patterns and motions, of the linguistics and semantics on all of the dominatrices websites, and from studying and deeply and complexly analysing their photos as well - and also by engaging in fairly long web-cam chat conversations, with many of them over the years, and thousands of MSN Messenger and email conversations with them - they are all in actually reality and fact a mixture of female sadists, female dominants, reverse female masochists, switches - and actual sadomasochists - who are again completely different from all the other types of BDSM sexual orientations.
So contrary to this male Internet friend's, rather over-simplified, very cynical, and very reductionist view about dominatrices, having their false sexual identity, personal, and sexual genders and sexual-orientation characters, conditioned and influenced my economic vested interests, and that these ideas that they have or present to others about themselves, are all conditioned and influenced by social, economic, and material circumstances, interests, and influences - I do still believe what they say what they are - although of course some of them are not be clear, knowledgeable, nor specific about what they really are or they are lying, because there are in actual fact and reality six different types of BDSM, dominatrices, and sexual female domination people - male and female masochists, female sadists, female dominants, reverse female masochists, switches - and again - actual sadomasochists, who are completely and totally different from all the rest.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
Prostitution, Economic, Personal, and Social Sexual freedom,
Prostitution, Economic, Personal, and Social Sexual freedom,
by peterpoets » 02 Oct 2010 08:57 am
Prostitution, Economic, Personal, and Social Sexual freedom, Love and Friendship
I've recently been studying and researching different kind of prostitutes websites on the Internet, and various things about these different kinds of prostitute individuals and groups occurs to me.
Whilst it seems at first glance, that prostitutes are very capitalistic, greedy, and gauge and measure love and friendship with men just based upon gaining money, this is not really the case or reality about all of this at all, as a lot of all this depends upon whether prostitutes are either completely and genuinely autonomously self-employed or autonomous collective groups, or whether they are controlled by men in both good and bad terms and ways, as either their bosses or their helpers and mentors.
If prostitutes have men as their bosses, mentors or helpers, then this doesn't necessarily mean that these men are evil or controlling in a negative way, but the problem is that often the men who control or help prostitutes or are their bosses in some ways, tend to impose very conservative values about love and friendship with other men upon them, and by doing this, they think they are helping, protecting, and securing love and social and friendship loyalty and priority for these women, by only encouraging them to seek love or friendship with men if they receive money for it.
Receiving money for sexual things, is fine and most people do this in one way or another, but money cannot buy anyone friendship or love, especially if it is in anyway hierarchical, controlled, or controlling.
This is why some prostitutes are genuinely and authentically self-employed and autonomous either as individuals or groups, so they can make money for themselves, whilst they are also free and can be friends or love men, when and how they choose to do so, and without any overall economic dependency and very conservative values being pressurised or imposed upon them.
by peterpoets » 02 Oct 2010 08:57 am
Prostitution, Economic, Personal, and Social Sexual freedom, Love and Friendship
I've recently been studying and researching different kind of prostitutes websites on the Internet, and various things about these different kinds of prostitute individuals and groups occurs to me.
Whilst it seems at first glance, that prostitutes are very capitalistic, greedy, and gauge and measure love and friendship with men just based upon gaining money, this is not really the case or reality about all of this at all, as a lot of all this depends upon whether prostitutes are either completely and genuinely autonomously self-employed or autonomous collective groups, or whether they are controlled by men in both good and bad terms and ways, as either their bosses or their helpers and mentors.
If prostitutes have men as their bosses, mentors or helpers, then this doesn't necessarily mean that these men are evil or controlling in a negative way, but the problem is that often the men who control or help prostitutes or are their bosses in some ways, tend to impose very conservative values about love and friendship with other men upon them, and by doing this, they think they are helping, protecting, and securing love and social and friendship loyalty and priority for these women, by only encouraging them to seek love or friendship with men if they receive money for it.
Receiving money for sexual things, is fine and most people do this in one way or another, but money cannot buy anyone friendship or love, especially if it is in anyway hierarchical, controlled, or controlling.
This is why some prostitutes are genuinely and authentically self-employed and autonomous either as individuals or groups, so they can make money for themselves, whilst they are also free and can be friends or love men, when and how they choose to do so, and without any overall economic dependency and very conservative values being pressurised or imposed upon them.
Thomas Szasz, and the Ways that he has been Taken Out-of-Context and Misinterpreted about Natural and Biological Sexual, Erotic, and Sexual-love Masoc
Thomas Szasz, and the Ways that he has been Taken Out-of-Context and Misinterpreted about Natural and Biological Sexual, Erotic, and Sexual-love Masochism
The original context, when the writer and critic of medical psychiatry, Thomas Szasz, first made a statement saying that masochism is purely and first and foremost a behaviour - and which he has been overall taken out-of-context and misinterpreted on this by those who see all masochism as purely a bad behaviour - is that he was referring to masochism in a sort of psychiatric sense as self-harm, along with his next statement that along with rape - and in terms of people being a danger or harm to themselves or others - he was in this context referring to self-harm as first and foremost a behaviour, but he never intended to mean and has never mentioned nor said anything about sexual, erotic, and sexual-love masochism.
The reason that Thomas Szasz has never mentioned nor ever said anything about sexual, erotic, and sexual-love masochism and which people have taken out-of-context, misinterpreted, and confused with what he meant in context about this as self-harm as first and foremost a behaviour - is because whilst he is a political libertarian - he is also a political conservative, who believes that all sexual matters about a free person, who does not impose this on others against their will or free choice, should be solely and absolutely a private matter.
Sexual-erotic, and sexual-love masochism - is like homosexuality - primarily, and first and foremost biological and genetic, and like homosexuality, it is only a behaviour in the very reductionist or over-generalisation that everything human could be described as a behaviour, and it is also only a behaviour, in a metaphorical sense, and as a behavioural by-product of the fact that sexual, erotic, and sexual-love masochists are primarily masochists biologically and genetically the same as homosexuals are.
The original context, when the writer and critic of medical psychiatry, Thomas Szasz, first made a statement saying that masochism is purely and first and foremost a behaviour - and which he has been overall taken out-of-context and misinterpreted on this by those who see all masochism as purely a bad behaviour - is that he was referring to masochism in a sort of psychiatric sense as self-harm, along with his next statement that along with rape - and in terms of people being a danger or harm to themselves or others - he was in this context referring to self-harm as first and foremost a behaviour, but he never intended to mean and has never mentioned nor said anything about sexual, erotic, and sexual-love masochism.
The reason that Thomas Szasz has never mentioned nor ever said anything about sexual, erotic, and sexual-love masochism and which people have taken out-of-context, misinterpreted, and confused with what he meant in context about this as self-harm as first and foremost a behaviour - is because whilst he is a political libertarian - he is also a political conservative, who believes that all sexual matters about a free person, who does not impose this on others against their will or free choice, should be solely and absolutely a private matter.
Sexual-erotic, and sexual-love masochism - is like homosexuality - primarily, and first and foremost biological and genetic, and like homosexuality, it is only a behaviour in the very reductionist or over-generalisation that everything human could be described as a behaviour, and it is also only a behaviour, in a metaphorical sense, and as a behavioural by-product of the fact that sexual, erotic, and sexual-love masochists are primarily masochists biologically and genetically the same as homosexuals are.
Individual and Social Characters, Desires, Sexual and Erotic Fantasies, and Identities
Individual and Social Characters, Desires, Sexual and Erotic Fantasies, and Identities
In one of my previous BDSM articles, I revealed and explained that there was a fourth type of BDSM person and group - sexually, erotically, individually, and socially - from masochists, sadists, and switches, and which are actual sadomasochists.
Actual sadomasochists, as I said in one of my previous articles, are a lot more internal, sexually and psychologically, than "switches", in that sadomasochists, are less sexually versatile, more erotically private, and more sexually rigid than masochists, sadists, and switches are. Also, unlike switches, sadomasochists tend to have the same sadistic and masochist (and somewhat reversing) behaviour patterns, sexual orientations, and experiences, no matter what other situation or other person they are in role-play, different situations, or sexual love-relationships with.
In terms of sexual and erotic identity, switches are very external and sort of much more supposedly realistic and objective, but they nearly always seek validation and verification about their sexuality and eroticism, very externally, in a very conformist way, and very socially. Therefore, because switches are dominant or submissive, according to who they are in sexual-love relationships or role-play with, or according to what social and/or private situation they are in, switches very much nearly always need some kind of very external or social verification, validation, and approval for their sexual and erotic identities.
It is also true that switches actually internally, sexually and erotically fantasise a fair bit, but they internally sexually and erotically fantasise no where near as much as masochists, sadists, and sadomasochists do, and because they are also more extroverted in all these ways. Because switches have much more of a need to overall verify and validate their sexual and erotic fantasies and identities, masochists tend to be more individually submissive - and sexually and erotically so - whereas switches tend to be more overall socially submissive and conformist in these ways, and which is one big reason why they are generally very much inaccurately assumed and considered by others, as being overwhelmingly more stable, much more healthier, and the very basic more well-balanced general norm.
In one of my previous BDSM articles, I revealed and explained that there was a fourth type of BDSM person and group - sexually, erotically, individually, and socially - from masochists, sadists, and switches, and which are actual sadomasochists.
Actual sadomasochists, as I said in one of my previous articles, are a lot more internal, sexually and psychologically, than "switches", in that sadomasochists, are less sexually versatile, more erotically private, and more sexually rigid than masochists, sadists, and switches are. Also, unlike switches, sadomasochists tend to have the same sadistic and masochist (and somewhat reversing) behaviour patterns, sexual orientations, and experiences, no matter what other situation or other person they are in role-play, different situations, or sexual love-relationships with.
In terms of sexual and erotic identity, switches are very external and sort of much more supposedly realistic and objective, but they nearly always seek validation and verification about their sexuality and eroticism, very externally, in a very conformist way, and very socially. Therefore, because switches are dominant or submissive, according to who they are in sexual-love relationships or role-play with, or according to what social and/or private situation they are in, switches very much nearly always need some kind of very external or social verification, validation, and approval for their sexual and erotic identities.
It is also true that switches actually internally, sexually and erotically fantasise a fair bit, but they internally sexually and erotically fantasise no where near as much as masochists, sadists, and sadomasochists do, and because they are also more extroverted in all these ways. Because switches have much more of a need to overall verify and validate their sexual and erotic fantasies and identities, masochists tend to be more individually submissive - and sexually and erotically so - whereas switches tend to be more overall socially submissive and conformist in these ways, and which is one big reason why they are generally very much inaccurately assumed and considered by others, as being overwhelmingly more stable, much more healthier, and the very basic more well-balanced general norm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)