Baldovin Concept censured on Facebook

(ro- for English scroll down) Baldovin Concept a fost pentru o perioada in imposibilitate de a fi publicat pe Facebook. Probabil ca unii dusmani ai sigurantei femeilor au fost deranjati de articolele scrse aici in ultimul an, si l-au raportat masiv ca spam, desi continutul sau nu contine reclame si nu vinde nimic. La rugamintile mele, dvs. cititorii ati contraraportat ca spatiu sigur care nu incalca standarderele comunitatii, pentru care va multumesc.

Eng- Baldovin Concept was for some time banned to be published on Facebook. Probably some women's security enemies were disturbed by the last year's articles I wrote here and received multiple negative spam reports to Facebook, although its content doesn’t contain advertising or any kind of commerce. But due to my asking for help, you the readers counter-reported this space as safe, not going against the Facebook Community Standards, so I thank you for that.

14 iulie 2020

4.10. The risk of the spiritual love forbidding communication by the exclusive feminine courtship initiation proposal theory

4. The feminist proposal of exclusively female courtship initiation

4.10. The risk of the spiritual love forbidding communication by the exclusive feminine courtship initiation proposal theory

Spiritual love and the Social Etiquette and Good Manners

The woman's refusal to accept any love, no matter how spiritual it might be, is both biologically and culturally justified. Firstly, according to the female sexual instinct selective principle, every woman must be protected for refusing the sexual activity or emotional approach from somebody else. Then, according to the tinny skin freedom that the civilized society promises to its citizens, every human being must be guaranteed the right not to give his body for somebody else interests. Any kind of organic social institution or group that tries to force someone’s consent, either by open means or by advanced social engineering maneuvers, commits an abuse.

The love shown to a woman is a possible way to establish a love affair with her. But the love alone, and lived more or less intensely, is not enough to form a couple with her. The famous philosopher Augustine aphorism "Love and do what you want!" is not justified anymore. Numerous nowadays examples show that the transition from the affection to the abuse can be done very easily. Casanova and Don Juan are always in love troubadours, but who leave behind emotional ruins. And the women have the normal right not to consent to their more or less sincere productions. Casanova mimics love with a few verses taken from unknown authors, with which he raises the woman on the courtship love pedestal, and then invites her to bed. Such a thing is not a spiritual love, but a very brutal, instinctual one adorned with spiritual packaging. The spiritual love is actually cased by the inhibition of this male sexual instinct raw side.

The existence of such a spiritual love feeling for a woman cannot lead to the automatic couple building with her. But, in the same way, its communication prohibition, as supported by the exclusive female courtship initiation proposal, does not seem all right either. The only exception here is, obviously, such feelings communication to a married person. This violates the universal rule of emotional isolation given by the engage / wedding ring. The explicit communication of spiritual love feelings to a person isolated from the marriage institution is a serious violation of social norms. Only in this case the exclusive female courtship initiation proposal is fully justified. We know very well that the adultery has happened in the past and is constantly happening today. The consequences of such acts can be tragic, although, in my view, the adultery is normal in some cases. There are some routine marriages that worn down beyond the point of being refreshed with sporadic flirtations. For this kind of couple relationship the best invigoration is the very divorce. But I think that the divorce decision must come directly from the members of the married couple, without the influence of third parties. In this case, the prior to courtship rules must be changed to a minimum male action.

But if the woman is not engaged in a stable relationship, then the spiritual love communication to her should not be forbidden. As I said in the previous article, on the one hand, communicating it violates the courtship 3rd prior stage deductible from the Social Etiquette and Good Manners. Indeed, these feelings communication conflicts the discretion principle, expressed in this article . But, on the other hand, such behavior strengthens its principles, raising the beloved woman above its own person. So, in principle, the Social Etiquette and Good Manners are not violated, but strengthened in its purposes. Even if the love is not spiritual enough, its communication should not be forbidden. I have shown in this article why there are not enough legal arguments for such a thing. Violation of the 3rd prior rule to courtship is a lack of Good Manners gesture, but such a thing cannot be punishable by law.

The exclusive female courtship initiation proposal came either from a too emotional mentality or from a too mercantile one.

The main argument for ruling the exclusive female courtship initiation as a new social norm is that it would stop the sexual crimes and the emotional abuses. If banning its communication would put an end to them, then this proposal would be justified. But I showed in this article , such a measure does not solve these problems, according to its stated role. Even if it was not clear enough, the Social Etiquette and Good Manners had already banned them before, but without success. Another rule like this would not be more successful than this Social Etiquette generally used by the society’s upper classes. In addition to this failure, banning this feeling in one way or another is an attack on human spirituality itself. Prohibiting these feelings expression, by more or less practical means, is a rigidity gesture, at the opposite extreme.

The love invariably comes with a bigger or smaller dose of suffering. Love is generally a painful game, from an emotional point of view. Scarred hearts inevitably remain behind. And this not necessarily happens because of the particular social group tendency to increase the freedoms that eventually abuse the others. Love in general is a hoax of nature itself to make us perpetuate the species. After the reproductive instinct is satisfied and the offspring has matured, the love with which he is adorned disappears. Love is a game of chance that everyone accepts or rejects according to their personal emotional pattern. This option should not be a subject of any institution intervention. On the one hand, its wounds have always been the most painful throughout the history, and some of the elderly do not want to repeat them. But, on the other hand, the happiness it produces is unmatched. Most of people, whether men or women, are willing to accept this risk in order to gain an unforgettable experience. For everyone, the exclusive female courtship initiation proposal is a restrictive one.

There are women who accept this proposal precisely because of the love suffering they had. Some radical feminists themselves have radicalized themselves precisely because of the consecutive getting through these states of maximum happiness followed by cruel disappointment. The exclusive female courtship initiation proposal makes sense for them according to the idiom "keep the road!", meaning never. These fears from a new suffering bring with them a real moral stoicism in some women. Hence their slipping into the opposite extreme, arguing that the spiritual love should be blamed as inauthentic or even incriminated as a predisposition to abuse. But it will never be eliminated by a few legislative restrictions or by changing the good manners. Of course, following the analogy, the happiness produced by love will not also ever be oversized nor reduced by such social norms.

But a lot of radical feminists women (and even men who support their ideas) don't know that. They have experienced a deformed maternal attachment in their families and cannot apply it harmoniously in love relationships at the level of adult women. This feeling communicating prohibition in principle a priori excludes the existence of its sincerity, according to the radical feminism prejudices about the men "disgusting nature". Despite Casanova-type simulators, there are men who live these feelings. The proposal in question is based on a false (sometimes hypocritical) premise that such a thing would not exist. There are some women who do not know this and do not want to know it, because they are not interested in heterosexual relationships and do not give a man a chance to communicate it from the very beginning. But both the histrionic-seducers and the disguised prostitutes know it very well. They even seek to hook it out and histrionic-emotionally or financially exploit it. It is sad that they cannot live the inestimable feeling that such a thing presupposes and are blinded by the psychopathological counteracting symptoms and the mercantile interests.

From the first moment I heard of their proposal, I was struck by its mercantile character. Indeed, if we think only about the crimes and the emotional abuse against women, the mercantile prohibition of any male courtship initiation, whether discreet or explicit, would be justified. But in the face of such a spiritual feeling, it looks like the meeting between an eccentric philosopher/artist with the authorities in dictatorial societies. Whether it is called consent for greeting or compliment, or exclusively feminine courtship initiation, such an idea hints at a commercial exchange mentality: you give me something to accept you do this to me or I do that to you. Yes, the economic exchange has brought a higher level of humanization in the human society, as opposed to the warlike culture of robbery. If we compare it with the primitive and classical period, the industrial exchange is more human. But sex and love in general need more than a negotiation between "I do this for you" and "you do that to me."

The economic exchange mentality is far too bureaucratic and too impersonal for what should be an emotional relationship between two people. And I'm sorry for those who haven't experienced this in their families since they were very young. I think they have lost much more than such of this new politeness rule implementation could ever give them. The psychoanalysis described in detail the too much maternal attachment problems. So it is an example of the emotional imbalance due to too much detachment from the mother, either through negligence or by a too strong maternal attachment counteracting. People generally complain of "confusion" in the face of a situation, but in this case the (maternal) complex in the normal dose is good for strengthening the emotional relationships.

The exclusively female initiation of courtship proposal in relation to the culture

Moreover, the very traditional culture of love itself is recently confronted with a new type of iconoclasm under these too radical norms. At the cultural elite’s level, there were sporadically such feelings of cultural rebellion. The (proper) Ionoclasm of the Byzantine or the early twentieth century modernism era, were such radical moments in the history of culture. But this kind of radical rejection of tradition was only a passing step. Tradition has been and will be an important part of culture, so it cannot be radically erased with a sponge. Returning to forgotten forms (once called "postmodernism") was a constant solution after a trend or mentality become obsolete and had exhausted its forms of expression.

There are indeed situations in which certain gestures in traditional culture are dubious about the social norms of courtship. For example, the scene of the prince who brings "Snow White" back to life, in that famous fairy tale, has a meaning for traditional culture; as a royal figure, the prince's gesture was not only not inappropriate towards the lower classes female character, but even desirable for the traditional mentality, according to the prior to the courtship 4th rule . Nowadays the dream of accessing a higher social class through marriage is no longer so exciting. Although most women would still consider this gesture lucky, there are enough who would not accept to be kissed by a stranger, whatever a prince he might be.

But this situation of contemporary social norms flagrant violation is rare. The important traditional culture anticipates today's normalcy. That is why it is still an important part of human history. Next I will expose a short list with several universal art works that have situations in which the rules and stages prior to courtship are flagrantly violated. Here are some examples from the literature:

William Shakespeare: “Antony and Cleopatra”
“Romeo and Juliet”

Johann.W. Goethe: “The Sorrows of Young Werther”

Famous songs in which the first contact initiation by the man was used are the following:

Elvis Presley: "The lady loves me"
"The Girl of My Best Friend"
"Fort Lauderdale Chamber of Commerce"

Beatles : „Hey Jude” 
"Come together!"

The Doors: "Alabama Song"

Guns 'N Roses: " Sweet child of mine"

Queen: "Crazy Little Thing Called Love"
"In Only Seven Days"
"You Take My Breath Away"

Michael Jackson: "Human nature"
"The way you make me feel"

All these risk to be excluded from culture or to be blamed for containing the courtship initiative by male characters.

There are arguments that come from the nihilistic area of the philosophy of culture that criticizes civilization's preference for spiritual (fantasy) love while it also condemns the (concrete) rape. These arguments are meant to show how civilization perverts the nature of instinct to become phantasmic, transforming the individual into an entity torn from the reality of life. Although they do not clearly support the practice of rape, they still consider it more coherent than the lie of overestimating the loved one to the rank of deity. There are probably certain radical feminists who come up with this kind of argument, although I haven't found them anywhere. However, most of them do not refer to this type of philosophical nihilism, but to the sociological factor of spiritual love as the universal way to rape. The refusal to accept it as a social norm outside of the expression consent comes from the assumption that it universally turn into a sexual crime. However, the biological argument is stronger than the anarchist one: it is not society that "perverts" the instinct, but the selective female sexual instinct itself that takes only one thing from the masculine one. So we are not talking about a conflict between the civilization and the instinct but about that between the two forms of the same instinct, as split into feminine and masculine.

The Western civilization is full of lonely people, some of them parents, both men and women. My opinion is that if we weigh the risks of abuse from a Casanova man with the loneliness pain, then it is worth the risk. The rigidity towards male courtship initiation avoids the emotional abuse at the age of 35-40. At that time, a large part of women adopt a feminist vision regarding the love relationships initiation, without necessarily becoming de facto militants. But, at the same time, at this age and on this mentality, couples also disappear. The result is an accentuation of the couple's life destruction that is already affected by the corporate mentality. The chances of such a mentality to be avoided by men and fail to start a couple are very high. Many feminists understand and accept this. Because of this, there was a conflict between radical and moderate feminism on this topic, which I will detail in the next article .

Niciun comentariu:
Write comments

Popular Posts