Sunday, 7 November 2010

Anti-Porn Is The Theory, Repression is the Practise


With rare exceptions, feminists have concentrated on attacking attitudes, not power relations of which attitudes are a part. The view of 'Women Against Violence Against Women' (WAVAW), 'Porn is Violence Against Women' (PIVAW) and every other anti-porn group which was accepted as the voice of feminism during the Reagan/Thatcher decade, is that pornography is the "central and binding issue for feminism".
In 1980 the United Nations said that women do 2/3 of the world's work for 10% of the income - the International Labour Organisation says 5%-and 1% of the assets. This was the first international quantification of our exploitation, the basic violence against women from which flows all other violence against us by both institutions and individuals.
By studiously ignoring this violence, the anti-porn/pro-censorship lobby avoids a confrontation with the economic, political and physical violence against women perpetuated or endorsed by the State. Feminists who concentrate on condemning sexist images of women in the name of condemning women's exploitation, and the politicians who back them, turn their backs while the issue of our economic and social power is pushed down the political agenda. Not money, not housing, not even non-sexist, non-racist, non-violent policing, but an end to "dirty pictures" becomes the key to our welfare.
Not unconnected, divisions of race, class, nationality, income, age, disability and occupation have been purposefully censored by feminist advocates of censorship. Anti-porn feminists ask us to do what men have always asked us to do: set aside the divisions among us and submit to their priorities. "We must reunite throughout the nation [sic] on this one basic issue [pornography] . . . Disagreements on other issues can be dealt with when fewer of us are being murdered, beaten, tortured and raped." And therefore, the struggles and priorities of Black and other working class women who are at the bottom of the economic and social hierarchy get watered down or mislaid somewhere along the way to many feminist agendas. A rape survey conducted by two feminists in Leeds chose to investigate streets which "had a mixed population of white single and married people" because " was important to focus on the problem of the dominant cultural group in order to avoid our results being used in a racist way." To "avoid racism" by excluding Black women is a strategy that a politician like Enoch Powell might wholeheartedly support.
Like any other movement for change, the women's movement has to choose whether or not to focus on breaking down these divisions. In our experience, this cannot be done without challenging "all the economic power relations in the working class from the bottom up, beginning with those of us who have the lease power . . . Black women who are the poorest of the poor . . ." To ignore the priorities of women who are Black, immigrant, Third World, prostitute, single mothers, housewives, lesbian, who have disabilities, or who are any combination of these, is to choose to focus instead on the priorities of the most powerful sectors - careerists in metropolitan countries. The choice of images (naked or not) must also begin from the bottom up; otherwise the image of the "successful" (usually white) careerist passes as a picture of every woman's reality, or at least the reality to which we can all achieve. This image embodies the predominantly (mainly white) Establishment perspective of Feminism.
Many feminists have refused to deal with the fact that increasing the power of the State to decide what is "acceptable sex and sexuality" can only lead to greater power in the hands of the police and more State violence against women, starting with those of us who are labelled "ignorant" or "immoral" because we are poor and working class. One clear example of this refusal is the way in which the anti-porn lobby has consistently discussed and proposed legislation promoting censorship without discussing the ways such legislation is likely to be enforced. Those of us at the bottom who go on the game, shoplift, commit Social Security "fraud" or other crimes of poverty in order to support ourselves and our children, can't afford the luxury of treating legislation as an abstraction rather than a power shaping our lives. For us the political is personal. It is women at the bottom, and our sons, brothers, husbands and friends, who are at the receiving end of police brutality, illegality and racism. We don't have the right style, accent, background, colour, passport, connections and or careers to protect us from the law, the police and the courts.
Increasing the power of the State to control sexual expression is of a piece with more generalised economic and political oppression. By trying to control which relationships and forms of contact are to be promoted and which discouraged and even criminalized, the State tries to claw back our victories, particularly those won by the women's and gay movements and the movement for welfare, which have concentrated on establishing our right to do what we want with our own bodies, and our right to economic, legal and social independence from the family. The anti-porn lobby has consistently said that "pornography is the theory, rape is the practice." On the contrary: anti-porn is the theory; economic, political and sexual repression - and that can only mean universal rape - is the practice.
All images, no matter how partial or distorted, are reflections of the real power relations among us. We are dependent on images to find out about other people and the world we live in. Information we get in this way may help or hinder us in our pursuit of a better understanding of ourselves and our possibilities: what we can/want to do with our lives as opposed to what we are supposed to do: to mould ourselves on stereotypes. We therefore want images to inform us about what we need to know and to express clearly the reality we experience; as well as to be stimulating, exiting and beautiful; and we want to replace images which are not working for us in these ways. Images are often the lies through which people with more power impose on those who have less power their version of events, and indicate what we should desire and what they will approve. Anti-porn feminists only skim the surface. They attack the images instead of attacking the reality - the power relations - which the images reflect. Rather than acknowledging the images as an integral part of reality, images are blamed for the violence of reality; visual violence against women is disconnected from the violence of poverty and economic dependence which are mirrored in pornography, violent or not. Anti-pornographers may agree that women are exploited but they refuse to attack that exploitation.
Even their attack on the images is partial. What is most degrading about images of women is that our struggle to refuse all forms of violence and degradation is almost always absent: women are portrayed not only doing the jobs that we do, whether with our clothes on or off, but as consenting, even happy, slaves. If the models are dressed, anti-porn lobbyists seem oblivious of the ways in which this distorted image of us attacks us.
"Lukewarm" sex - lesbian women who are into S&M call it "vanilla sex" . . . whatever sex each of us may like, if it is consensual we have a right to it, and to see reflections of it in pornographic or other images. The stereotypical sex-images anti-porn feminists want to impose on others could not express the variety of the sexual reality and would instead deny the experiences of the millions of women and men who are not only, or at all, into "vanilla sex". So-called "perverted sex" is a form of escapism not that different from Gothic novels or horror films: fantasies in which the power relations are transformed and the subtleties of reality with its demands of decision temporarily forgotten (or are being worked out on another level). The effect of anti-porn is to push sexual choices back to a dark corner and isolate sexual feelings and activity from the rest of life. Any sex, from "vanilla" to S&M, can be a vehicle for violence when it is cut off from compassion (which itself is repressed and splintered into various segregated parts). Sex then becomes an area of darkness in which to give vent to our most secret fears and emotions. (A great attraction of David Lynch's films is that they are based on how people relate when all the characters, not only the hero/Heroine, emerge from that dark corner.)
Anti-pornographers seem to understand the attractions of S&M better than anyone. Some even seem to revel in gory descriptions and interpretations of porn. Why would anyone spend so much time watching and commenting on something they found so repulsive unless the rewards - financial, sexual or both - made it worth while? Opposing porn provides a socially acceptable and even profitable opportunity to indulge one's sexual pleasure while blaming others for one's own taste. (Not surprisingly, Andrea Dworkin's novels Ice and Fire and Mercy have been accused of being pornographic.)
But unlike sado-masochists who confine themselves to consenting sexual acts, anti-pornographers get their satisfaction from forcing themselves - and the State - on everyone - denying, banning, censoring, admonishing, punishing. Punishing - a strong urge which seems to provide sexual pleasure for many, from anti-pornographers to judges.
The anti-porn lobby fails to distinguish between the workers, the bosses and the products. The porn industry is exploitative like any other industry. Should commercial food, clothes, cars, TVs, etc., be banned because their respective industries exploit the workers who produce these goods, or should we support workers' demands for better working conditions? The coal industry is polluting, and working conditions are horrendous. Should we not have supported the 1984-5 strike of mining communities against the closure of pits on which their livelihood depended? In campaigning for prostitutes we underline the distinction between sex workers and the work they do. We know from experience that campaigning for the abolition of the prostitution laws which criminalize women for refusing poverty and financial dependence on men, is inseparable from campaigning for economic alternatives to prostitution: higher benefits, grants and wages so that no woman is forced by poverty into sex with anyone, for money or for "free". Campaigning for abolition is for us inseparable from campaigning to get all women's work - including sex work waged and unwaged, recognised and counted as work so that we can get back the wealth we have helped produce: the resources we need to refuse all exploitation, all prostitution... including what Virginia Woolf called "intellectual harlotry".

Tuesday, 2 November 2010

The Very Major Differences and Distinctions and the very Slight and Very Partial Similarity Between Self-harm and Masochism

The biggest mistake and set of very inaccurate and very false misconceptions about masochism by and within both psychotherapy, psychiatry, and psychiatric mental health, is that the psychological and social causes of both these very separate things, are seen and misunderstood by psychotherapy, psychiatry, and psychiatric mental health as being exactly the same, although there is one very slight but very partial similarity between the two.

Whilst all forms of sexuality and sexual-orientations have elements of both attraction, attractiveness, repulsion and disgust, masochism can only really be understood by realising and understanding the ways that attraction and repulsion and disgust are linked and related within and by masochists, the ways that the two things alternate, differentiate, separate, change into each other and then re-differentiate - how this all operates and applies in very different ways both within and between masochists, switches (people who are both sexually dominant, submissive, sadistic, and masochistic) and sadists - and how all of these different factors and different sexual-orientations and people connect, interrelate, relate and interact, work together and find a consensus and a common ground, agree to differ, and then part ways.

However, to reveal and explain about all of this about masochists, switches, and sadists, is not the purpose of this article, as it is to explain the major differences, distinctions, and the slight and very partial similarity between self-harm and masochism, although again, even these slight similarities are very different in their details, very basic elements, and in their entireties.

Also, whilst masochism and self-harm are very, very different things, revealing, realising, and understanding about all of this in great details and entirety about masochism, switches, and sadism - by using and applying a most highly ingenious contrast and a pluralistic contextual and detailed association and set of both contrasted and related associations - all sheds light in a totally new and greater understanding of and about self-harm and self-harmers, but this is also not the purpose of this article, as I will only refer to and mention in this article the very limited, partial, pre-existing and very incomplete social and psychological explanations of self-harm and self-harmers.

Self-harm by self-harmers, is basically about emotional numbness, mental and emotional distress and pain, anxiety, and/or depression, and it is about how self-harmers harm themselves physically in order to override these things and their experiences of and with them, and because they either do this because they are dissociating from the mental and emotional distress and pain, anxiety, or depression, or because they are trying to diminish and counteract the dissociation and/or depersonalisation they feel by self-harming, in order to wake up and feel more real.

Many self-harmers also self-harm, because many of them have been abused and traumatised in their pasts, and they are wanting to make different associations with mental and emotional pain and distress, and sometimes they trick themselves into believing that the physical pain of their self-harm, is actually the emotional pain and distress, because their feelings of mental and emotional pain and distress have been suppressed and repressed by more unjust punishment and abuse in their pasts, and this is their way of feeling and believing that they now have some control over the mental and emotional pain and distress by hurting themselves physically by self-harming.

All of these social and psychological causes and factors of and about self-harm, have absolutely no connection or relation, to or with the very partial social and psychological causes of masochism, except the fact that both self-harmers and masochists both seek to make and do actually make some different associations between mental and emotional pain and distress, and physical pain, but the ways that each do this, are very, very different.

Another very major difference and distinction, is that the types of associations that masochists use and make, are very different from the types of associations that self-harmers use and make, and what's more these associations that masochists use and make, unlike self-harmers, have absolutely nothing to do with any kind of dissociation or depersonalisation in any ways whatsoever.

What's more, self-harmers do not get pleasure from either emotional and mental pain or distress, and neither do they get pleasure from physical pain, whilst many aspects of masochism have absolutely nothing to do with either emotional and mental or physical pain, as the humiliation by the opposite sex that masochists enjoy is neither emotional nor physical pain (although being humiliated can cause of lead to emotional pain) but being humiliated is actually psychological discomfort and both a reduction, a moderation, and an expansion of personal and social identity and self-esteme.

What's more, the sexual and affection submissiveness that masochists love and enjoy towards the opposite sex, is neither mental and emotional nor physical pain, nor is it any kind of psychological or identity changing or discomfort, as submissive love and desire is to do with feelings and desires of fondness, pleasantness, happiness, positive emotions and desires, and attraction.

Peter H. Donnelly

Friday, 22 October 2010

Biological, Psychological, and Social and Historical Sexuality in Relation and Connection to Morality, and the Liberal Extreme Over-simplifications an

Biological, Psychological, and Social and Historical Sexuality in Relation and Connection to Morality, and the Liberal Extreme Over-simplifications and Misconceptions of Intimacy in all Sexual Relationships, Sexual Role-playing, Lust, Sexual-love and Desires

"Intellectual elitism is the hubris of fascism"

Thomas Szasz

I recently received an email, from a university department of human sexuality studies, and so I read everything on their website (including a download PDF file of their courses), and not only does all of this information on the Internet appear to mention absolutely nothing about their courses, but they mention the rights and teaching (not actually study at all) about all sexual individuals and groups, except for BDSM (masochist, sadist, switch, and sadomasochist people) - as if BDSM people merely have so-called sexual problems - and are absolutely nothing to do with heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, and transgender people, who they claim to defend the rights, knowledge, and sexual and social health of, and as if we are not also sexually, psychologically, and socially human.

I say all their information on the Internet about them, appears not to reveal anything about their courses and teachings, and whilst their is no mention about all of this about empowering individuals and groups at a grass-roots level as equal and autonomous, all they are concerned about is encouraging elitism and educating political leaders and professionals like counsellors and psychologists, which is the surface level of all their professional thought-disorders, and which is all more like liberal-fascism than radical or liberal libertarian-socialism.

I have actually studied all of this information on the Internet about them, by studying the content, the order, the phrasing, and the structural tones, pattern, association and non-association, and overall grammar of all the words, then I jumbled all of these words up in a certain and special way, and then applied my same highly ingenious so-called autistic deconstruction and analysis of all of this, and which reveals absolutely everything about the entire content of most of their courses and teachings.

For now, I won't critique what they describe as human sexuality, but what I will say is that there is absolutely no analysis, nor any understanding or teaching about the ways that so-called class influences, affects, limits, or changes sexuality, and like everybody else they all know absolutely nothing about any of this.

I will write about this class element and factor - both intrinsically of sexuality, and as an external material, social, political, and historical influence affect, limitation, or expansive potentiality - in another article, but for now I will just mention the two main central themes of their ideology, views, and teachings on human sexuality, and which are pretty obvious to an ordinary or very non-extraordinary person unlike myself, who reads all of their extremely condensed, coded, and more or less very euphemistic information about them, via their website and the download of all their courses on it.

These two main themes, and the extremely ignorant and wildly inaccurate descriptions of all their understanding and teaching on it all, are morality in connection and relation to human sexuality and how this relates to a social and historical context or contexts, and what they very multiplicitly mergingly, and again very ignorantly and wildly inaccurately refer to as intimacy - as if these two themes have absolutely no connection and relation to or with each other (in their very cold sexual, academic, intellectual and emotional very detached and defensive splits and fragmentations), in any kind of meaningful, or intimate way as they put it - and which again they have absolutely no understanding or knowledge of the real contents, structures, mechanisms, and different types and forms of intimacy, and the highly complex components and real nature of it.

Peter H. Donnelly

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

About the Radio 4 Programme Broadcast Last Night about Appropriate, Careful, Sensitive, Rational, Logical, and Creative Communication Between Children

About the Radio 4 Programme Broadcast Last Night about Appropriate, Careful, Sensitive, Rational, Logical, and Creative Communication Between Children and Adults Regarding Bereavement and Knowledge of other very Realistic, Harsh, Life-events

When my five year-old niece Jasmine, came into the room some months ago, and asked me very euphemistically about the absence and loss of her granny (my mum), who committed suicide and died last year, I might have confused her a little bit with my communication, but overall I think I communicated with her in a very sane, logical, rational, careful, sensitive, and creative way.

I'm more or less against the very Liberal view of communication between children and adults, that communicates with and treats children all exactly like adults, because whilst in some ways that is a good and a healthy thing, because children are all equal human beings to and with adults, with more or less equal rights as human beings, they are still children, and this kind of very Liberal approach is quite frankly very inappropriate and embarrassing.

I therefore agree a bit more, with the more Conservative view and approach, of protecting children's innocent minds, and freely communicating with them, with respect, realisations, and regard that they still or just children, although as the other extreme, this can also be a bit embarrassing and patronising towards and with children at times, if used and taken too far.

Regarding the Radio 4 programme broadcast last night, that I mention here in the title of this article, the experts and professionals, all more or less agreed that children's innocent minds need to protected from the harsh realities of life-events, whilst they also said that often children already know about the realities of things like the death of a family relative, much more than we admit to or realise about them as adults, but that as children they don't let on or reveal about this to and with adults, because they are trying to protect the adults in the adults view and relatedness towards them as children, and which is how they more or less want to be related to, communicated with, and treated by and with adults.

However, there was also a consensus and agreement in this Radio 4 programme, that if children do choose to communicate, very directly and openly about what they can really know about things like bereavement and other harsh realities and life-events, as they sometimes do, then we mustn't deny this or ignore them about this, but we must openly and honestly communicate and support them about this emotionally and mentally.

Taking all of these things and matters into full realisation and full consideration, in a very sensitive, rational, logical, rational, creative, and multi-approached way, the conclusion and crux of the matter in this Radio 4 programme, is that we need to intellectually support children, and give them intellectual support, in whatever way they choose to communicate with us about things like bereavement and other harsh realities and life-events, and I think this is overall how I related towards and communicated with my five year-old niece Jasmine, with her euphemistic and metaphorical questions to me some months ago about the death and loss of her granny.

Article about Mental Health Service Booklets

I have read the booklets and leaflets you gave me, and the other booklets you allowed me to take from you. I don't want to be overly-critical nor bother you with my views on all of this, and I won't go into most of it all, but some of it relates to my late and beloved mum and her mis-diagnosis, mis-psychiatric-drug-treatment and refusal by the doctor, and basically these booklets only describe the symptoms of mental health problems, and not the real overall syndromes, nor the objective social and material reality and the causes and effects of all of this.

What's more they are labels of symptoms, which might be useful in a complete and accurate context and understanding, but they are also very simple, very abstract, text-book descriptions of mere symptoms and quite partial descriptions of both symptoms and syndromes, which do not correspond to objective social and material reality, internal psychological reality, nor the interaction and synthesis of the subjective psychological and objective reality of the two (as if there is no actual activity and interaction between all these things but total connectedness, merging, and absorption without any individuality as well).

Again, I won't annoy or bore you about all of this, but to give you just one very quick example, your booklets only describe psychosis in psychological and social terms as being delusional and losing touch with reality. Psychosis, actually has four aspects to it in reality, which are the personal, the social and volitional, the interpersonal, and the internal or psychological.

Firstly, there is much, much, more to psychosis than delusional losing touch with reality, as there can be depressive psychosis, and psychosis is also about an internal mental and emotional conflict, juxtaposition, and dis-order, between and where the unconscious mind (for want of a better word), negatively takes over and controls or dominates the conscious mind or thoughts, whilst the conscious mind alternately becomes unconscious in a way, as the unconscious becomes more unconscious.

Regarding and concerning the first of the four aspects of psychosis that I mentioned, personally and socially, it is to do with how these two aspects or things about psychosis interact, and part of the solutions perhaps along with some psychiatric medication, is to slot the personal thought-patterns and processes, into the person's actions, routine, pre-responses before their actions and their post-responses afterwards, and changing their situations and relatedness or relationships with others, all in certain ways, where there is a better connectedness and connection with the social, interpersonal, and where they are more in touch with social and objective material reality.

In isolation, as a separate thing, interpersonally, the term psychotic in the sense of so-called being out-of-touch with material and social reality, can simply mean and be the case, that the person has a different opinion, argument, view, vision, or much better grasp or different understanding of material and social reality than another person, a partner, or a so-called authority figure on all of this, who says they are mad or psychotic simply because they have a different or much better view, argument, opinion, and because they simply disagree with the other partner, so-called authority figure, or other person.

In terms of actual depressive psychosis, it is not the case really much at all that the person suffering from grief, sadness, and/or very negative or more realistic thoughts usually along with feelings of so-called depersonalisation, is at all out-of touch with reality - as was the case with my mum who committed suicide last year - but the reality of all of this on this issue and matter, is that in actual fact and reality, no one can really or appropriately and skilfully, care about, love, nor has real compassion for them, nor understands nor can relate to their mental, emotional, physical, social, and spiritual suffering in any real caring or altruistic way. Therefore, it is actually the case that society, the mental health services and some others, are often in actual fact and reality out-of-touch with them and their suffering and conditions psychologically, mentally and emotionally, socially, spiritually, and materially.

On a final point, a person can be out-of-touch socially and/or interpersonally with others, as in so-called personality disorders with inappropriate relatedness or relationship responses and behaviours - as others can also be these things in-turn toward them for social and cultural reasons of differences, or lack or equality, fairness, and integration - whilst this not usually necessarily mean, that the person being one-sidedly discriminated against and labelled in these ways, are out-of-touch socially with reality in an overall objective, social, and material sense, nor in terms of life-events, and to suggest otherwise, is again to very much to over-simplify, blur and merge categories, things, issues, personal, interpersonal, and social and material reality matters.

Love, Trust, Sexual Cheating, Lust, and Betrayal

The late radical libertarian-socialist psychiatrist and critic of medical and biological psychiatry, R. D. Laing, had some very good views on the subject matters of the title of this article, but his views on these things in his book The Facts of Life, and in a lecture he gave just before he died, are quite incomplete, and I intend here in this article to shed just a glimpse of light on what I know about the whole highly complex and detailed deconstructed picture and reality of all these matters.

What Laing said on these matters, is that lot of people are caught in a trap, that if you love someone, or if you think you love someone or want to love someone, they also feel that they ought to trust or believe the person they love, because they love them, but he didn't see that this follows at all.

The example Laing then gave of his views on these matters, is that there was a married couple he once knew who were married for quite a few years, and one afternoon after the wife had been sleeping upstairs in the bedroom alone, whilst her husband was downstairs, she came downstairs, and there was her husband lying naked on the living-room sofa with a naked woman. So she said "What is that naked woman doing in my house on my sofa!?", to which her husband without missing a beat, turned round to her and said "That isn't a woman, that's a waterfall!", and she felt that she was spinning around and might faint, and she had to hang on to her sense of reality, because she had developed the ingrained habit of trusting him and believing him. When her husband said "That is a waterfall!" she believed him, on the other hand this waterfall had all the appearance and shape of a naked woman on the sofa, but that was impossible, it couldn't be, so was she dreaming?, was she in the middle of a dream?, is this real?

Laing then said, that some people in that moment of a tidal, lose themselves by believing what they're told, at the expense of then you can't believe your eyes, you can't believe your ears, and that crisis when a person discovers that the person that they trusted is deceiving them, hasn't actually got a name for it, and that crisis is sometimes mistaken for jealousy - that there's a possibility of jealousy in discovering that deception in love, but there's also the pain of the discovery that the person that one hoped or felt loved oneself, has betrayed one, has deceived one, and that may entail a revision of innumerable events in one's own life.

Laing then said, that it's the truth and love deprivation that really hurts (taking away certain choices from the other person) - deprivation of reality - that one is being deprived of access to what is going on, and very often that sets-up a real literally mind-boggling conflict, of are you to believe the evidence of your own intuition or your own senses?, or are you to believe what the other person says? Laing says that the two things are often mistakenly seen as the same thing, but that love (charity, or compassion) - and desire and lust - are two very different things, but that real love is the very opposite of any kind of illusory, any kind of simulation of some kind of modicum of love and/or desire that they don't feel, and that any illusion, any idealisation, and any despising, in any way that we have of projecting or denying the existence of the other person as he or she is in his or her own is-ness, is not loving them.

Laing concludes on these matters by saying, that really to be with another person in a completely open-hearted and unguarded way, where one is not in one's own part somehow or other cancelling, or changing, or altering, or modifying who that other person really is to suit one's own book - but that co-presence, being actually present to each other without reservation and pre-condition of what someone might call "communion", is the perfection of what and how we're ordinary meant to be together, and that this is the only peace there can possibly be.

To now give my own example on all these matters, I was very interested in the fact, that when a Russian woman told me that a man who she loved and was a relationship with as her partner at the time cheated on her with affairs, that she very cleverly, creatively, and intuitively said that she was "madly enamoured in him". This means, reveals, explains, and very strongly and heavily suggests, that a big part of the reason why he cheated and had affairs against her, is that despite his own enamoured being, ideas, and behaviours against her, that he also sees her in the same way as exactly the same as he is, but that she is very accurately and ethically refusing to negatively conform or retaliate to this.

I then told this Russian woman, that this cheating man's main problem, is that he doesn't and can't see her as the very loving and loyal person that she actually is, that his vision and feelings are very limited and distorted, and that he was cheating on her by having affairs, because he wants her to negatively conform to the inaccurate and stereotyped image of her that he has, and what's more, he expects and wants her to cheat back on him in retaliation; but again she is very ethically not negatively conforming to him in this way, and she has broken off the very unhealthy and bad kind of relationship with her that he seems to want.

He essentially and basically wants her to enter into a very bad, negative, and limited mutual game with him, where both he and she cheat on each other, but as she said to me, this is not healthy, ethical, or wise to play with people's feelings and emotions in this way, he is over-focusing on lust and not love, and he is not wanting to integrate, progress, and transform love and lust into something more enlightened, socially and interpersonally useful, productive, creative, and greater.

If he cheated on her by having affairs, and kept this a secret and didn't tell her, then that might be different, as she simply may not know he is doing this, although she saw him in the street kissing other women, but as he told her that he is cheating on her, it does seem that again, in actual fact he is expecting and wanting her to do this back to him in retaliation. So whilst it seems that he is simply being sadistic by hating on her, there is also a negative, limited, and fragmented element of masochism in his intentions and feelings, and in this case he has a limited and distorted notion and idea of sexual-love relationships.

If he wants to mutually cheat on women he pretends or says he loves, I told her that I'm sure he can find some other woman who is willing to allow her to do this to him, and who will cheat on him back in retaliation and mistreat him in this way, but I then said to her, that as she said, it is very wrong and counter-productive for him to try to impose or force this false idea of sexual-love relationships upon her, when this is not what she wants, and not what she freely and equally chooses and wishes to do.

It also seems that this cheating guy, also very falsely and inaccurately thinks that by cheating on her and telling her that he is doing this, that this will make her love him, and I don't know where he has learnt this bad behaviour and false or limited emotional mind-set and pattern from, but he simply has a misconception, misperception, and wrong expectation, and he is simply wrong that cheating by having affairs in this way makes people love each other.

If a person cheats and has affairs, this is lust and doesn't necessarily mean that this person doesn't love the woman or man they are cheating and having affairs against (indeed it can often mean, that they are very inaccurately, unwisely, and inadequately trying to socially and psychologically integrate their lust and love for the person they are cheating against, in order to love them and others even more), but it is also true and a fact that this cheating and affairs behaviour, does not make the person being cheated against, controlled, and victimised in this way want to love them back, nor make them want to love them nor other people back any more, and by itself this doesn't increase love nor make it genuine, nourishing, nurturing, and holistically and potentially mutual, individual, entrusting, frank, true, real, and sincere.

Friday, 15 October 2010

10 Ways to Prevent a Loved One from Committing Suicide

10 Ways to Prevent a Loved One from Committing Suicide

It’s not a pleasant thing and most of us shy away from admitting it’s a serious issue, but when a loved one is depressed and threatens or hints at suicide, ignorance is the very opposite of bliss. We cannot ignore their feelings and pretend that things will help better with the passage of time; their minds are unsteady and their feelings volatile. They can lose it in a matter of seconds and it could be too late to save them; the regret and guilt you feel torment you for the rest of your life. If you feel even for a moment that a loved one could be suicidal, here’s what you could do:

1. Acknowledge that it is a serious problem – the first step to preventing a suicide is to accept that it is a real possibility.

2. Take your loved one to see a professional – a psychologist or psychiatrist could do them a world of good. A professional can identify the root of the problem and give them the right medication and treatment to cure and contain their condition. So you not only prevent them from committing suicide, you also help them regain their mental health and get out of the depression that’s been plaguing them.

3. Spend more time with them – most people who are depressed tend to think of suicide because they’re lonely and have no one to talk to and share their problems with.

4. Get to the root of their problem – it could be a relationship gone wrong or it could be financial woes that have reduced them to this level. Find out what’s wrong and see if you can help to solve it in any way.

5. Nurture them with foods that boost mental health – include nuts, fish, dairy products, soy and other foods that contain feel-good chemicals like dopamine that elevate your mood in their diet.

6. Get them to exercise – even a brisk walk in the fresh outdoor air will do them a world of good in the short and long term.

7. Remind them of all that is good in their life – a positive attitude goes a long way in removing negative thoughts and boosting mental health.

8. Remove objects and implements that could be used to cause harm from their reach – knives, ropes, scissors, drugs, chemicals and other products that could be used to attempt suicide are best kept away and under lock and key.

9. Watch them carefully – don’t leave them alone at any point of time. If you have other things to do, get someone else, someone who is responsible, to stay with them.

10. Keep on trying – it’s a slow process and you’re bound to get frustrated and angry, but you must keep on trying to help them and get them out of this phase. Get some help if necessary, but do all that needs to be done to get your loved out to stop feeling suicidal.


This guest post is contributed by Maryanne Osberg, who writes on the topic of RN to MSN Online Programs . She can be reached at mary.anne579(AT)gmail(DOT)com.

Friday, 8 October 2010

My Views on the Women and Female Labour Party Politicians Claire Short and Harriet Harmen and their Views and Criticisms of all Female Nudity in the F

My Views on the Women and Female Labour Party Politicians Claire Short and Harriet Harmen and their Views and Criticisms of all Female Nudity in the Form of Erotic Naked Performers and Pornography

First of all, I would like to say, that as an occasional Labour Party voter, and as a person and human being, I am very fond of both women and female Labour Party politicians Claire Short (of more or less so-called Old Labour), and Harriet Harmen (or so-called New Labour). Both Claire Short and Harriet Harmen, have quite often condemned and criticised the fairly right-wing working-class tabloid newspaper, The Sun, for their page-three naked women page, as being sexist and never saying anything about the need for social, sexual, and economic equality between women and men.

At first, I totally disagreed with Claire Short and Harriet Harmen about pornography and The Sun newspaper's naked women page-three page, because I thought that they were simply being very narrow-minded, partial, and sexually puritanical, as a lot of so-called socialists unfortunately still actually are.

I then realised, that whilst Claire Short and Harriet Harmen were making some partial and over-generlising statements about public nudity in the form of pornography and page-three, I also then realised that their main objection to page-three naked women, was that it wasn't so much the nudity that they objected too, but that the way they saw, understood, and perceived this, was that these women were being objectified by the men of The Sun newspaper and their newspaper-buyers, readers, and supporters, and that these women as they saw, perceived, and understood it were being used or exploited in this way, and seen and treated as sexually submissive to and for men.

I sort of agree with the context of their page-three criticisms, and whilst there are problems with pornography, in that it can create or increase some sexual perversions like non-consensual sadism and masochism, it can also be a harmless and positive sexual aphrodisiac and stimulant, if combined with actual more or less free and equal sexual relationships between men and women.

This also, all in a way all depends upon the reasons why these female pornography models want to do this - whether it is through poverty, or through choice because they feel it empowers them sexually as women - and it all depends on how this nudity is experienced by men, because when some men like myself see naked women, we do not objectify these women and the naked images of them, but we experience these naked women as looking out and objectifying or sexually enjoying us as men.

Also Harriet Harmen, has recently said on a few occasions, that she wants to ban naked women strip-clubs in local areas, if the local councils and local women don't want them in their local area. Again, I agree with part of her protest about some men objectifying and seeing women as sexually submissive, but Harriet Harmen's views against strip-clubs, are again somewhat partial, sexually puritanical again - not looking at the whole social reality of pornography and nudity - and are a very middle-class socialist set of ideas about sexuality and erotica.

Maybe Harriet Harmen is right that strip-clubs are an unhealthy and bad thing, if they in some ways objectify and see and treat women as sexually submissive, but this all depends on the whole reality and picture of sexuality, the contexts of it and how it is differently experienced and perceived by men and women, and by different types of men and different types of women socially and sexually.

Also, what Harriet Harmen never seems to realise, nor ever mentions, is that there are also lots of strip-clubs for overall working-class women, with male nude men posing and stripping for these women. Unlike the male strip-clubs, where the men are not allowed to actually touch the naked posing women female performers, in the female overall working- class women's strip-clubs, these women are allowed and actually end-up having sex with these male nude models and performers on the stage, and as part of the so-called pornographic or erotic nude male stripping and performance.

Will Harrier Harmen please tell me and others, that if she wants to ban men's strip clubs, then what is she going to do about these overall working-class women's strip clubs, where these women enjoy both looking at and having sex with the naked male performers? Because again, her views about nudity in the form of erotic performers and so-called pornography, are very puritanical middle-class socialist prejudices and opinions, half-truths, and sexually puritanical partial opinions?

If Harriet Harmen is going to ban all and both men and women's strip-clubs, is she also going to tell these working-class women - who are much more sexually expressive and extroverted than middle-class women like her - that they can't have their own strip-clubs and do these things they enjoy and like to do with naked male performers?

Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander, these women have much more sexual freedom, sexual assertiveness or dominance, and sexual expression and pleasure - in these certain situations and contexts with naked erotic male performers than men do with naked women erotic performers - and if she is not going to ban ALL and both men's and women's strip-clubs, then her views and arguments on these issues and matters are contradictory, again partial, and sexually, socially, politically, and ideologically very middle-class, very sexually puritanical, and very incoherent.

Peter H. Donnelly

Friday, 1 October 2010

My Views on the American Academic Liberal Feminist Camille Paglia

At first glance, I thought I liked Camille Paglia, because she said she liked masochist men sexually towards or with women, but after watching her video-clips on, I think she's an imbecile, who makes very simple-minded statements which I will address here, and as a person, I don't like her at all, because she is very obsequies towards men who interview her, and submissiveness in women repulses me.

What's more, the American people all love and worship Camille Paglia, as they all think that she is a total genius and great, but she is in actual fact a very simple woman and a total imbecile, who never comes out with anything in any way relevant, and neither is she in any way accurate nor constructive, and she has absolute no solutions, to all the very inaccurate things she describes.

On radical matters, Camille Paglia states that she is against the victim cultural view of feminism, which says that women are victim - because in her view, women through the procreation process control sexuality and say or command when men have sex with them - she also states that mothers control men as their sons - that men have created the concept of "the social" to hide from women, but that sexually and emotionally women dominate and control men.

Camille Paglia also has another very simple-minded and wildly inaccurate view, when she repeatedly and consistently states and says, that when some men rape or abuse women physically, it is not rage or anger, but fear of women, and an absence of men's own personal individual identities.

Camille Paglia also has completely inaccurate, very partial, and a very big misconception that the Marquis De Sade was a totalitarian, when he was actually opposed to all forms of totalitarianism, punishment, and oppression against people of different sexual orientations, and that where and when he did seem to justify totalitarianism or sexual oppression, he was talking metaphorically, and then at a different stage in his later life, when he became twisted and cynical due to the extreme punishment used against him by the French psychiatric asylum system.

I'll address all of these other very simple-minded claims of which Camille Paglia makes, in chronological order, now. Firstly, I think she is simply wrong that women are not victimised by both some other men and by some other women, because this doesn't taint all women as being seen or realised as powerful in other ways, and this is all a matter of complex truths and grey areas. Anyone can sometimes, or for a long time, be victimised by anyone else, including some women by some other women or some men by other men.

Camille Paglia just won't address any of these issues at all, nor say anything about the solutions, other than saying that women have sexual and emotional power over men, and I can understand why many other feminists get angry with her or dismiss her, because she is again basically a very simple-minded ignoramus, who's vested interest is just intellectually grovelling to the liberal elites, and to whoever else is powerful in society - be it men or women.

Camille Paglia's views, that men who rape and physically beat and abuse women are not motivated by anger and rage, but fear of women and that they lack a personal identity, is where she misunderstands the actual erotic nature of fear by women towards and with men sexually and erotically - and which is consensual and part of a game - and she defies all intelligent experience, scientific data, and all intelligent common sense, by saying that men who beat and rape women are not motivated by anger and rage.

Men who rape and physically beat and abuse women, ARE motivated by anger and rage, whilst she might have been right if she had said that this stems from powerlessness as well as abusive control and power, but it has absolutely nothing to do with personal or male identify, because personal identify essentially also comes from and is both connected and related, to our social experiences and identity, as we are all social beings, and not just personal ones, as she very ignorantly claims and professes.

Of course, Camille Paglia has absolutely no idea how our social beings are dialectically both separate and connected to our personal beings and identity, and I don't think she's ever researched or understood this in any deep and complex way, because she is again basically a very simple woman.

Men who rape and physically beat women, DO have anger problems - and contrary to Camille Paglia's very simple-minded liberal outdated romanticist myths, most men who rape and physically beat or abuse women, are not in any way, shape, or form, shy or frightened of women - and usually these men are the most charming and emotionally intimate kind of men with women, and which is why they can control their female victims so easily and get away with what they do - so her liberal views about rapists and beaters of women, is just sloganistic nonsense, she is being politically correct to the liberal elite's, and again I think she is very simple-minded, and very, very ignorant.

Her view of women being more powerful, because they supposedly say or demand when and how men have sex with women, is also complete and utter idiocy and nonsense, because any man can have sex with a woman anytime he likes, by seeing a prostitute.

Also this power which women have emotionally and sexually, that she's again very simple-mindedly refers to, is not something which demands, coerces, or forces men sexually, emotionally, or in any other way at all, as it is also a social construct and not due to different gender brains as she states, where the sexual and emotional power that woman have is essentially part of their desire to please men in these ways. It does not control men's sexuality, and neither does any of this control where and when men want to have sex with women, as after all - and contrary to what she very simple-mindedly says again - there are many different types of genders, many different types of male and female brains, and many different types of male and female sexuality.

Neither do mothers control their sons, as this all depends on the psychology of emotions, and how these emotions are felt, overall sensed and experienced, or resisted, and how all of this is both processed, controlled, or not controlled, and how this is all responded to and interpreted by these men, and by other men and women.

Peter H. Donnelly

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.

Wednesday, 29 September 2010

A Dialogue With Plotinus

PLOTINUS: Beauty, like any faith, has form and formlessness: the highest, most sublime and most exclusive, and yet crude folk worship amulets and idols - icons amidst the ugliness of Earth.

ME: The lyric of a smile’s line, with and by the symmetry of cheeks and chin.

PLOTINUS: Do you have the virtue of a saint?

ME: Not any more.

PLOTINUS: But art and sex don't change.

ME: Beauty embarrasses artists too now.


ME: Why do you say that?

PLOTINUS: If it means those madmen leave it in peace.

ME: And stop expressing it?

PLOTINUS: The inexpressible! That's why they're mad. They copy it in impure forms and fail, but if you leave the world and live in beauty, the liberated spirit swims in bliss. Tell me, why waste your life with pen or paint, when you can seek and find your perfect beauty?

ME: By love?

PLOTINUS: The highest love - the love of truth.

ME: Not human love?

PLOTINUS: NO not human love. That is the love of shadows! No, Devotion to the moment of release, the love of freedom.

ME: Who’s religion is this?

PLOTINUS: The priests of beauty are philosophers.

ME: What, an academic discipline of logic?

PLOTINUS: The logic of the soul is pure delight - philosophers are lovers.

ME: And vice versa?

PLOTINUS: We're the best lovers - lovers of the best!

ME: Where is this perfect beauty?

PLOTINUS: Everywhere and nowhere! It's the true reality. Listen - we need to find the perfect being: the perfect being must have perfect beauty.

ME: How do we do that?

PLOTINUS: Close our earthly eyes, awaken pristine vision - see the soul. The soul is beautiful, but look beyond the soul - the beauty of pure intelligence - look deeper.

ME: Beyond the heart?

PLOTINUS: Beyond the sweetest sense - divine perfection, uncreated beauty, the primal, transcendental absolute.

ME: An ecstasy of silence.

PLOTINUS: A shrine of mind - the inner sanctum of eternity.

ME: What world-creating radiance we bring when we return to breathing!

PLOTINUS: Why return?

ME: In order to share it.

PLOTINUS: What's already universal? Our lives - the faintest traceries upon it. Stay where the light shines brightest.

ME: Safe at source? No grey of rain, no strangeness of the night, and no feelings of ghosting through us? Is this freedom?

PLOTINUS: No, I meant our birth from death.

ME: From all the cares of life?

PLOTINUS: Eternal contemplation of perfection.

ME: But human beauty...?

PLOTINUS: Is a contradiction!

ME: Sometimes the unmiraculous is lovely.

PLOTINUS: Beauty is heartless.

ME: Perfect beauty too?

PLOTINUS: Consider someone beautiful. What causes their vague, ascetic sense of self-betrayal - the petulance that praising them ignores them?

ME: They feel their beauty isn't theirs.

PLOTINUS: They're right. It's a disguise of which their lives are lost behind.

ME: Despite the power it gives them?

PLOTINUS: They are still its victims.

ME: But they might be philosophers, like us.

PLOTINUS: Wise images? That’s very unlikely.

ME: Yes, of course, philosophers are always ugly.

PLOTINUS: No! Though we're no longer objects of desire - the self-absorption of the soul in beauty makes it pure subject.

ME: Masks of cold perfection, alienate the witness like the wearer, it's true. But there are other beauties too - a childlike gravity before replying, the bathing gaze, and the soft smiles of gentleness.

PLOTINUS: Tiny reflections - blurred and brief as teardrops - of the oceanic light of perfect being.

ME: A teardrop, cinematic with emotion, or an extraordinary, empty ocean?

PLOTINUS: An easy choice: what dies or what's eternal?

ME: Is an eternal flower more beautiful than one that fades?

PLOTINUS: It will be soon.

ME: But now? Or rather, not more beautiful, more precious, more lovely to the heart?

PLOTINUS: Yes, but not the soul - eternal beauty is the soul's own nature, therefore more precious.

ME: More precious than a mystery? Maybe I don't mean beauty then - I mean love - although love is beautiful by nature too.

PLOTINUS: And beauty is the source of love.

ME: Not solely. There's love of beauty and more human love.

PLOTINUS: Love of what isn't beautiful?

ME: That's right. Beauty inspires a solitary love: poetry, certainty, incandescent visions and dark obsession - self-love of the soul - but not the deeper love that meets and shares.

PLOTINUS: Reciprocated love? Don't be absurd!

ME: It's possible.

PLOTINUS: Do you love someone?

ME: Yes.

PLOTINUS: A golden chain that links us to the gods breaks when we fall in love.

ME: You're optimistic.

PLOTINUS: Tell me about this person of whom you love. Does she love you?

ME: No.

PLOTINUS: Your Beatrice!

ME: Isn't she past your bedtime?

PLOTINUS: Beauty's timeless - she's beautiful?

ME: What really floods the heart isn't her beauty, nor her intelligence - the moments of love's deepest tenderness come from the clumsy, quirky, shy or wrong - simple surprises of what's ordinary - not perfect beauty, but its imperfections open the soul to overflowing love.

PLOTINUS: Tell me, would you still praise these imperfections if beauty hadn't made you fall in love?

ME: The siren shock of beauty awes us, scares us - what lights our love are qualities of feeling.

PLOTINUS: Yes, they are very beautiful as well.

ME: But they're alive, and not to be contemplated in order to relate to.

PLOTINUS: The soul can only contemplate perfection by self-perfection - that's why it's worthwhile, and this is the reason why love of beauty is the way to freedom - it purifies the soul's intrinsic state or condition.

ME: I still think humble love is more profound than even the most transcendental wonder. Not love of likeness, but the soul's surrender to what's mysterious, unknowable, the unpredictability of life. Each moment dances! Is it logical to say that the absolute excludes the world? It's full of all its earthly opposites - what's fallible and fades, our needs and passions - the intimate as well as infinite. It's freedom of another sort - a way to unconditional, unbounded love.

PLOTINUS: Do you know anyone for whom this works?

ME: I don't know anyone set free by beauty.

PLOTINUS: Beauty is fire.

ME: A heat that leads to heaven?

PLOTINUS: I saw a fly swallow across a flame, scorching its wings. Another swallow soared high in the summer sky, danced in its light - the iridescent ether of the sun.

ME: Love is like water - when a little stream reaches the sea, the tides of every ocean on every coast throughout the world, rise higher and higher.

PLOTINUS: Water and fire are opposing elements - are love and beauty?

ME: Call the soul a spring - its source of the sun and fire is beauty - and love is its fountaining stream.

No Tone Unburned

Thorough-irony versus rigid and ironic-literalism
in debate

After writing my previous mental health article, I remembered that I was going to write something about the vital element of irony in debate, and about being thorough, penetrative, and leaving no stone unturned. This important element of intelligent irony in debate, is about thoroughly challenging the real validity of an argument or agenda by questioning others, seeking a new synthesis or alternatives of opposing views, but not necessarily or entirely rejecting what is being challenged or questioned.

It is a debating style that can be misunderstood as to its functions and benefits, or it is unrealised on a group level, and carried over into passivity, disorganised chaos, or over-literal interpretations. This is what I call literalism in debate.

Without intelligent and creative irony in debate, there can’t be any solid, dynamic, or constructive common ground, because we can’t identify or weigh up all aspects of the opposing issues. Intelligent irony also guards against being naive and gullible towards posed agendas and statements, and safeguards against ourselves being literalist and thinking that we are always right. This is also what it is genuinely and positively ironic, and irony is such an important aspect of debate, because it allows us to explore all areas and stones unturned, uncover hidden or suppressed areas or dilemmas, to create a degree of thoroughness, and to also question ourselves as part of the self-thinking process.

A more rigid or narrow approach to debate that polarises issues and individuals, is what often leads to literalism - a view that everything has to be literally interpreted as merely an opposing factor, or stated and perceived in terms of either-or, instead of either-or-or-or terms. In this respect, you could also say that literalism is a black and white way of thinking, and a conservative or reactionary response, although any dogma can fall prey to it. Irony is dynamic, and I would argue it is the essence of debate, whilst literalism is polarising, narrow, and static, and doesn’t progress or shift much from the agenda-setters.

Some individuals in the psychiatric and medical profession use irony as a one-sided weapon to suppress rational, trans-rational, creative, and shared dialogue, because they want others to think that only they are right. This is another form of literalism, and it is a misuse of irony in dialogue or debate, which can only then lead to conflict, repression, ignorance, or to a kind of neutralism in order to evade or counter-pose it.

This form of ironic-literalism is often used to intimidate, provoke, or catch people out, but if we can point out or identify this misuse of irony in questioning and debate, then we can protest that it is an unsatisfactory or corrupt method, play those who use it at their own game (leaving no tone unburned), apply an appropriate use of ironic dialogue and debate, or go elsewhere for what we need or want.

Tuesday, 28 September 2010

Social and Family Obligations, Freedom, Fairness, Equality, and Moral Options, Moral and Ethical Availabilities, and Moral and Ethical Choice

No one is morally obliged to associate and love anyone by coercion and/or force, but they may be freely morally obliged to love and support other similar poorer and/or less fortunate people, as a moral option and choice, which should at least be available and reachable for them in these ways. The film, A Clockwork Orange, makes a very good point about choice being very necessary for some morality, and I tend not to agree with those who use state coercion, terrorism, or force for this.

However, moral coercion and force, and moral freedom and choice, are two separte moral and ethical issues, and whilst there may be a need for some moderate grey areas or a balance here, the two somewhat separate issues, can be sometimes merged too much into one compound notion - but again, I very much still think and believe that moral obligation for loving and supporting others, has to be at least somewhat of a free choice - otherwise it isn't truly moral, nor is it true love and support.

I have clarified and worked out my view and position on all of this for myself and/or for others, whilst accepting that in some situations and circumstances, there can be some moderate balance or grey areas, although I overall prefer positive persuasion, positive motivation, and fair, free, and/or equal rewards on the grey area coercion and force matter.

The Different Types of Competition

On the whole matter of the different types of competition, people of all political persuasions, have tended to monofy, over-simplify, and blur and merge categories of various types of competition, through lack of information, knowledge, and understanding. These political people in the past, have repeatedly argued, claimed, and said, that all competition is very much and completely male-dominated, and a very patriarchal way of thinking, feeling, and behaving, which causes and creates war, inequalities, bullying, and abuse, whilst many people who claimed and said all this in the past, were in my experience of them, very aggressively competitive people themselves, and in that way and manner, totally contradictory and hypocrites.

Exploitative competition, without some clear and solid civility, boundaries, and ground rules, can indeed involve and lead to abuse and bullying, but other types of competition are very important, fine, and without them we would never progress as individuals, nor as a society and a human race, and the newly-elected local female Conservative MP very clearly states and recognises on her website, that free co-operation and some altruism or mutual aid between people in society, are also very important as well.

Exploitative and/or aggressive competition, again, without some clear and solid civility, personal boundaries, and ground rules, is often presented as atomistic, interpersonal, and purely individual, when in actual fact, it is a form of extreme group-conformity, loss or diminishing of important intrinsic and social individuality, and in these ways a very dangerous, unethical, immoral, form of social control.

One such different type of competition, which is very important, is moral competition, and which is about competing against social injustices, and righting wrongs, and very democratic types of competition, such as the kinds which are necessary in free speech an debate, are also very important.

Some forms of competition, are very hierarchical, and not competition in the true individual and social sense of the term or terms, such as when people compete for a third person, group or party, to overall benefit and take all the winnings and credit, for their hard work and efforts, and in that way denying the individual of their own potential credits and success; but again, I am in no way assuming, that the local newly-elected Conservative MP is arguing for, nor advocating this kind of false or pseudo-competition, because from what I’ve read on her website, she very clearly isn’t advocating or saying this at all.

Whilst it is very stupid, false, and ignorant, to say that all competition is male-dominated, patriarchal, and that it all involves or leads to abuse and bullying, it is true that there are different types of competition between women and men, and that there are some gender variations and clear differences at times. For example, in relationships and debate, women tend to focus - and many men say over-focus - on content and isolated or petty details, whilst men tend to focus on mechanisms, major themes, and form. Men will therefore, tend to compete for and towards, individual or social pure ideals, ideas, and forms, and major individual and social goals, whereas women tend to compete more for principles and ideas in terms of their actual existence, being, and mental and physical sensations and passions.

The Illusory and Self-deafeating Dialectic of Extreme and Non-consensual Forms of Sexual, Social, Moral, and Political Sadism

... Such as all forms of totalitarianism, such as Fascism, Nazism, and most types of so-called Marxism, and the Inner and Outer Unresolvable Contradictions and Inner and Outer Conflicts of all of this

A friend recently emailed me and said and asked me: What kind of woman masturbates to your photo whilst you cry? I cant think of any that are humane. To which I replied to him: Why did you ask me what kind of woman masturbates over a man crying? Has this happened to you?, or do you think this has happened to me?

A woman who does that sort thing to or about a man, has more than likely been abused or bullied in some way by a man, possibly in childhood, and repeatedly made to cry, and so she associates happiness and pleasure with seeing a man cry and taking pleasure in it, because this is how she relates and views her own crying when she was bullied and/or abused by a man and repeatedly made to cry.

Also, the kind of woman who does this sort of thing to a man, will then go on to do this to another woman, because there is an inevitable gradation and association in that kind of reversed masochism or extreme and non-consensual sadism. A typical political example of this, is when the Nazis invaded Poland, they slaughtered a lot of the animals there, and then immediately afterwards they slaughtered some of the polish people. Hence, they started doing this to animals, and by gradation and association they then did this to the polish people. Many sociologists would describe this as symbolic terrorism, but this is very abstract, and a very partial and incomplete explanation psychologically, socially, and politically.

This friend also said and asked me: Isn't misandry just as bad as misogynism? To which I replied: Yes, misandry is just as bad as misogynism, not least and again, because by gradation and association it also leads to misogynism, as misogynism also leads to misandry. The two things are very connected, but which most misandrists and misogynists don't realise or admit to.

Another reason, and in fact one of the main underlying reasons for all this gradation and association of sadism (or at least non-consensual or extreme forms of sadism), is because sadists are a form of extreme humanists on the one hand, in the sense that they desire, view all human beings, and believe in androgyny (rather than seeing people as personal and collective different genders as well as (purely) human), whilst at the same time, mainly because they have been abused and/or have witnessed terrible things about human beings - such as the Marquis De Sade who experienced and witnessed very anti-human, barbaric, murderous and gory scenes of war - and like De Sade, they have a kind of aversion about and towards, a hatred, and a very cynical view of humans, human existence or human nature, and so they paradoxically and very contradictorily also don't want to see themselves or other people as human beings, but rather they want to see themselves as animals in a very sentimental, lustful and erotic, and also in a very idealistic way and sense, whilst they see actual animals as also very inferior to humans and see and treat other people as either very inferior animals (and it was no coincidence that for example Hitler loved animals and was a vegetarian, and yet he murdered six million innocent Jews and others), or they want to see themselves and others - as Hitler and the nazis also did - as either superhuman, god-like, or divine.

Hence, for example, Hitler and the Nazis saw themselves as German national socialists, and in the form of racism and racist eugenics, as superior or god-like, whilst they saw the Jewish people, liberals, other socialists, trade unions, communists and Christians and others, as sub-human, and with the Jewish people as comparable to animals like rats and vermin or as bugs to be gassed.

All of these contradictions between the extreme or pure humanism of sadism, and the anti-humanism of it, leads to both inner and outer conflicts psychologically, socially, and politically, of thoughts, desires, and actions, which cannot be resolved and which become self-defeating, as it did with the Nazis socially and politically, who ended up sacrificing most of the German people to and in war and of eventually losing the war.

Many sadists believe that there is a dialectic (for want of a better word), to all of these contradictions and conflicts of both extreme or pure humanism and anti-humanism - along with the sadistic gradations, associations, and inevitable connections that go along with it such as with misandry and misogynism - and that all these inner and outer contradictions and conflicts can be resolved with another or a third kind of being, existence, or type of human and personal nature third or alternative solution, but this is a total delusion and/or illusion that they desire and believe in, but this is often what they very futilely and somewhat self-destructively are struggling for and towards.

This is the total idiocy of extreme or non-consensual forms or types of sexual, moral, and political sadism and totalitarianism, which mythologises, is totally ignorant, or lies and deceives themselves and others about all of this, but this article reveals more or less the whole reality and truth of all these matters.

One Fairly Good, and A Second Excellent Dispatches Documentary of Which I have Pasted the Links at the Beginning of this Article

Please watch these two very good Dispatches documentaries. The first documentary, about the Unions - whilst I don't agree with all of it - in order to summarise makes three main points, criticisms, complaints, and protests.

The first point it makes is that many Unions are undemocratic, because only a third of their members agree with or want to strike as a protest against the Tories public and service spending-cuts, their increasing job-cuts, and their welfare and benefits-cuts, and that this is also very wrong because some of these Union members are carers and if they strike they will be neglecting the very poor and vulnerable.

On the first point of this matter and issue, I disagree with this first Dispatches documentary, because I think the Unions have to strike and protest against the jobs, services, benefits and welfare-cuts of the Tory government, even if only a third of their members disagree with this (otherwise they would all be like the Bolshevik political Party in Communist Russia, where they could only strike and so on, if the majority of workers and/or Union members agreed to this), when it is a very strong and powerful point of both necessity and principle that the Unions strike against the Tory government's job, services, welfare, and benefit-cuts), whilst I also disagree with the bullying, coercion, and threats and actions of ex-communication and expulsion of other or all other union members, who disagree with their Unions and of whom for whatever valid reasons don’t want to go on strike.

The second point, criticism, complaint, and protest which this first Dispataches documentary makes, is that some Union leaders and thier members, are being given million-pound homes by their Unions, which I agree with this documentary is very wrong, because it is elitist, and unfair and unequal privilege, which the Unions say and are not supposed to believe, encourage, create, or support.

The third point, criticism, complaint, and protest of this documentary, is that many male Union members are being paid much higher wages by some Unions via their councils than many women Union members, and who are being expelled from their Unions if they criticise, complain, or speak out about this.

The male Union member street-cleaners and so on, and their work, are seen by some of these Unions via some councils, that these men and male-workers both deserve and need much higher and more wages, than the cooks and carers, because they say and believe that this will make these men more productive - that these men’s work is also seen as the home providers, whilst the women’s work is seen as pin money jobs and roles - and these women's and female Union members work is not seen as real work and deserving equal pay to these men and male Union members.

Whilst this sex and gender discrimination, sexism, and economic inequality between men and women by some Unions does undoubtedly exist, this might have come across as over-generalising about these Unions or about some of them, but as I have always said, socialism and communism is still very much and too patriarchal, and this Dispatches documentary in their points, criticisms, complaints, and protests about some of these Unions sexual and gender discrimination and economic inequality, beween some fo these female and male Union members, exposes and reveals all of these injustices, contradictions, and gender inequalities, which still exist by some Unions, and which the Unions must all come clean about all of this and make amends and corrections.

Despite some of this first Dispatches programme's criticisms of the Union organisation Unite, the second Dispatches documentary I have also pasted a link to here, shows and reveals, that the migrant women's domestic workers rights group - are all an integrated part and members of the Union-organisation Unite - and who are all very vital and a most excellent organisation, and who all fight for and defend the rights, freedom, protection, sociai justice and safety of the quite literally enslaved, extremely verbally abused, bullied, extremely exploited, sexually and physically abused, tortured, and in some cases even murdered by their employers, and that what’s more, both child and adult-slavery - child slave-labour and the slavery of women - have not been abolished neither in the world, nor in this country and society.

Anyone who is racist and/or makes sweeping-statements and over-generalisations about all immigrants who come to this country stealing white British workers jobs, or of all being benefits scroungers and taking white British working people’s tax paying money - and that they all supposedly do not want to and refuse to work - should watch this second excellent Dispatches documentary, in order to know and realise that the very real and literal slavery of women and children, and child-slave labour, have not been absolished in the world nor within this society, and they should watch this second Dispatches documantary, in order to get the real and whole facts and reality of all of these things, matters and present-day events, and to get the complete truth and picture on all of this.

The Distinctions Between Truth and Reality

Reality can be verified, tested, and objectively and scientifically proven. However, truth, is essentially both an assumed subjective notion, a philosophical notion, and something which cannot be proven one way or another in a purely past or present context, reality and sense, because it is existentially and essentially, a process and, very much a progress of events.

What's more, truth is not a noun thing, but it is actually a verb, and to do with action. Truth has in the past, seemed to described an objective thing, or a subjective notion and subject-object relation, but truth it is essentially what we do, in the continuing progress of past, present, and future, and it is neither what metaphorical or ironic descriptions imply.

This is not to rule out lies, myths, and distortions of reality, but a subjective and superstitious creation of either an objective or subjective truth, covers up and distorts our relation, involvement, and the force or chosen non-participation in our interaction with reality, ourselves, and other people.

The other thing, is that legalistically, truth is very strongly associated with events, but separated from reality, this belies and abstractly represents a notion that truth itself is a myth connected from reality to another reality, and this denies the dialectical nature and reality of how the two things - of both reality and truth - are both separate and related.

Of course, truth cannot be separated from prejudice, belief, and distorted and impartial interpretations, but truth essentially implies that it is opposed to falsity or original sin in a religious context, when the superficiality of this creates a polarity between truth, myths, and lies, which in these ways then thus denies or assumes the social and personal reality and so-called nature of events.

What is true can be described as a straight line, without natural irregularities or inconsistencies, or a pure, simple, and unrealistic superficial loyalty. This is essentially and existentially, a projection of human qualities, upon a ejaculated speculation of what is true, unfounded, and pre-disposed to internally externalised and introjected feelings, sensations, and notions.

There is also, never a connected nor disconnected aspect of truth - as often instructed by deluded and false teachers - as this all implies a teacher and disciple, or a hierarchical relationship, when all relationships are a combination of falsity and truth, loyalty and betrayal between lust and love, and the combined desire and love for intimacy, detached and displaced longing, and then betrayal.

On the matter of the legalistic reality, essence, and existence of truth, this consensus can at times seem overwhelming, but no-one asks, protests, or considers, whether those judging the passive and blamed recipients and assumed creators of truth, such as judges, are being true themselves to the whole or fragmentally displayed and influentially or ideologically conditioned nature of truth.

The other thing, is that those who exhibitionist display, or make a fictional corrective and involved pretext and pretence of truth, without any active personal participation, never realistically portray, and perceive how this is layered and disconnected from the truthful nature of actual reality. If reality was true, it wouldn't be full of contradictions, resolutions, and somewhat continual hypocritical material events.

There is indeed a truthful reality, but can there be a reality truth? This all seems plausible and laughable to me, but then again I am full of irony, deliberately obscurantism, and I am not the judge or jury or a philosophical prince or princess.

Saturday, 25 September 2010

The Limitations of Political Self-descriptions and Self-Labelling and Labels

Many people very ostentatiously and very superficially describe to themselves and others, and very theatrically tell others and present to others about themselves, that they are a conservative, or a liberal or libertarian, a socialist or a communist, or a fascist or an anarchist, but why should anyone believe these very tendentious, very partial, and very limited and abstract superficial labels and self-descriptions that people tell others about their so-called being and their existence?, and what’s more, why should anyone else believe them about any of any of this or what they say and tell others about any of this?

I say all of this, firstly, because if many people say and describe these things about themselves, are they talking about their social, material, and economic influences and conditions?, their so-called human essence or human nature?, or their existence which as an somewhat partial existentialist I believe precedes essence and being?

Whilst I disagree with Marxist political solutions - not least because like very right-wing socialism, Marxists haven’t progressed much, only in a superficial and deluded academic sense - the part of existentialism and Marxism that I believe in, is Dialectical Materialism - which some may say is the engine-block of Marxism, because I believe that we experience the material world and the thing first, and then we name and describe it, ourselves, and others.

There is also a big difference between experiences - again which are primary and come first - and actual perceptions, which are secondary like language, descriptions, and the vast majority of written, spoken, and language so-called meanings and explanations.

Shared meanings and language are still very important though - as in a lot of ways language is all we have got - and as Thomas Szasz says, language is also a like the material world in that it is another body, existence, and then a being that we all live within, but that this being or beings is both created by our material world and language and also created by ourselves by our actions, thoughts, feelings, desires, our experiences and then our perceptions, and then also created and re-created by the words and language that we use, which re-influence, re-creates, and which all then effect and affect our secondary experiences termed as our perceptions.

Sometimes it is a very good thing to transcend or break-out from shared language, shared communication, and shared meanings, especially is there is a very false, misconceived and misinterpreted, very rigid, and very limited or fake consensus with these things, although a person can get labelled as insane for doing this, but again, shared language, shared communication, and shared meanings and a genuine creative and scientific consensus and understanding of all of this are very important as well.

Getting back to the ostentatious, very superficial, very tendentious, very partial and very abstract labels and self-descriptions which many people have of themselves, when they tell and very theatrically present to others that they are a conservative, or a liberal or a libertarian, a socialist or a communist, or a fascist or an anarchist - firstly, these things can only be validated and verified albeit still very limitedly - by a person’s actions, and not by their very ostentatious, abstract, very limited, partial, and very reversible descriptions of themselves, and how they want to see themselves to themselves and others in these ways.

What’s more, it is usually the case, them when many people self-describe themselves as a conservative, a liberal, a social or a communist, or a fascist or an anarchist, in their actions they are usually quite the opposite of all these things, as these self-descriptions which they superficially and theatrically present and project to others about themselves, are to a great extent very partial, limited, and deceitful to themselves and others, about both what they actually do and what they actually are as individuals and as existent human beings.

All these very partial, very reversible, and very theatrical self-descriptions many people make of themselves and present to others, as kind of actors playing a role or part in a rather outdated, boring, and tired play, are all actually some aspects of ALL human beings - even though again they are still all very partial, very theatrical, and limited descriptions - and if anyone tells you or anyone else otherwise, then they are lying about all of this.

I am not being very anarchistic or nihilistic about all of this, as I do accept that in some ways people have a sort of right, and are in a way accurate about these so-called political self-descriptions and very partial and limited labels about themselves, but I personally feel and believe, that it is not up to people to tell others what they are, when these things deny the somewhat totality of all of these aspects of every single human being, and because it is up to other people to decide about all of this about individuals and people collectively, and for others to evaluate and/or judge or describe people upon their actions, and not upon their very abstract self-descriptions.

Another reason why many people just use one part of all these partial aspects of all human beings - and which I agree with some so-called socialists are all influenced and conditioned by social, material, and economic or class factors - is that people choose one aspect of all these factors of human beings, and they decide that this is the path they want to follow - and which then makes them feel superficially very high in self-esteme and very good about themselves, and which also makes them feel very safe and secure amidst the somewhat uncertainty, flows, breaks, and changes, and the somewhat chaos and meaninglessness of many aspects of nature, society, the universe, and life.

Everyone has a conservative, a liberal, a socialist and communist, and an anarchist and a fascist character trait, which again, often than not because they deceive themselves and others about all of these things, deny and suppress these other aspects of themselves, and then project this onto others and protest too much, and then the reversal of all these aspects of every human being then come out with a vengeance, revealing their ignorance, extreme hypocrisy, superficiality, tendentiousness, very superficial and very poor and bad-acting theatrical role-play, and their inautheticity to be fairly honest about, realise, act upon, and present to others their real true selves, as individuals, social, material, and mindful beings.

What’s more, as existentialism reveals to us and says, and in order to realise their material and social influence and conditions, they and we all need to first realise that their and all our existence is primary - it is experienced and comes first - and then after they or we all experience the material thing, they and we all then name it and describe it to themselves, ourselves, and others.

Thursday, 5 August 2010

OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER (OCD): Some causes, strategies, and coping-mechanisms (Updated Article)

In my late childhood and early teenage years, I acquired a habit of thinking that if I didn't repeat certain patterns, such as walk over a certain spot, or touch a certain object more than once, then certain bad or harmful consequences would follow: injury to myself or others. However, this is not mere irrationality or superstition, but is rooted in social causes, and rooted in personal coping-mechanisms and strategies. Whilst in secondary school, I noticed and discovered that at separate times, two completely different school friends had exactly the same habitual fear.

One friend of mine, who had the same habit, fear, or negative thought-pattern, when he once asked a voluntary mental health worker what it was he was experiencing, this person replied, "If you think negatively about things, then negative things might happen, and so you have to think positive." This reply was a layman's version of the cognitive-behavioural psychiatric model, and is fairly accurate, but there are all kinds of different ways of doing this that need to be explored, and for some people, dissociation, distraction, or diversion, isn't enough, and like me, they might need to reverse the negative analogy or thought-pattern they've been using, instead of replacing it altogether with a positive one.

When this friend told his mum what this preoccupation, habit, fear, or phobia was all about, (that if he didn't touch or repeat certain patterns, then he felt bad things would happen), she said she thought he was mad or stupid, which made him feel mad and stupid in the first place for telling her about it. It does sound ridiculous for people who've never experienced such a fear or preoccupation, but from the increasing amount of people on TV chat-shows admitting they experience this, it is something far more common than is admitted to or realised by many people.

My way of eventually coping or curing myself of this negative thought-pattern or phobia termed Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, was not to deny myself of any autonomous thought or action, to distract myself, or replace it with an entirely positive analogy, but to reverse the strategy or analogy, and to convince myself that if I DID carry out the repetitive action, then certain harmful or bad things would happen. In this unconventional use of positive thinking, I reversed the negative-pattern of the thought, eventually bringing myself back to complete control and autonomy.

Maybe this strategy or method I used of reversing the original analogy, is less authoritarian, because it concentrates on self-control, whereas the absolutist method of purely positive-thinking used in conventional cognitive therapy, often relies upon being told what to think and do, and is a control imposed by others, unless it is a shared strategy and coping-mechanism between diagnosed patients.

What has previously been called Obsessive Compulsive Disorder by psychiatry, is in my experience a fear or phobia, and not an entirely unreasonable human fear, because it is based-upon both negative past experiences, and a present fear of irrational, unreasonable, or immoral social-repression, negative social control, and imposed social compulsion.

So what Obsessive Compulsive Disorder really is, is a repetitive or habitual phobia, and even some modern psychiatry now, sees it as far more helpful for people to realise and understand their phobias as negative or habitual patterns of thought, in line with cognitive behavioural therapy, although cognitive behavioural therapy is not very good at realising the combination of social causes and personal coping-mechanisms, and it resorts to the psychologism of presuming everything is motivated by merely personal behaviour which needs to be socially isolated and controlled from the outset.

Monday, 2 August 2010

My Past Experiences of a Female Counselling Professional

...who was initially Very Good and Loving To, With, and Towards Me, but Who Then also in Some Ways Abused me Emotionally, Verbally, and Sexually (Mentally, Emotionally, Verbally, and Erotically)

A female counsellor, about ten years ago, helped me in many practical and emotional ways, for quite a long period of time, as part of our initial social friendship, and our counselling sessions together. She gave me a fair bit of support, sympathy, empathy, love and understanding, about the fact that I am and was born, a natural love and sexual masochist towards women, that I have been unjustly and unreasonably persecuted, punished, and abused for this many times in the past, in my childhood, teens, and adult life - and that I still am being persecuted and abused now, in a very similar way to how and why this female counsellor abused me, by another female professional who isn't a counsellor - and that I am a child and teen abuse, school bullying and teacher abuse, and a social worker and psychiatric abuse survivor.

This female counsellor, was and is, in many ways a very beautiful and creative, clever, unique, brave and lovely woman, person, and human being, who I would have liked to have kept in touch with, been fairly constant friends with, and lived with for a while as her friend and/or masochist lover, and/or married her.

This female counsellor, also had no idea that I am an absolute genius as a writer, as she was very defensive and jealous of my writing talents and articles, and she used this jealousy of hers towards me, as an excuse for some of her sexual and erotic dominance, and role-play towards me, during a few of the counselling sessions - which I very much loved, liked, and enjoyed, and which was fine - although I also thought and felt, that she didn't necessarily have to excuse herself for this, in that way - but she also used her jealousy towards me, as an excuse for her abuse against me - again, in order to feel superior to me, in a way, about me as a great writer, who shares his very unique and shared knowledge with others, from all walks of life.

I still very much loved and understood this female counsellor, and despite the fact that she in some ways deeply hurt me, emotionally, verbally, and in some ways mentally and emotionally sexually and erotically abused me - and which I didn't ask for, want, deserve, or like - I still genuinely and sincerely love and desire her, deeply and immensely, and wherever she is - and whatever she freely chooses in life - I will always love her and wish her well.

I cannot excuse the deep hurt, in the form of emotional, verbal, and in some ways the sexual and erotic abuse by her against and towards me though, as again, it has happened to me again recently, in some ways, by another female professional who isn't a counsellor, and I feel I must speak out about all of this - not least because I want to understand all the real reasons why the female counsellor did this to me - and which I think I already know - the ways it has in some ways still affected me, and because I want to write and share about all of this with the female counsellor and others.

During one of our fairly early counselling sessions - and without me asking her to do this - at some stage this female counsellor, touched me with a very gentle, sympathetic, and sensual touch and stroke, on my shoulder with her hand, and which at the time, I thought and felt, was very loving, kind, and absolutely fine, and in a way, like a very subtle and partial form of tantric-sex type sexual-love healing.

Some counselling sessions later, this female counsellor, asked me about my heterosexual masochist experiences and so-called fantasies, and then she smiled and drooled over me sexually from across the room, licking her lips, and simulating a kind of external French kissing, heavily seducing me, in some sexually or erotic ways that I very much like, love, and enjoy.

Then in our next counselling session, she seduced me again, by pretending to me that she was a female Mistress and a Queen, who I had to crawl to, bow down before, kiss her almost bare and very beautiful feet, and grovel to, love, adore, respect, and worship her, in this way. I naturally loved, liked, and enjoyed this, and I felt very much obliged to do this for her and me. To this day, I regret that I never did this for HER in particular, and for some other similar women, and that I didn't physically and completely show her my true feelings towards her, in that way, at that particular duration and time, and which in a big way, she wanted in exchange for the previous touching and stroking, gentle and warm sensuality and love, by her hand, upon my shoulder that other time, and for the friendship, support, caring and understanding she had previously shown and given me.

In these and this way in particular, she then she made me further fall in love with her, and adore and worship her, but without any real verbal satisfaction, as she was quite cold when she played the role of a female Mistress and a Queen, and she just stared at me like she controlled and owned me, and/or like I had to serve her - but she was very, very, clever with her eyes, face, head, and body language and expressions - because she could communicate and tell me exactly what to do, without speaking verbally at all when she did this, and I'm not sure I'll ever meet another woman quite like her, who can do that, in such a very clever, very creative, and skilful way.

This female counsellor, was obviously, saying, and trying to tell me, that she had some very unique, and most amazing, talents and abilities as well in this way, equal to my very good conversational, discussion and debate, and my writing talents and abilities, and that in this way, we were both more or less of equal talent, skill, worth and value, as individuals, and together as men and women, and as human beings and people, interpersonally and in society.

Again, this female counsellor did not speak at all, when she pretended to be a female Mistress and a Queen to and towards me, and this was also without any other physical individual or mutual contact, apart from her previous loving and slightly sensual, stroking of my shoulder with her hand. In her somewhat wild and frustrated anticipations, thoughts, and feelings, and in some of her very inaccurate prejudices and assumptions, about me being emotionally and sexually repressed, connected to her work-role labelling, prejudices, and training, she couldn't - or didn't want to - combine, connect, and/or integrate her previous very warm and gentle, sympathetic, and sensual touch and stroke, on my shoulder with her hand, with her somewhat separate and fragmented erotic, sensual, and sexual dominance desire and love as a female Mistress and a Queen, towards me, and in this respect I think she was somewhat lacking for and with me, although I could have taught, integrated, connected, and in some ways progressed and shared this with her, if she had let me at the time, or if I still knew her socially, and/or as her very special client, student and teacher, and her friend.

At the next following counselling session, whilst I had to wait for this female counsellor, outside the building and counselling room, a lot later than our usual agreed meeting time, and before she let me into the building and counselling room, she then had some sexual-love type making and sexual intercourse, with another person, in the counselling room, before our session, and before she actually saw me, I could tell immediately afterwards, when I saw her in the counselling room, by her body language, facial expressions, and her initial very awkward and repressed stammering speech - and because she was erotically and sexually charged and breathing quite heavily, mostly and initially towards me during this session and time - and because who she really sexually desired and loved was me.

Because of the male and female control, social, political, and sexual exploitation, and coercion, over her by some others, in her social and work-life and role, the social, political, and sexual and love exploitation, and the very false love and sexual repression used against her in this way, she therefore couldn't express her true thoughts, feelings, and her true love, erotic, and sexual feelings towards me, and so she tried to love and desire me in this way instead, and which was the closest and nearest thing she could get to me.

When I then indicated and suggested to her, in the counselling room, in my body language, and with some of my verbal speech and communication, that I knew that this is what she had done and in some ways why, whilst I was waiting outside for quite a long time before the session - and when she then rushed, and very frustratingly and desperately needed to see me after this, outside the building and room, to let me in, for her to conform to, and in some ways to fulfil and satisfy this type of sexual fantasy of some others, she then looked at me with self-disgust, as if I was trying to judge or humiliate her for this - perhaps like she had just done to me in some ways - and which I wasn't trying or wanting to do to her, in any way, shape, or form.

This female counsellor, then directed and projected, the disgust and hate for this person who had quite coercively and exploitatively had sex with her, onto me, because having to have sex with someone who controlled her, in this rather dominant unwanted way against her, obviously really very much repulsed and disgusted her, and because she really loved, cared for, and most desired me.

This female counsellor, couldn't entirely understand, admit, or be honest about this very deep, in some ways intense, and slightly complex love and desire, that she had for me, and so it developed, in some ways, into a fragmented form of pure lust, by her towards me, in this way, whilst she still at the same time - and still probably does - very much love and miss me.

This is also a big part of the way, that she dealt with, having to pretend to herself, myself, and some other people in her social and work roles and life, that she never loved nor desired me, that she didn't and never cared about me at all - as a professional, women, and human being in society - and this was also her failed pretence and deceit to myself and others, that she never ever wanted to see me, nor in some ways know and care for me again.

This female counsellor, did sort of cheat on me sexually and socially, or TRIED to cheat on me in this way, and she also fantasised about me in a way, in this way, and which I still don't mind if that's what she likes and enjoys in some ways, but obviously, in some other ways, she was forced into this sexual activity and fantasy, in order to deny and repress, her care, true love, and desire for me, and our very unique way of communicating, loving, and relating; as if she was depriving herself and others from reality, and as if it all never ever actually happened.

When I was initially back, in this so-called particular counselling session with her, after I waited long outside, when she had got her breath back, after the so-called romp she'd just very recently had and experienced - and before I heavily hinted to her, part of what I knew about, what she had actually done and why - she then very aggressively, and sadistically, objectified and stared at me, as if it was me who had actually cheated, or tried to cheat, on her in those ways, and as if it was actually me, who was dirty and disgusting in this way, but which she actually felt and thought about herself and others, and which I never actually said or suggested to her, in any way.

At the next following counselling session, this female counsellor, then mocked or tried to mock me, very scornfully and sarcastically, and she laughed at me, and then bullied me and shouted me down, with very false and inaccurate, very negative, and very ignorant and prejudiced views, about heterosexual male masochism - that she had very repressively and coercively learnt and copied, from some of her male and female work-life and social role "superiors", and from other men and women, who had quite a bit of control over her life socially, politically, mentally, emotionally, creatively, erotically and sexually, and in terms of true love or loves, and creative and social skills, abilities, and knowledge.

This female counsellor, at the next following counselling session, then that said that all my mental health and masochism articles, were "defences", and at the next following counselling session, she very coldly and abruptly abandoned me, stating that she was ending the counselling sessions permanently, very soon - without giving me any real notice or time to prepare for this, other than one week - and then she refused to show me her any of her case-notes about me, but which I still would still like to read.

In spite of the abusive things this female counsellor did to me, whatever she decides to do in her life, I still wish her well, and I very much love and desire her very deeply, and immensely, and in a way she taught me a great deal, and she will always be my Mistress and my Queen.