Donald Trump, Liar, Sexual Abuse Man About Town

MAYBE it's just my degree in psych talking, maybe it's my investigative side talking, but it occurs to me that, well....

Donald and Ivanka Trump

Donald Trump has said repeatedly that he doesn't like telegraphing his actions as president to other countries, especially our enemies. Before I get started, this is NOT an attempt to libel the POTUS. It's simply applying known psychological dynamics.

In full disclosure and to qualify my opinion, I have a university degree in psychology which gives me at least reasonable authority to make these observations which as well, trained me as a researcher. Both of which lends credence to my opinion in this subject. These are also well observed and well documented behaviors including actual videos of exhibited behaviors, as well as ongoing and related lawsuits.

Also, before I get into the who sexuality thing, there is something else we have to address. Donald Trump's lying.

Ever notice when #realDonaldTrump is being interviewed or is speaking and you know he's lying, or must be? This isn't in this article, but what is mentions fidgeting behaviors, grooming. Facial movements give one away.

In studying Ekman's F.A.C.S. or Cohan and Gottman's (I used to know Dr. Gottman) SPAFF type systems to categorize facial micro expressions. Practicing a "poker face" is one way to get around that. For civilians. Microexpressions are another matter. But to what we see on video, it's usually good enough.

Another clue: what the authors call “grooming gestures,” like brushing hair or adjusting a tie or shirt cuffs, which can signal anxiety.

Here's the thing. I've noticed how odd it is that Trump crosses his arms, or hugs himself, when sitting. I didn't think anything of it for a long time until today.

Why would he do this? The typical thing is we are protecting ourselves or we feel threatened or defensive. Yes, I thought of that. Yes sometimes that may be with Trump.

But if you are hugging yourself or your arms are purposefully locked around you, how can you fidget and exhibit "lying behaviors"? Trump hangs onto himself as if he's trying to not move his arms, hands or fingers.

My point?

When Trump crosses his arms or hugs himself, he's doing specific behaviors to counter being read as a liar. It's also clear he is an inveterate liar.

Even if I dearly loved this president, because I believe in decency, reality and honesty, I'd still be pointing this out.

Several reasons for that. First the obvious one that he wants us to believe. "Don't signal beforehand a punch you're going to throw." I've fought in tournaments and that is true, to a point. I did telegraph and it's done me well. But I'd telegraph what I'm NOT going to do. Then I would do something else, and follow up with one more actions than the opponent was prepared to deal with.

But these were fights that ended, at the end. Politics are forever ending one issue and by whatever happens, setting up the next issue in a seemingly unending path to no one ever really knows what. Because it is so complex.

As in playing chess (no I don't think Trump uses this as metaphor, he's lucky to know how to play checkers, let alone the complexity of international politics comparable to the Chinese game of "Go").

When I was fighting, I could watch my opponent in a match use their own practiced set, run out of them, have to think up the next move or two, all while you continue on with one more move then they have usually practiced. You could see in their eyes, their body language, when they exhausted their moves and had to not rely on practiced movements, but then in the moment be distracted to figure out what next move to go into.

I mention this about the rascally simpleton of a POTUS we now have regarding politics, but mostly about his sexuality.

Whenever he says to a woman, "You remind me of my daughter," WHY do you think he says that? Is he just thinking out loud (well that's disturbing enough, right?). Is it merely a compliment as he'd like her to think, because he thinks highly of his daughter?

From what we've seen of him, most likely that's not it at all.

It's code word.

He won't come out and ask for what he wants. He doesn't like telegraphing and exposing himself to recrimination or abuse, or increasing the intel of another to later be used against him. Right? Sort of.

Some years ago I was in a cyber security briefing. Part of it was about covert activities on websites.

There were two mentioned, used as examples of what is going on. One regardied pedophiles on a website using a database back then (database websites were fairly new) and people who were seeking out other pedophiles. The other site was about beastiality on a normal dating site that was being used covertly to find others into those same behaviors. All while most on the site had no clue what was going on behind the scenes.

If you were on that fairly well known dating site, you may have been contacted by one of those people. But in not responding properly to their code worded comments, they moved on to the next person.

Both subcultures knew what site to go to in order to find like others. And they knew how to speak online in such a way so as to let other like minds know who they were and that they could speak openly, hook up and well, whatever.

They used code words that seemed innocuous, innocent. But if you replied properly, a few more tests and then you knew who you both were. You telegraphed, but did it covertly, out in the open.

Trump has been doing the same thing. Beware a man who has no shame. One who exhibits sociopathic behaviors. Who abuses his positions of power. Who is shamelessly a bully. Who strives with all his heart to be loved by anyone in the room with him and then turns around later and goes back on his word. These are all typical behaviors of a narcissistic sociopath and of Donald Trump.

These are not even "open secrets". They are openly known, seen, observed from a distance and repeated again and again.

Searching for an Ivanka look alike to have sex with who will play, most likely, his daddy / daughter fetish gume. With the woman playing the part obviously, of Ivanka. I'm assuming Stormy didn't respond properly to the Ivanka comments and Trump dropped it. Probably a bit miffed. Same with that other woman who said he had said the same things to her.

It's a pattern. Both women may have hidden disgust at the potential for what he was actually saying. That is, asking. They may have been disgusted. Some women ignore that, as they too had experienced that with their own fathers. But put it aside, merely hoping he dropped it. And if he did, well, we know how things progressed. Standard sex for Donald, not his preferred and more intense fetish sex.

He's searching. It's predatory behavior. Let that sink in. Our President, is a sexual predator. He's admitted it openly. The Access Hollywood recording. It was not just "locker room" talk. I've been in a lot of locker rooms because of martial arts and gyms and any guy that talks that way, is seen as a small man indeed. Any man who can't get a woman to want to be grabbed or more likely caressed, isn't worth his sexual weight in salt. To just do it without any form of permission, is if not criminal (which it is) is just unmanly. It's abuse.

Total nonsense? Because you know? It all actually fits together quite well. So for those "Christian" supporters of Trump, beware who you support. On that matter, here's a very well done video explaining why at least Christian evangelicals are still supporting someone like Donald Trump.

To be as humane as I can about this, Trump... needs help. Professional psychological help. I suspect now or sooner, and so do we.

The CIA has been doing profiling of foreign leaders and agents for far longer than the FBI profiling criminals. Which in some cases is pretty much the same thing (e.g., Putin).

I have to wonder if they don't already know all this (and more) about Mr. Trump from when he first went to Russia or knew he was going even before Trump ever had a clue? Once an America steps onto foreign soil, especially a country like Russia, China, or North Korea, they put themselves in a position to fall into a wrap up of intelligence about the foreign entities and agents.

 I would find it very surprising, if there aren't old withered and rather detailed files on Mr. Trump at the CIA, the NSA, DIA, and other No Such Agencies. You see, it's what they do. For us. To protect us. From people like Putin, Kim Jong Un, and an American businessman with delusions of colluding with anyone who will help him enhance his wealth, power, and influence.

It's what we pay them to do. it's what we want them to do. Considering Mr. Trump is not president, it can't be that much of a problem either. Otherwise, if there really was a "deep state" as some fools contend, he'd never have made it pas the nomination stage.

Someone, knows...something.

The first of the two elements indicated in the attached article, the first being a more normal psychological dynamic (albeit in an individual with fragile self-esteem that is potentially the narcissist that Mr. Trump undeniably is). The second element being his generally understood abnormal sexual deviancy.

The potential for normalcy in the first element or at least half of it, is neutralized in his mentioning how he sees a similarity in his potential bed partner, to that of his daughter (in putting "feelers" out for a father/daughter fetish which we know may have been denied at least twice in the two I've heard mention it). So rather than merely one of those two indicated elements being abnormal, we now actually have 1.5 of the two elements being considered abnormal.

The guy is definitely off, mentally, sexually and paternally.

If she grew up in that kind of a sexualized environment, which is seems she had, it could explain why, (IF) she actually doesn't see it herself. But as so many women know, in being a woman you learn to ignore what you simply cannot do anything about. Though one does wonder the private talks her and Jared may have had over this. That is, unless she throws a fit, refusing to allow that discussion. Or if he would notice, or even wish to ever bring it up. Any of which one could easily assume to be the case.

Ivanka and Donald Trump

Mr. Trump's pride in how hot he thinks his daughter is, how erotically symbolic he sees her, simply exceeds his shame. Which he is on empty about, just about all the time anyway in his publically exhibiting no embarrassment whatsoever regarding his sexual attraction to her. And her response to it when she is there when he says it, indicates a very long term behavior of acceptance and ignoring it.

Actually it's plausible that his sharing that information and even people's discomfort over it, is also sexually stimulating for him. Perhaps not in an outward arousal being exhibited, but in his brain chemistry.

In fact, I think that may be quite reasonable. What keeps getting me about this guy is that he seems to be using us all for some kind of stimulative affect, out in the open, for us all to see, and no one seems to get it.

It feels, "sociopathetic" if not simply, sociopathic.

Let's define sociopathetic as combining the non-elite skills of basic social interactions with the elite skills of high incompetence to the effect of revealing one's true intentions. Just how "Donald Trump" does that sound to you? If the shoe fits....

Also in the way of the typical dynamic of a conman, Mr. Trump abuses people's mores and decency  masking or neutralizing their reactions to his hidden in plain site sexuality, or even allowing us to admit it to ourselves. Thus doubling down, as he does love to do, on his abuse of us in his favorite psychosexual and psychosocial patterns.

Do consider this however. If your daughter were in a Miss America pageant, how would you feel about Donald Trump walking into the dressing room where your daughter is naked and changing, as he has done repeatedly? Of if he walked up to her and as he has said, "Grabbed her by the P*ssy."

And she felt she could say nothing to anyone ever because she could get cut from the pageant she had worked so hard for so long to get to the top and the end of that long, painful and sometimes humiliating road, all because the owner of the pageant feels he is entitled to sexually about Your Daughter. Still feel like he's a great guy to support, especially as POTUS? Or would you be looking for ways now around his Secret Service detail to get your hands around his fat old throat?

In his action of incorrectly discussing alone with then FBI Director James Comey March of 2017, he asked for the "cloud" of the Russia investigation to be lifted because it made doing his job difficult. He asked for the "cloud" to be lifted.

Nearly the same things he was doing with woman in mentioning how much they reminded him of his daughter. It is a behavior he repeats over and over. Telegraphing his desires like a Mafia boss, expecting it to happen, but when it doesn't he drops it. Being president ins't being a Mafia boss. He knows that and from the firings we've seen, he hates being denied. Is there any better evidence of that? I have to wonder just how many times in his professional (and probably personal) life he did not drop it, but pressed his advanted to other's disadvantages.

Once again the GOP, the political party who has subjected us to an inordinate number of sexual deviants, philanderers, hypocritical homosexual anti-homosexuals (just be gay dude, it's 2018! and it's okay), criminals and dehumanizing, bigots, racists and well, outright hypocrites.

We deserve better. But the only way to get there is to openly deal with what is right there before us. And to demand of a major political party like the GOP, that this is no longer acceptable.

Because it is time. In fact, it is far beyond that time.


#incest #GOP #InMemoryYetCrystalClear #realDonaldTrump #POTUS #VPOTUS #Republican #conservative

Attraction and Eroticism

Which, is the more pleasurable? Attraction? Or Love?

Attraction is definitely the stronger of the two in my mind. After all can one not love another yet have a love affair with still another they are attracted to, against all vows and promises?

Has this not been shown over and over throughout the ages, in song, literature, movies and plays?

Is therefore Attractiveness the all important piece of the relationship puzzle? Does a relationship begin to dissolve once Attraction disappears? When there is no Attraction, is there not soon in its place, repulsion.

In much the same sense that physicists speak of the magnetic or the electrical, do people not use terms like magnetic or electric for someone they feel Attracted to?

Not Beauty... but Attractiveness.

The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition says of Attraction:

1. The act or capability of attracting [this tells us nothing]. 2. The quality of attracting, charm [Charm], 3. A feature or characteristic that attracts."

And of Attractive: 111. Having the power to attract [again, this tells us nothing].
2. Pleasing to the eye or mind [Mind]; charming." [Brackets added by the Author]

Pleasing to the eye decries surely, that aesthetic appeal which so many disparage mentioning. What is that but: Beauty?

Surely however the "pleasing to the mind," description does not explain it. Something that pleases my mind? All of it? Or most of it that can be acquired, accessed by another. What is the negative appeal in this?

An Attractive person is one that attracts your attention by way of stimulating (or "titillating," perhaps too sumptuous a word?) many separate areas of a person's mind. Obviously, the most powerful ones would be affected first: those of Beauty (sight?), Sexuality (movement? smell?), Aesthetic Demeanor (attitude?), as well as Productive Characteristics.

But is that misleading? "Productive Characteristics"? What does that mean?

A mundane example....

Porno movies are Productive.

In a sense they are or else they wouldn't exist, would they? They show us sex, raw and forced visually and audibly into our consciousness. The really good ones would also gain access to our other states of consciousness, as true art penetrates to and through many layers of consciousness and intellect. But not for the immature, the unsophisticated.

Are they productive in a way to truly "turn one on?" I think most would agree not, actually. Though many people do get a kick out of them, just how productive are they, considering their original purpose? That of stimulating one sexually. Surely they only achieve whatever they do by way of being so single mindedly obtuse. Brutal, in a sense. Overkill.

Why is Eroticism generally considered productive according to its purpose? Unless of course, it overpowers and preoccupies one. But this usually only happens to those with truly addictive/ compulsive personalities to begin with. People who needed help from the start. Is this so different from and far between the more raw, projected sexuality of most kinds of pornos? Is it because it is so very hard to achieve?

After all, it does require a certain kind of. . .Class. Of Charm (in other words, I would say, a "need" to be Attractive) in order to be truly sexually stimulating. To any satiating or at least a satisfying degree. This is something that requires a lot of complementarity. To give that to a diverse group of consumers, it "appears" to require debasing it to the point of utter ludicrousness. Thus your run-of-the-mill porno movie. Cheap. Raw. Typically unrehearsed. Poorly thought out.

This happens to us upon a paraphrase of a theorem of the late Media Prophet Marshall McLuhan (see his cameo so aptly put in the "standing in line at the cinema" scene in Woody Allen's, ANNIE HALL).

It proffers the degree of the intellectual level of a medium for any given audience, decreases in proportion to the number of individuals contained in that audience. Thus, so the theory goes, Public Broadcasting produced/sponsored shows, should have a higher quality content than that of the mass media offerings of prime time TV sitcoms.

A porno movie may indeed raise a penis to its full extension, a clitoris to its full engorgement. But is it the raw-nerved throbbing, full bodied mindfulness, experienced in near-orgasm? And no, I do not mean climax. A climax is merely a pleasant spasming of muscles. An orgasm is a much fuller experience and brings in much more of the body/mind experience.

A mere climax can leave the pelvic area congested, which is the way the body sets up sexual arousal: engorgement of the pelvic veins and nerves, irritating the organism's metabolic system to seek decongestion.

Typically, orgasm does not leave the body in this congested state, which is the more healthy (and more popularly desired) form of relief. Repeated congestion of the pelvic region without resolution, especially in women, can be medically unfavorable and lead to complications. And not just emotional ones.

This ideal indeed comes only with true eroticism. And that only comes through ... Attractiveness. See? One has to be attracted to (say...), the people on the screen in a porno, in order to experience this. Or the scene they are playing their charade out in. The projected circumstance. One could be attracted to oneself, or a preconceived idea, which then uses a porno only for confirmation and orientation in order to more fully solidify what was already in one's mind.

But true eroticism is no easy thing to achieve. In part because as has been pointed out by others long ago, it is in the nature of the human experience that one can even erotisize, raise to the level of a fetish, even that of a rock.

It is in essence, the Charm, the Quality, the Classiness (even anti classy, as in eroticizing a sense of the aesthetic of the ugly and finding sexual attraction in it, that is to say in being turned on by the gross and disgusting) of the viewing and not the view itself that does the real work.

This is one reason why pornos do indeed work for many people. For do they not primarily focus on the quality of the viewing and not the actual view being watched? Which brings up the potential for the individual to be pre-experientially inclined for an intense release, in which case one could watch a wall and find the same intensity.

It is the bare fact that the person the viewer is with (even if that be themselves), in the circumstance they are in, is the stimulating factor. It is the Attractiveness, the Charm, and the Class, as well as the Company they are keeping.

It is not as many do claim, that everyone is simply different in their tastes and therefore it is much too hard and expensive for a scene to be made which will please most anyone. Although it is indeed NOT easy to do this, I believe it is for another reason. Rather I believe it is a difficult thing to produce because of the innate need for Attractiveness. Something that requires a kind of Class, of Charm, to be truly sexually stimulating. And not necessarily in the classic sense of the words.

This is why viewing naked is sexually inspiring, but less-than-naked is Erotic. Thus, the high sales of special undergarments with orientations toward sexuality. This is also why hardcore porno is merely stimulating, while softcore tends more easily to be erotic, more fully... engaging. However, many will note that since softcore does not show it all, many viewers (mostly male) feel cheated and so do not find it in the end erotic. Once again, this reflects back onto the appetites of the individual viewer.

This is a mere misconception on the individual viewer's part. Often they find after seeing it all, that this does not satisfy after all. Nor does it satiate. Is it such a fine line for most people between the sexual excitement achieved through hardcore porno and the more fully erotic elements exercised by the way of Love, Aesthetic Appeal, or Attractiveness?

It has been said that true sexual fulfillment only comes from one being in a deep relationship. However, cannot the opposite be said in that a stranger that arouses, can also lead to an intense and deep satiation? Or does one actually satiate and the other simply inspire more desire? Which, is the most desired in that case?

Does this distinction so easily become blurred? Isn't it more like the case of a glass of fine wine is lost on a wino because he is looking for the strongest "kick." A motivation so unlike the Attraction a wine connoisseur finds for that same glass, prior to the wino having drunk from it.

The True Seeker finds instead of the wino's "kick," the connoisseur's aesthetic explosion of appreciation. One that comes up from deep within, through many levels. What is actually a cascading of mental appreciation through various regions of the brain and various levels of one's mind.

An explosion that warms, that comforts, that nurtures and lingers, sometimes for days afterward. For drinking a very fine wine can produce in a Connoisseur, an orgasm-like (though perhaps, very temporal) response. This is far indeed from what a wino experiences in his drugged, "climatic" deliriums.

So one has to ask: What is meant by having Productive Characteristics? Is it "climax?" Or, is it "orgasm?" Aesthetic Appeal (the single glass of a very fine wine), or total inebriation (a five liter box of cheap fortified Thunderbird wine in the hands of a wino)?

Is Attractiveness simply physical Beauty, or something else, something...more?

I will leave it up to you. The next time you see someone who draws your Attention to them without their even trying, from across the room, attracting you from across a bar, or through the curious air at some party, consider just what it is that is drawing you.

Consider just what it means to you. To the both of you.

I think you will find that the pleasures in Life will be better for you if you do consider it. Just like the fine wine in the hands of a Connoisseur.

A Woman's What?

This was posted recently with the obvious desire for comment. You know sometimes there are subjects you never ever want to get involved in, but then something comes up where you just have to say something. Especially on topics where people are standing up for some people's rights while abusing other's in the process.

This just felt like one of those times. I'm not anti alternative lifestyle, or anti gender anything. Since I do accept others for who they are in what their actions are, I really do not care about certain aspects of their world as it pertains to me. I'll treat you decently. But if you push your racism in my face, I don't really want to hear it. Or your gender issues (for or against). Just be a person around me and try not to complicate our relationship. Yes, it may get to that point where it's addressed. But feel that out and deal with it at the right time and place.

I have a comment.

A woman's penis? Look, a penis is a penis. Male gender has penis. Let's not over complicate things. And I say that with love. Yes, a woman can have a penis. Yes it's a complicated subject. But one that some revel in the complexity of and the specialness of being in that realm.

You know there was a time when some aspects of sexuality just weren't public. After all some mystery in life isn't so bad. I say that tongue in cheek, but there is some veracity to it.

This whole gender business has become pretty messed up and confused. For both (and all?) sides. And not just in that arena, but in many in the country today. Especially in politics.

As in this case in the post, it may be considered a "woman's penis"...to the owner But to the straight participant it is not, and it is homosexual behavior for him to participate and it shouldn't otherwise be pushed on HIM as such. It is by definition a homosexual act too for the owner, but not in today's PC climate where one gets to decide what one is regardless of the reality of the physicality of the individual who apparently can simply choose whatever they are. Seriously?

 Look.... I get it. Some people have a sexuality that is very complicated and some have one that is effectively screwed up. It is however also unfair to expect others to buy into your reality without accepting some responsibility for how the world is. You don't live in a bubble, but if you want to, do not expect others to. Just accept that, have a good sense of humor about it and go on with your life.

Don't let others affect you and bring you down. Go out and be fabulous, or awesome, or whatever. Because you are if you want to be. But we have been expecting too much of others too much of the time of late. And no I'm not saying Neo Nazis should be able to be assholes. I'm saying that there are limits and boundaries even to being politically correct. But how many genders do we really need when we start with two. By one count, 63 I hear now. Really?

My point isn't that there aren't 63 (or however many) genders. It's that it's not within many people's realm of importance. And that's okay, too. I get that it may be important to you. But trust me, there are things very important to me that no one else seems to care about. I just deal with it and move on. Though admittedly I do get rather passionate about it at time. But that's on me, not you. Still, I get over it and move on and try not to bother others too much about it. Except in the appropriate environments and situations.

Recently Washington DC and Oregon have decided to add an "X" along with an "M" for male and "F" for female to their driver's licenses. A move that is getting praise by many who have desired such a thing. I think this is a good idea. And it supports my point here.

We do have to be careful about not having a common understanding of reality however. That's what standard schooling was originally all about. I've always been a proponent of diversity but of late I've found a downside to it.

Whenever we go out of our house, we walk into a social contract with the rest of humanity.

Social contract:
An implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.

A social contract is also about interpersonal levels of comfort. In part what all this talk about one's selected gender is, is a way for that individual to have a desired level of comfort. However, it has come at the expense of other's comfort levels. Not quite fair now, is it.

What that means is we don't go outside a reasonable degree of comfort, especially for those we do not know or have just met. We don't overtly come onto, especially someone you don't know or want to be hit on by;  we don't act racist toward others; we don't share too much personal or private information.

That is also how it used to be about religion. We kept our religion to ourself. But now it's being shoved into our public and political spectrums when this country was based upon keeping religion separate form the State. Usually it's being forced into political issues for all the wrong reasons. It makes it harder for us to see one another as equal, when one is always pushing how special they are by way of their actions.

And that is the thing. TMI, too much information, has almost become a way to say hello anymore. It's really kind of weird and usually not very desirable to many people. Except for those with a need to feel different or special or to over share. Our self esteem and priorities have gotten confused and convoluted and that needs to change. And it is, and has. At some point however, we need to regroup from time to time as to continue on can become defective for all involved.

It's good we're more aware of OUR subgroups. Because these are all OUR subgroups. I know moany theists or conservatives would disagree about trans people or gays being a party of their subgroups. This is America. Deal with it. But do we really need to find even more ways to make interacting even more complicated than it already is? Many are already overwhelmed. If they need to understand those out of norm people's needs, they too need to understand those of the larger group.

I don't care what or who you claim you are. Go with it, have fun. Feel normal, whatever. But to push others to accept your form of reality, of a norm, outside of a certain realm, is not only unfair and ludicrous, it can be mean and no, I'm not talking about reverse racists type of points of view.

All this while we hear not accepting other's reality for their personal beliefs and way of life are being treated unfairly by people who don't even know what they are talking about. After all, life is complicated enough without further complicating it. Yes, I keep saying that. Complicating it to reality is one thing, but into obscurity is kind of just wasting all of our time.

You be you. I fully support that. I also don't have to accept what you believe or you what I believe, I just have to treat you in a civil manner and accept you as an equal, for the most part. Just don't expect everyone to understand everything.

Be gracious enough to be you and not feel the need to share too much personal information with others especially in some cases, certainly with those whom you do not know and will never see again. I honestly don't care what gender you are. I don't care what race you are. Why is that even an issue? If I can't tell by looking at you, that's my problem? Obviously, and you know it, it's your problem. So don't bring it up. Have a thick enough skin to let it go in polite conversation.

Telling me as soon as we meet what you have devised and selected as your "gender" is kind of over the top and more info than is needed and it only puts people ill at ease and over complicates the social interaction. If we're going to have a long term relationship of work or whatever, then it may be appropriate. And it may not.

That is on you for either choosing to be or simply in being as fate has devised you, as who you are. I'm who I am. I don't expect anyone to care or bother about it. And they don't. But then I'm perhaps lucky in being male and heterosexual. Pretty uncomplicated reality in its complexity.

The problem here is we've confused several things in our becoming more aware of various elements of reality and the universe and we have learned how to further and further confuse things through desire and belief.

Partly out of a desire for people to not have their feelings hurt, to simply accept oneself rather than put in the work to better deal with reality. Yes, there are exceptions to that rule, no doubt about it. But we are seeing this bleed into other areas where that really is not the case. Who should judge? Good question.

As I said, it's also ebbed into our politics further obfuscating things (typically on purpose) and well, just how is that treating ya?

It's like it is with some obese individuals. It's far easier to accept one is fat, rather than to do the emotional, educational, physical work and make the possibly massive life changes to lose weight and thus potentially better your end of life years as well as your overall general health situation. As well as you're reality, today, and that of others.

Losing weight can also (usually does) require a change in lifestyle which many are unable or more typically simply not willing to do or even consider and so, they do suffer emotionally. Yes, it's better to accept you're fat and be happy rather than drive yourself into sickness over body shaming... or suicide even. But it's also better to work to deal with reality and change things for the better rather than shoot for shortcuts just because it's easier.

We have confused making someone accept themselves as they are in order to be happy until they get to a healthy point where they can then deal with their issues and do the work necessary to really get to where they wish to be (we kind of just decided it's easier to simply forget the latter hard part).

Yes, some should just accept it and go on and be happy with themselves. some have those situations where that is the wise thing to do, the smart path to choose. Many, many others however should really just do the work, put in the effort and drastically change their lifestyle. But they see these others and hear people chanting to accept thyself and viola, that becomes their mantra, the new reality. It's much easier. And it's instant after all.

Not to mention the of millions of pounds of fat nationally and how it affects our domestic economy as well as the wear and tear on our infrastructure. But that is after all, another issue.

As are drugs from a psychiatrist. One takes drugs to stabilize, to get to a place where they are functional enough to do the actual work required to achieve a healthy mind and personalty, and life. We seem to have much too often just stopped at the "just take the drugs" initial stage. Our follow through has decreased more and more over the years.

When what is really needed is a change in life, or in doing other work that isn't all that easy. Maybe a massive change in life that most aren't willing or cannot (or think they cannot) do. Just keep popping a pill. Done. Move on. Cuz surely, that never goes wrong. Just ignore the suicides caused by many anti anxiety drugs.

The answer really isn't better living through chemicals. Well, cannabis and alcohol in proper doses and well spaced out enough at times actually can aide in enhancing the quality of one's life. Until they don't if and when abused. Being Americans, we overdo everything and think if some is good, more is always better. It's not. That takes no thought. Finding balance is hard and we tend to reject that outright.

The psychiatric drugs are only ever really meant to help people finally be able to address and deal with their actual issues, to do the hard work, to get down to the business of actually healing and building a better mindset. And again too often the answer is to drastically change one's lifestyle. To dump the girlfriend, to divorce the husband, to quit the job or simply to move forever away from one's friends and family. Yes, sometimes that TOO can simply be the answer. But people would prefer to do drugs and stay in their toxic situations.

Yes some people do need to be on drugs forever. Always exceptions to the rule. That however does not neutralize the rule as some like to immediately think just because they threw up some (at times, potentially untrue) anecdote.

Some people do have gland problems with their weight issue. But those are not the norm, not the large numbers we're seeing who would claim such a situation. Most people are not "big boned" or have a "gland problem". They just have a lifestyle that leads them to binge eat, or stress eat, or not exercise, or whatever. Or again, they may be trapped in a need for a massive life style change.

And so we have these ridiculous exchanges as we see in the snapshot above.

As we see the rise and fall of such groups and beliefs as are exemplified with ISIS around the world, of late in the Philippines, one has to wonder, just how is it different in its fundamental emotional components and affect in satiation?

Is mass delusion running rampant across the planet? Just in different forms and degrees? Isn't our right wing more or less delusional in many ways? People are listening to shows like InfoWars. Even Fox News has some assigned blame for what is going on. As do Congressional conservative Republicans and certainly our oh so questionable president.

Is this all a normal function in life that it is happening at this time, or is it caused by something else? A conscious element or external force? Theists love to talk about intelligent design. Is that what we're seeing? Or is this just another pendulum effect swinging wide due to our more evolved, if not more technological society? Is this just what happens ever so many years and nothing is new or different, just the technology and weaponry?

Yes, people are indeed odd. Different. Unique even. But also very much the same. I usually celebrate th7all at. But really now, come on, let's call a bullshitter a bullshitter when they raise their lovely necks onto the chopping block of social discourse.

As for a woman's whatever to paraphrase the president, we all need to seek our bliss and I celebrate and support that. But let's have some reasonable boundaries and accept that others are not always responsible for who we are as unique individuals.

Or surely, I could just be 100% wrong.

Yeah, that's probably it. I'm just absolutely incorrect.

Cuz after all, that's just a lot easier....

Today's Gender Roles - Marriage Equality now SCOTUS Supported

I am a phenomenologist. Truly. I have a degree in psychology and I studied phenomenology. I am here not to make judgement as much as I am to observe and describe what I see.

I was just talking with my daughter and her friends about transgender issues and modern gender issues in general. I'm pretty open minded, transcendental. But I am human and was born in a time where a certain paradigm was prominent even though I was usually ahead of change due to my love of science fiction since the early 1960s.

We had talked about Bruce Jenner, my daughter and her friends, and individuals we've all known, personally. We were talking about how one relates to a transgender person. How is that defined?

My daughter said it's all about how the individual wants to be defined. But I think there is more to it than that.

As I see it there are three versions of gender. How a person defines themselves. How the person's gender is defined legally (what's on your birth certificate). And how you are defined by your physicality.

It used to be easy. There was an order to that, it wasn't a concern or consideration. No one thought about it because there was nothing to think about. Or so it seemed.

You're born either male or female, you're male or female, respectively. Surely a small percentage are born without a physical and prominent distinction. One in 1,500 babies from one report. So more than one might think, or have thought at one time.

Then things like gender reassignment came up. We were defined by our physicality but eventually we were defined by the individual's beliefs more than their physicality.

So Bruce Jenner takes hormones, comes out to the world as a woman. He's a woman? But he said he will not go the full course and lose his penis so physically he will be a man with breasts and a feminine appearance. What's his gender then? Female? Male\female? Male? What's the defining factor?

My daughter said if someone dyes their hair from blond to green, isn't it green or will you say, "No, you're still a blond."

I said that wasn't how I saw it at all. It was more like they were blond, dyed their hair green and said it's red. If that is the case, do we accept then that it's red? Or is it blond. Or green? How do we define their hair color?

Still there would be the three ways to define that. Legal, physical, personal. But in this case the hair would physically be green, though called red, and fundamentally blond.

It occurred to me that part of the issue here is in those gender reassigned or partially reassigned individuals over-complicating the issue.

See, it's really a fairly simple issue.

But individuals need to feel, well, what they feel. In the old days, they'd have gotten therapy. Basically, that is what they do need IS therapy. But the therapy has gone from mental, to physical and therein lay the confusion. For everyone.

I've always been told I was over complicated. But as I saw it, I was merely able to see the complexity in things that most people couldn't see. In this issue it seems to me that these people are overcompensating things for their therapy. They are over complicating their gender issues (yes, gender issues are complicated, I'm not denying that, just bare with me), so they will feel normal.

Now look. I don't have a problem with people trying to feel normal. Up to a point. We all have limits, right?

I mean, if you're a serial murderer, or a pedophile, you need to kill or molest to feel normal. Well, I don't want you to feel normal in that case, I want you not to feel normal. However for most people I do want them to be able to feel normal. I don't have a problem with THAT. Not if it doesn't affect others (as in death I mean).

But there is more to life than a person simply needing to feel normal.

As I'd said you can call yourself a rocket ship even, if you like, but you are still going to have to be designated on legal documents as something discrete, a compartmentalized unit. Such as male, female, or even, let's call it, trans. I don't think we need legal definitions to go to the lengths of Facebook and allow fifty-six gender titles. We just need a general idea of what we all can agree that you are.

I mean, really Facebook, do we really need 56 genders? Well it's social networking so, sure why not? I do think that's going a bit far, though. Okay, perhaps not for social media, but certainly for legalities. Three should be enough, or six, but let's not get carried away.

Here's in part my point. Some will over complicate their gender or title because they need to in order to feel either special, or that is, normal. I'm more concerned about the special, but the normal can also be an issue.

When you over complicate your gender to the group, you are also asking them for something for you. Understanding, if nothing else. I mean you can call yourself anything in the privacy of your home but when you go out and expect others to relate to you in non normal (general, average, etc.) ways, you are entering a different realm. You are then asking the group to help you make you feel normal. That simplifies things for you but complicates them for the group. Whether or not they see it that way really doesn't matter, because it simply does what it does. And that's fine. To a point.

But it is more complicated than that, too. If I were to point that out then those who are over complicating the issue will rebel and say that I am over complicating their issue. So they are saying they want things to be simpler and I'm the one over complicating things on their agenda.

You can't have it both ways. It's either complicated, or simple.

Obviously we can just relate to someone as they wish to be related. But should we, really? If they aren't based in some form of reality? And what is reality but a definition of what is? What is which, physical, emotional, legit, intellectual? What? Where is the definition? What or which is more important? The individual? The group?

Basically the individual is expecting the group to take on part of their therapy. And that too is okay, up to a point. We all do that and the individuals who do it too much are labeled as troublesome, possibly to be avoided and at some point they are usually locked up.

Thankfully we don't do that anywhere as much as we used to. There are people walking around free today who at one point in time would have been locked up in a prison, or an asylum. Of course there are those in prison now who should be in a mental institution for help and are instead being brutalized in prison because we are too cheap as a country to pay for the proper care in the proper environment.

So someone gets gender reassignment and doesn't change their genitals. Male or female? Is it only their decision? Well, for the most part outside of legalities, sure, why not. However, when it gets into things like pronouns, how much can they require before it gets out of hand?

What if it carries over to their pets? Do you call their dog a "he", a "she", a "their"? Or some other form. When it gets to the point that when someone meets your pet for the first time and they have to ask, "Oh, what pronoun does "she" ("he?") like to be called?" Isn't that kind of over complicating things?

At what point does it become over complicated to the point that it is too complicated and unacceptable, or should be unacceptable?

Here's part of the consideration. It's easy to just be accepting and say, "Whatever an individual wants to be referred to as, is what I will refer to them as." It sounds pretty, it's feelgood. but when you consider a group of all non standard gender types, the consideration becomes something else; as I was indicating above about the hair dye.

Sure, on an individual basis you can refer to someone as however they prefer to be referred to. At some level, it's just good manners. We should try to be considerate and cater to our fellow human's identity of who they see themselves to be.

But you can also reach a point where it simply isn't reasonable, or where it isn't even good for the individual making the claims in calling for their desired designation.

For the most part I think, just refer to someone as they choose.

But when you start talking about it in the abstract as we are here and now, and as I was with my daughter and friends, it really grows into a bigger and more inclusive issue than just the consideration of a single individual as you initially wish it to. It quickly grows into a societal issue and not just a personal or subgroup issue.

That is where some of this can quickly become very emotional to discuss. Because you can get one person talking about it at an individual level, even though they are or may also be discussing it on a much larger scale. Many times debates run into that issue. It's why you see so many heated discussions or arguments on topics like this, not even going into the potential pathology of someone arguing about their own identity.

Bottom line I think is, just treat someone kindly and compassionately. Outside of that and in the larger sense, just give it a little more thought than you might normally have done. Life isn't simple anymore. We  have masses amounts of information to deal with, ways to behave are more sophisticated, people can more easily be hurt by way of inattention or ignorance, or a fear of the different.

Don't be one of those people. Be thoughtful and kind and try to understand. If you find yourself reacting negatively, then try to find a more productive way to deal with it. You may find that many times what you fear or hate, find distasteful or disgusting, is out of ignorance, or unfamiliarity. Consider if it's based in elements of what you have grown to see as reality and where any of that  might wrong, or if you are right but you can still treat others strange to you with compassion if not at least, common good manners.

To each their own. And maybe we can tall talk and get to know one another, regardless of how annoying they may be, or we may be, to them.

Speaking of which, SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of the United States has just declared same sex marriage legal in all fifty states. It's nice to see sanity rule the day for a change. From them today on this..