Something about being Horny - part 3

Well. So far I guess none of this really had much to do with being Horny. Except that the matters discussed may be viewed in that context. Which is an interesting thing on its own. And it's not actually all that ... magical. I mean, I must think that you can take anything and look at it through whatever lens - except that sometimes things aren't really suited all that well for ... a number of vantage points.
But then of course, things can also be manufactured ... to maybe even require a specific point of view or lens even to make sense.

In all of that, there's certainly also potential for the obscure. I mean, if you wanted you could take the headline and look at what I have written so far to find some convergence. And then maybe two or three layers down and twice around a corner left and over the wall ... something may be found. But, I got to tell you that that wasn't intended.

Not by me anyway.


Like so I do on and off feel like it's important to restate, that being straight and clear - like honest and transparent - is really important. It's crucial if we want to move forward successfully, as a species, I believe.

I mean, if we basically require everyone to decipher the equivalent of the Rosetta stone for each and every word we say, yea, it's like ... let's just call it inefficient. Somewhat inefficient.
Uhm, no ... that's a bad analogy. So ... if we're required to have the equivalent of the Rosetta stone (a.k.a.: A dictionary) for each and every word we say, ... something like that.


But sometimes it's not quite that simple. Sometimes we may spot something that isn't really comprehensive and we need to work together to figure out what, if anything, there is to be talked about. So I also guess that "the ancients" (well, humans for the most part of our existence) valued 'wisdoms' - a.k.a. 'know how' that would give some advantage. Like knowing what plants not to eat. But so has the wisdom of dealing with the divine ... always been a bit of a riddle it would seem.

I mean, on the one side there is a clear tendency towards superstition; That we have, as we're perfectly capable of ascribing virtually anything to some higher power that may or may not care with extensive deliberation about each and every nuance of the thing. And then when there's evidence that there is in fact a higher power that has a really staggering capability of dealing with each and every nuance of a thing to an extent that is just ... "absurd" ... it might seem as though all of that superstition may even be justified.
But as far as the Bible is concerned - one thing we have to take note of is that it takes a hard stance against us 'pragmatizing' God for profit - for instance. So the whole: "Do well by God and you'll be rich" thing, there are really explicit stories that speak against it. Sure there's Job, but we might even think of Elijah. For him doing well by God meant that he had to spent years alone by himself in the wilderness. Well, with the added benefit of being cared for. So, no need for money. Which works well for my "don't worry" kind of attitude.

In other words then: There's a point to us being here in this world. And knowing ... well, how to do well by God so that in turn we might get this or that ... that, I would think, isn't it. But this kind of thinking encompasses a large amount of thought implicated when we speak of Gods or Religion or God or Spirituality. It's the whole 'rule of obedience'. And sure, it's so deeply ingrained into the religious mind, that it might seem preposterous to claim that it isn't in fact ... God's desire for us.
But then again, who am I to tell you what it is that God wants?

I mean - I suppose I should be a bit more explicit about it. Every now and then, at least so to an effect of added clarity.
Being myself, for once, the authority on these matters as imposed upon the world by God - the issue is that what I ought to say isn't derived from the hypothetical capabilities that a person such as me should have. It is, and that's really as simple as it gets, derived from what the actual friggin truth is. Now, if the truth happens to be for instance, that matters such as authority or clarity concerning certain question is in fact against the central aspects of that truth - the hypothetical of what I should be doesn't hold up when it gets to that.

But then there's still this weird ... intersection. I cannot really speak of my experience without saying a thing or two about God ... along the lines of "know God". I mean, in as far as I see that there are misconceptions about "God's Will" - I would tell you why I think those are misconceptions. And by virtue of that am I painting an image of God of which you could go and say: Hey - look! This is what God is, how God is ... God's will ... such and such. And many might argue that it's awfully convenient - this God that I draw - in how well it caters to modern/woke sensitivities. At least to some extent. Which might just be an addendum to add some edge to what might otherwise just be too smooth.
I mean ... what's a religious movement without some controversy?

And the same would apply to you. If you happen to believe in the same God as I do - or maybe not - whatever; We're all somehow telling each other what God is or should be. And I can only imagine what some hardline Muslim - which refuse the belief in Jesus on the basis of arguing that God never procreated - would make of my story. There sure is an awful lot of potential for things to ... not get any less messy.

Yet is it in THAT environment, where rather than telling others of what we think God is, we should also have some open mind ourselves for who God is. And He will be capable of removing the boulders that are in our ways of getting to Him - and as He lights our own individual path to Him - we shall find.

And yea, that's the Gnostic Dilemma - from a different point of view. That ... once we found Him ... we might as well share. It's ... inevitable. Yet - and I think that's one of those side-effects - we can never really convince someone on the basis of what we found; Though we might open people's minds to the idea or some related concept. I mean, I imagine that atheists can come to terms with my God rather easily - but making the step from treating Him as an abstract hypothetical to becoming an actual believer ... that's an entirely different story.
So the part of individual discovery is important. To allow each and everyone to be on their individual quest for enlightenment.


To that I think I have a neat metaphor. Therein, what one can individually grasp can be compared to the stretch of a compass. That is ... one of those tools used to draw circles. There's like a maximum stretch which determines the largest circle one can draw ... and that will determine what "size" of information that person requires. As further I'd say that we all have individually large compasses. And so would some tend to draw circles that are either too large or too small of someone else. Next to people that try to artificially conflate the circumference of what they're actually saying. And then this isn't like ... universal. I might have a really large compass in one way, but in some other way I might have a really small one. And so there are things that can help us. To understand what we're dealing with is one thing. And to get some hands on experience is one of the best way to accurately estimate the mental load of a thing. Then we might find that we need to draw a lot of circles to grasp like the portion of a particular circle - or that we can quite easily cover a whole range of things with a simple stroke.
So ... yes. Individual Responsibility is a great thing if we understand to apply to some kind of common benefit. Rather than having it be applied onto us as some kind of choke hold that mandates a certain kind of behavior lest we want to be called lazy.

I mean, we for instance use words to communicate. That is something we have to learn ... as some kind of personal responsibility ... as it enables a range of things for us that can then contribute to "the greater good". And yea, the sad story is that some people don't get that. They wouldn't use language to any kind of common good - so we sure wouldn't expect them to learn how to responsibly deal with information unless it suited them somehow. But that's a different story.

At the end of the day the story is this: We, individually, cannot entirely rely upon some kind of innate compatibility between our own and everyone else's self. It's like we live on different planes with different rules as most if not all matters of our lives are weighted differently. Sure, I guess, Gravity still applies. But depending on how athletic or chubby you are ... that already hosts a range of different experiences.

And because God electively prefers to communicate to us from within ourselves - to the way our mind functions, as a part of its make up - there is no one better suited to communicate Himself to You ... than He is.
Nay-sayers might bring up that there is still this fun thing called "society" - or however you wanna call it - but be wary of it as ever so often that only means that there are a bunch of ought to's that are slapped onto you faster than you can say "Hi" to the LORD. I mean, sure does being part of a collective come with certain demands, expectations, such and such. But effectively it has to be more than something that just takes all of you in return for some crumbs. Like, how can you understand a society to be fair - if you never allowed God to show you your own worth?
And I guess there are way too many people that get hung up on this, as they define their own worth by what they can physically contribute. This whole "being a productive member of society". Oddly enough are those people often enough ... or uhm ... no. When they are religious, well - they barely notice how that is at odds with this idea that God loves you. No matter what.

Well - sure. I guess at the end of the day there are differences. But that also depends on how we think of it. Naturally there are some that God has an easier time dealing with than others. The Bible isn't really a book filled with stories to contrary. And in that sense it's also somewhat evident that some people have more 'worth' to God than others. Now, I can see myself as on the beak of that pyramid - and sure I can also tell myself that I am in fact very productive. Yet most people - given they don't know what I'm actually doing - might see it differently. In easy words: This world really doesn't have a use for my value. Not all of it anyway. And for what I'm worth, it might try to exploit me on the expense of where my worth is truly at.

And I sure do believe that all of us can be equally productive if we really cared to. Sure, somewhat dependent on our mental and physical capacity. I mean, I don't think that 'my productivity' - if we wanted to be more explicit - is merely a consequence of me being me. It is also coupled with opportunities, gifts, offerings - lifetimes of experience. Gains in a large part won because God meant well for me. So I say that productivity isn't ... much to be proud of. It's something that just comes naturally. I mean, I think ... Greed is a really potent motivator. I mean, the lengths to which people may pursue certain things just because of Greed ... should tell us that ... effort ... really isn't a pure virtue.

Well, if you care to learn more about it, [here] is a video roughly on the matter of "innate exclusivity". It's about how the very nature of a thing can lock them out of certain capabilities. Which matters here in regards to fairness. So, if God were fair - on what basis should He treat us? On the innate qualities we happened to gain during our inception? Well, that would be unfair because the disadvantaged aren't at fault for their disadvantages. Or should He treat us all equally? Well, that would be unfair because people that would put an effort into doing right ... wouldn't really get any recognition they'd deserve. Sure, might some say, should He judge us on our actions. But that's really just the first thing - were some are just innately more capable of pleasing Him by their actions.
What the Bible does tell us, however, is that God is willing to take You in - "no matter what" - though as it stands people had different opinions about what conditions must be met towards that end. And if there's one thing popularly known about Jesus' life and work - it's that He was there for the disadvantaged. The parable of the Lost Sheep comes to mind. So, if we want to talk about productivity for instance - we should keep in mind that your greatest potential may be locked behind ... some amount of twists and turns based on your abilities to do and understand. So, if you wanted to be "a productive member of society" - you should want to go onto that journey first; For otherwise you'd always be stuck. And this is in and of itself a metaphor of sorts, to tell you as much as that you shouldn't be concerned of your current worth to Him. Whatever it is, however convoluted your issues may be, however inadequate you think yourself to be - or however little you think you measure up to any kind of quality - that's not what matters to God. Why should it? He is Infinite - He can conjure whatever He wants. He sure doesn't need money nor resources or luck - He could just make it rain fried chicken and coke for a year straight and more. Or books that tell us individually what we might want to hear. Or needed to hear. He could just raise Atlantis even if Atlantis never existed so far - He could just conjure Robots ... or Rock Golems for that matter ... from the ground to do our every bidding. To say, if He wanted, He could turn you - for all the abilities you have - utterly obsolete; In a heartbeat. Or faster. And if He doesn't do so, it's probably because He thinks that we could do better. Probably because it matters to us ... to not be obsolete. Or ... whatever. So - to close back around: I don't think that our individual worth is a matter of how well of a drone of the system we can be.


Putting it like that might yet again stir some minds into dissent. Sure enough. Fitting in with an Enlightened society - being so ... capable of existing in Heaven, freely, as an independent individual - is practically still like being a drone to a system. Like, whether we get our instructions from an A.I., some hive mind, a dictator or God - what's the difference?
Well ... I'd say that when it comes to God, the difference is that we're not supposed to rely on instructions. More so are we supposed to live - in an environment that mandates an ability towards co-existence. Which I think is also the ultimate lesson to be learned here. One that can barely be discredited. What else should it be, even, in a world that is as though there were no God - that practically encourages us to act against the common wellbeing around so many corners?

Or does it? It's basically a coin-flip. But ... there are so many different possible interests we should be mindful of - some of which some groups maintain as above the interests of others - it might seem difficult to figure out which ones to legitimately care about.


Now, being myself exalted amongst y'all - to a quite considerable degree if we want to be fair - like, I'm ... literally |flexing with the unfathomable| ... so, yea, an authority - I find the reservations some might hold against me somewhat annoying. I mean, that's just a thing. I can understand it, relate to it, sympathize with it - but ... it's still annoying sometimes. And I guess that if I had to be conservative I'd show that side a lot more than trying to ... be less narrow minded. I mean, like in the previous part - I mentioned some things that I find annoying and ... some might read it as a condemnation. Sure. Feel condemned. But no. There's also the thing of how mood affects things. I mean - as it stands, people don't have much of an idea of how to cope with the situation we're in - so they don't have a lot of options outside of doing as they did. That however has the effect that this world is littered with things that don't really align with what should actually be of importance right now. Now - I happened to be curious over what OP builds there are in Baldur's Gate 3 - though after the second I didn't care all that much anymore. In part because I felt terribly inadequate. Somehow. I assume however that someone who never played the game and just did a quick search to get an impression might perceive these types of videos as utter cringe. Like all that BG3 is about is how to be most OP MFer in the Forgotten Realms. And yea, that's a common thing to find whenever a game allows you to indulge some power fantasy ... I suppose. And I feel it to be cringe - especially when I'm like ... thirsting for meaning; And all I find is the usual ... well ... "dreck".

And it's not necessarily easy to make fairest sense of all this. Though I wasn't ever really tempted to throw ... like ... gaming for instance under the Bus. To lean into hard condemnation of those things. That because gaming made up a large part of what I came to value growing up. Not only that I had a lot of fun - I also found challenges, moments of growth, Character Development, interesting ideas - whatever. I don't really mean to justify it either, though I certainly am more tempted to do so than not. And that's just ... a part of me. "Like it or not". And what does God do? Well, if I were to say that I never had a "Holy Ghost telling me to stop [playing/watch videos]" moment I'd be lying. But the same goes for "Holy Ghost chilling down with me because we have time for some fun" moments. And those moments are actually consistent - whereas the others are more like ... situational. For, after all I sometimes need an extra kick in my butt to move my mind towards what I should be actually concerned about. So-to-speak. But we're ... uhm ... I am ... not actually done playing Baldur's Gate just yet. It's just that after having finished it - I just find myself more inclined to do other things.

So - things like that factor into my opinions. For sure. And therefore what kind of a person I am ... in a ... like ... issue by issue kind of way. Now, you might feel like I shouldn't have so much sympathy for gaming - or well, some other thing that ... sticks out ever so often - and, to entertain that feeling, the question becomes: To which degree can you expect God to have crafted my life to reasonable ends?


A simple answer would be that it shouldn't matter. That it doesn't matter. Fact is that I am the way I am - if you so will: Terribly inadequate, troubled, confused and what not - and still ... am I in fact THE chosen. I mean, maybe that's an understatement. I am whom you have to deal with as "the One" put forth by God to be the next Moses, so-to-speak. And that's the easiest way to look at it - no weird mental gymnastics needed. Sure some might be worried and afraid as they abstract what God has given me into some weird alien powers ... so they might be looking forward for "the Real prophet" - though if we had some kind of "Elijah versus Ahab" kind of stand-off ... I'm certainly confident that I'd be the one winning that bout.

Which sure takes me - and probably everyone with some basic reasoning skills - to the "put forth your cause" part of the whole thing. "Such that we may understand that ye are in fact [Gods]". But sure. At the end of the day that's ... also kind of done and dusted. Like ... who cares? I mean, everyone - I suppose - already knows how that would end so we can skip to the after party for all I'm concerned. And by that I don't mean some Orgy or Porn label or such - ... . I mean, I think that my need - or urge - to report on my sexuality is relative to 'the' need to do so. I mean, for what urgency vibes in my expressions towards it; The bottom line of it is a certain understanding based on which I can be sure that what I'm getting corresponds to my needs.

Which, well, is maybe where the whole Pedophilia thing might come up. As I'd try to say that we shouldn't treat it as though there is something to be discussed - and as I'd try to highlight the importance of your own concerns within a democratic framework ... I'm under the impression that I started some expressions that I didn't come to close properly. So, at times, it does make sense to talk about it some more. I suppose.
So, what I mean is that while for some time - and in part it still does - it bothered me that some people had a really irrational or ignorant hardline stance against Pedophilia; After all I've tried to get into the nuances of it - I realized that at the end of the day, that hardline stance is very much justified. I mean, I would draw the line when it comes to Lolicon - so, drawn Child Pornography. Because that's harmless - I can very much vibe with it - and others who can, can enjoy themselves in a way that doesn't really harm anyone. And what people might call a slippery slope - isn't really a slippery slope. I mean, for what slippery slope there is - I happen to think that taking away what flat ground people have to stand on is what might shove them over the edge. Which sure is what some people would like to see - except ... not actually once you think about it. You'd need some perfectly Karmic world for that to not lead to more suffering.
And so, where's the but?
The but is that once we really start to talk about these things ... even while not talking about THESE things ... the balance of things has shifted enough for that one concern at least to be mute.
Sure - it comes with some 'bad optics' as I'm trans and gay - certainly Queer by some definition - and also do I happen to be somewhat defensive about Pedophilia. Which might be another understatement - but well. And I certainly can see why people might not want to associate themselves with that.
That also means that my piece on Shadow Truths has to do a LOT of heavy lifting - and yet am I certain that there's enough grounds to understand enough of it to relativize "Pedophile Tendencies" away from complete condemnation. So, in more nuance does this mean to me, that this 'ground' that people might stand on - to not step onto the slippery slope - isn't owed to whether or not there's valid/legal Porn for them to be consumed, but to the ability to put those tendencies into a more reasonable context.

Within that context, the way we'd talk about Pedophilia changes. That because we're not - and that's very important to me - talking of "legalizing pedophilia" - and that mostly because we can discard a 'need' for some kind of 'realism' about it. We can start in the abstract and maintain it in the abstract - until there's enough reasonable grounds for an actual realism to unfold.

And yea. I get that this is a difficult one. By virtue of having a hard time to really explain what's on my mind in a way that doesn't leave me uncomfortable about it. I figure that a nicer way of spearheading this is by saying it like so: You might understand some parts of what I'm trying to say here - but ultimately you might not get it at all. And that's fine!

I mean, that's the whole idea by putting it as: "We shouldn't talk about it". Although, I guess, eventually we should. But then I still think we shouldn't - although we should - and that's emblematic of the problem here. So - if you don't get it - and we say that's fine - that's ... owed to what most people I think are prone to think about when it comes to pedophilia. I mean, it's like ... "they" call us Groomers - yet when you actually want stuff like Child Porn or whatever kind of Rapey nonsense, you get into circles where there seems to be a really large overlap with exactly those kinds of people. Sure, the facade is like "pro life" and "christian" and "oh my God the Children!" - but it doesn't really take a high wisdom score to see all the many cracks in it.
It might seem like a cop out, a ... whataboutism ... - a bait and switch - but having read through my stuff you may have noticed that I ... have a somewhat damning opinion of 'them'. Like ... specifically and in particular. Part of it is that I accuse them of what I call primitivism. That is, them playing to the nether urges of our twisted minds - and that would just happen to involve a very rudimentary relationship with sexuality. As has been pointed out here and there, they wouldn't accuse a straight cis male of rape as hard as they would condemn a queer person for pedophilia although there isn't even a real indicator. I'm not sure what video that was in - I think it was [this] - where the term 'marked' is being used. So, Queer People are 'marked' - so everything we do is like a transgression of sorts; While cis men are not marked; And so everything they do - no matter how egregious - can be justified somehow.
And yea - while it might come off as a "It's only fine if 'we' do it" type of thing - the general idea is to not ... do what they do. Very simple. I mean, we can admit to sexual preferences, kinks and all that - just as they might - yet I would think that we wouldn't do it to justify a very ... well ... "juvenile" and unenlightened mess of primitivistic urges.
I mean - part of this primitivism would be, that ever so often that what is advertised as "sexual urge" or nature is really just bound to status quo. And it would seem as though that any legitimate confession to a more nuanced sexual understanding is swiftly condemned for whatever reason. Because it doesn't fit into the very simple minded construct. Of ... "bonk women over head to make stronk case for pipi". And whatever they might 'say' to deny that ... well, is it really more than just words?

But so, to mark myself off from that - is like a constant struggle. Maybe because I really am the type of woman that seems to cater to just those things. And it shouldn't be a struggle. If certain fundamental things are understood - that issue practically resolves itself. At least once things were able to unfold - as between who does/would join the fold and who'd just stand there on the sidelines having a big mouth.
I mean - sure. If this thing blows up as it should, I'm presenting my case to the entire world and not just to "the choir" as it were. So we'd have like an open stage where we'd all come together to discuss our future. As opposed to me speaking to or about us as somewhat separate from the rest. But still is there that distinction which I am at liberty to fall back on. If I want to, I don't have to respect your opinion until you're a part of the fold. And if you make a big fuzz about how important you are - then well - I expect you to prove it. Or: Make good on it - as it were.

And that's the next step. Because how 'we' would talk about this or that - amongst us versus "amongst 'them'" - that alone might be more telling than whatever I could conjure up right now.


So, what doesn't make sense - what truth there is that prevents people from coming to proper terms with this - I think happens to be the idea that we might ever be OK with pedophilia. I mean, we can deal with it in the abstract - as to say: In paradise - where ... there just isn't a logical restriction that makes sense anymore. And I think there are instances of reason here and there that - while they might not directly invoke Pedophilia do invoke some sense of universality that doesn't exclude it either. But to be honest - I don't really get it either. So, it's all just hypothetical. Or abstract - like - whatever my Clarity contains to that end ... doesn't even matter because I haven't figured out how to magically become a child again.

So, there are individual nodes of progress that maybe involve Pedophilia but first and foremost that's not really the issue - so - again we don't have to talk about it. The idea is that we shouldn't be biased against it if we wanted to be objective - but at the same time should we be biased against it if we wanted to be reasonable. So we can maintain the idea in the abstract; And whenever it comes to it escaping the abstract ... we should be skeptical. And yea, outside of possibly traumatized people - I don't think there are a lot of sources we can fall back on for further insight. Well - I can speak for myself; And that does hint at however not being toooooo careful about it. But my angle is also ... mostly rooted in dreams and hindsight ... so, I also can't safely tell what would or wouldn't be ... reasonable. Not from that position at least. So I say that we should entertain the idea where possible - which for the time being is entirely restricted to maintaining the abstract. And based on that we can get a feel for what it is that we're even dealing with.

I hope that makes sense now.


But well. So, eventually I also have to write about being Horny. As, for all I care, nothing so far is really meant to be taken in that context. Outside of the one or the other reference to it. More to the point have I here so far been explicitly ... not horny. To cover some stuff outside of it. Except for - well - hinting at it here and there.

And at times it seems to be that being Horny is a myth. I mean, I'm sure that it happens - here and there - but when I think about my Clarity; Where certainly I find myself to be horny from time to time; I come to realize that I'm not really Horny in a way that's ... like ... normal.

So, when I write about my Clarity I get aroused while also charging my mind with imagery that then carries over into my bedtime where I can then properly digest that charge. But over the time I've observed that this arousal alone doesn't really do it for me. So, trying to get off on it - so: Because I'm horny - doesn't work. What I need, rather than that, is the time for it. The mood perhaps. Or the opportunity. Like, once it's friday or saturday and I go to bed and I'm not too tired yet ... I can then conjure myself into those environments that help me stimulate an orgasm. That also applies to times where I'm literally horny. Like ... my body convulsing under sexual pressures. That also isn't really a thing I can just get off on.
So, therefore I come to think of 'horniness' - in the extended sense - as something about tensions; And if they don't connect with "Clarity" - or so: the moment in a way that resonates with Clarity - it really just fizzles away. Or runs into a wall. It doesn't compute. In that regard is there a different kind of horniness that actually gets the job done - and while it has some spontaneous properties, it really isn't all that ... random per se.

So - before I started to transition, I did certainly masturbate a lot more than I did since. But that also didn't really come from a state of arousal - but rather from a need to hold me to my nature. Alongside perhaps a need to deal with my testosterone levels; While so much in my mind revolves around sex.
Nowadays - it's a lot more elective. So, I can certainly just "rawdog" myself into a state of arousal - though, outside of some of the natural highs that come with the process it isn't really all that ... good. I mean, there is an inherent goodness, but what I meant by 'good' is like an added quality.
As I understand it - all of that is somewhat situational. Like, on the one hand it implies a certain independence from, well, 'physical horniness' - as "enlightened horniness" is much more like a state of mind that is embedded into our being. And from there we can activate it ... basically by creating the corresponding conditions.


Sure - similar to "natural horniness" - but still, more tied to the "environmental opportunity" ... like, some greater good we might say. And I guess that has to be enough for now. I ... just got mentally side-tracked somehow; So ... I got to put my mind into that.


And that's that.