Monthly Archives: July 2016

New article on Psychopath Free: “What if they’re not a sociopath?”

This post is in response to this new PF article, based on the idea that healing from a hurtful relationship is all that matters, combined with dealing with your own demons – which would normally be true, except for the situations detailed below. Here is the conclusion of the article:

The question “What if they’re not really a sociopath?” loses all of its significance when we come to love ourselves regardless of the answer.

To start with, the article conveys a warm, fluffy and appeasing feeling, detailing doubts which might arise and nuancing an individual’s response to a failed relationship – an introspection which would undoubtedly be positive … were the website not called Psychopath Free, claiming to teach people how to identify  and deal with monsters. Not people who at one point in time displayed toxic behaviours. Soulless, irredeemable monsters.

It matters when you have publicly labelled said person a sociopath

This label is far from a private matter, at one’s discretion to keep or discard, when it was turned into a public accusation, ranging from a circle of friends to the presumed sociopath’s own family. Where exactly does the hipsterism fit in once you’ve damaged that person’s life?

Of course, one might argue that they’ve also damaged yours in ways which are difficult to repair. But still, does that absolve someone of the wrongdoing of tarnishing another’s reputation?

When you broke up with a significant other specifically because you applied this label

Which I’m sure has been the case on PF time and time again – confused people coming across the “life-saving” information which raises their adrenaline, feeling self-righteous beyond the shadow of doubt and making crucial decisions based on it.

The sheer thought that a loved one is impossible to deal with by default has been breaking marriages and relationships apart. At times, had it not been for this black and white thinking, many people would’ve surely reconsidered.

While I believe that education about narcissism and sociopathy are essential to healing and sanity restoration (especially in the early stages as we break the chemical bond and learn to go No Contact), I think there is something very powerful about eventually releasing this duality.

That’s just it – they are essential to those who are genuinely involved with these types, not to the rest, who might think they are in a moment of desolation, to later brood over their assessment and find it impulsive and inaccurate. People can heal from heartache without resorting to this demonisation, which is anything but sanity when untrue.

He is basically saying that this “education”, as well as going no contact, is essential even to those who later question their judgement. In the vein of act now, think later.

With the risk of emphasising this for the hundredth time: even when a lot of heartache was involved, on one or both sides, it doesn’t mean one has to give up on the relationship, as if this were the only beneficial route. Assuming that ending it was for the best regardless, even if the label is later questioned, and that reading about disordered people was just a prop towards the “liberating” break-up even when said person was not necessarily disordered, is absolutely ridiculous.

When you claim to be an expert on sociopathy and coach others on the subject

Basing your entire expertise on your experience, “educating” others with fanatical dedication, influencing their lives (sometimes irreversibly) and suddenly turning around to say that it doesn’t really matter if your judgement was correct regarding said experience just doesn’t fly.

It is basically stating that your cut-in-stone perspective on human interaction just might be based on a murky, questionable situation, in which you just might’ve been wrong. In this case, the smallest of doubts matters a great deal. Because you might’ve – just might’ve – fed lorry loads of horse manure to all the people who regarded your approach as the absolute truth.

One of the most common questions asked during recovery is: “Was he/she really a sociopath?” Survivors ask this question over and over again, because for most of us, the alternative is the sociopath’s reality: “You are crazy, jealous, sensitive, paranoid, unattractive, unwanted.” And so we oscillate back and forth between these two realities: bad other, or bad self.

This binary excludes the middle ground – actual rationality and sanity, which admits the possibility of both individuals being wrong at the same time, to various degrees. One for saying hurtful things and the second  for taking them as the absolute reality of the other’s thinking, prompting them to label the other as a merciless sociopath.

There is no need for this radicalism, as if one were completely incapable of analysing matters beyond “I was right” versus “this person was right”.

This is not a healthy way to look at life and people who tend to think in black and white should not be teaching others how to handle their problems.

 

The post is followed by quite a few which are glorifying an empath’s ability to love, regardless of their presumed sociopath’s behaviour. I know this will sound cruel on my part, but in this context it seems like a self-gratifying exercise which does not address the real question – what if the people they labelled as such were not actually sociopaths?

This article not only implies but states it is beyond the issue for anyone “recovering” from a hurtful relationship. Is it really though? Is loving yourself enough to obliterate any damage you might’ve done to someone and any afterthoughts about what might’ve been in the absence of this label? And is loving yourself enough to give you confidence to keep “spreading the word” about disordered people, even in the absence of certainty that you have even met one? And regardless of the damage you might do to others who believe you know what you’re preaching?

The answer is logical.

Back To Communism: You Stand Convicted

p1aoa2nmff5g8i3ufes1e481hsu4

Although the article I will quote only refers to a base and obviously manufactured artistic level, which is pop music, I strongly suspect this is to become the future of our entire western culture – a ceaseless, petty hunt for those who fail to “promote diversity” to the degree imposed by social justice activists.

To start with, there are 20.5 K shares at the moment – of this. “5 Ways Taylor Swift Exemplifies White Feminism – And Why That’s A Problem”.

There are countless issues with the dumbed-down excuse for art that popular music is today – however, this isn’t one of them. And if it were, these would definitely not be pertinent arguments to prove it. Even clutching at straws is euphemistic.

All accusations could be thrown aside with a simple observation – that pop stars are simply figureheads for the industry to mould and manipulate; I don’t suspect them of any contribution to the ideas behind their music or videos.

But to indulge this – here are the five reasons:

  1. Showing hip-hop dancers (among other types of dancers as I understand) performing better than the protagonist.
  2. Describing dating violence as positive or normal – I agree, but where is the racism?
  3. A video where no minorities are present.
  4. She seems to have no Black friends.
  5. A video which includes African landscapes, without referring to oppression and colonisation.

To start with, let me point one thing out about regressive leftists (social justice warriors): their aim is to follow Anita Sarkeesian’s (by now legendary) words to the letter: “Everything is racist, everything is sexist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out.”

The author of the piece admits she is a fan of the celebrity she is attacking. This is a very interesting phenomenon from a psychological point of view, where SJWs are concerned. Somehow, the author feels the need to rip into someone she likes, dissecting their work bit by bit, for the sake of intersectional feminism, simultaneously admitting to enjoying the music even after said dissection is over.

This alone is very weird and creates the impression of a destructive mindset, fixated on demolishing everything, including the objects of its own attachment if needed. In its extreme form, fanaticism pushes people to absurd actions such murdering their own family members in the name of their religion.

A few relevant quotes (and sideways-fucking in terms of insanity)  can be seen below.

Okay. I admit it: At first glance, I couldn’t see anything vehemently, inherently anti-feminist about this video. And even in preparation for writing this article, I rewatched it, scrutinizing it for something obviously racist, homophobic, or ableist. But nothing jumps out at me in particular.

So I’ll take this space to state the obvious: Every love interest that Taylor has ever had — to my knowledge, both in real life and in her videos — has been a straight, cis, able-bodied, fit, middle-to-upper class, white dude.

As this proves, she was bent on critcising the video even before finding fault with it. After deciding to come after this particular singer, the author made a list, off the top of her head, of the videos she would tear into. After still not being able to find any fault, even at closer scrutiny, she still left it in place, confessing to simply “filling a space” with ad hominem since no real arguments could come out of her false point. It’s this ingenuity of confessing to their own practice that will hopefully bring social justice warriors down.

This is what they do. First they label, then they strive to back that up.

Regarding the second paragraph, it’s me who strives to find the words to qualify this level of entitlement. I can only reiterate the obvious: that “intersectionality” demands your very life and soul – your work, your art and even your intimacy – to be placed on its altar. They bring that up so naturally in conversations that it becomes plain creepy, like staring into the manic eyes of a deeply disturbed individual.

And while it’s in Taylor’s right to be attracted to and date whomever suits her fancy, her ivory tower fantasy worlds aren’t doing much to push back against systemic oppression — which, like, is what feminists are supposed to do.

With this in mind, we should simply assume that every music video and every artistic creation (proper or manufactured) should mandatorily involve all the above-mentioned categories. It also means that the purpose of decent art and entertainment in general should by default be to “push back against systemic oppression”. In other words, it should all be political propaganda.

Anyone who calls themselves a feminist after learning about the movement from, of all people,Lena Dunham, is not to be trusted. I mean, she actually had to be called out for not includingany women of color in a TV show based in New York City. And I think she passed that same oversight to Tay, because I’m really not sure Taylor has any friends of color.

And if you watch the “Bad Blood” music video — which is supposed to be a miniature action movie about girl gangs — the evidence is clear.

Sure, Taylor includes both Selena Gomez and Zendaya in the video, as well as other women of color, but here’s the problem: Selena, admittedly one of Taylor’s best friends, herself has been known to perpetuate White Feminism via cultural appropriation. And while Zendaya consistently says on-point, feminist things, I’m not buying the notion that her relationship with Taylor is really that close. Their relationship feels a little, well, “this is my black friend” to me. (…)

The problem is how the video highlights one of Taylor Swift’s biggest problems as a feminist IRL: She constantly surrounds herself with beautiful, thin, rich, famous, white women.

And personally, I don’t trust fellow white people when their only friends are other white people.

And has anyone else noticed that the more Taylor gets called out for her White Feminism, the more people of color are popping up as guests on her tour?

That’s not friendship. That’s not authenticity. That’s not intersectionality. That’s PR.

Allow me to attempt a recap of what this woman is accused of.

First, her love interests are always white. Secondly, she includes women of different backgrounds in her videos, but either they are accused of “white feminism” themselves or they seem to be her “token friends”. Thirdly, she is suspected of not having genuine friends of colour. And as a last point, whenever she invites people of colour as guests, she must be doing it for PR (not in any way because they might be famous singers simply sharing the stage with her).

It never ends, does it? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Everything must be about race. And just how objectifying is that to the people around this singer, who are appraised like poodles based on their melanin, backgrounds, reputation and closeness to her?Who’s doing the objectification here?

Taylor’s latest video takes place on a 1950s-era movie set on desert plains in what is judged, based on the wildlife, to be an unnamed, overgeneralized “African” country – without a single person of color to be seen.

That is to say, the biggest problem with “Wildest Dreams” is that it isn’t. It isn’t a wild dream. It’s a direct representation of historical accuracy: the colonization of Africa, through the eyes of the colonizer.

And if you don’t think that — of all things — colonization is racist, then I fear that you’re suffering from White Feminism, too.

I watched it just to see if it had anything to do with colonisation. It doesn’t. It’s just a video based on the attraction between two actors who are playing a couple in a film. That’s it. The film could have been set anywhere else and the story would have remained the same. You have to hand it to pop video creators when they manage to do anything slightly different than clubs, boobs and ass shaking, to complement the corny music. But that’s all there is to it. Attributing deeper meaning and a geopolitical perspective to the simple narrative of a woman fancying her colleague is like throwing a ball upwards, hoping it lands on the Moon.

The mere thought that this cheap form of entertainment is supposed to hold the weight of the world on its shoulders is, of course, ridiculous. Like the entire creed social justice warriors live by.

 

“Whitesplaining” – Face Palm!

In this evermore divisive progressive tsunami, which seems bent on pitting ordinary people against each other for no logical reason, a new term has emerged from the depths of the cognitive abyss: “whitesplaining”. This would refer to a white person discussing racism with a person of colour in order to find alternative explanations for an instance which the latter perceived as racist; apparently, they have no right under the sun to do so.

It’s not like as human beings we are all equal, should feel free to speak and exchange opinions on any matter. It’s not like a person can ever overreact when it comes to what others mean to say and might – just might – be wrong about a particular situation.

But while these well-meaning reasons for correcting me feel true, it’s also true that you can act on subconscious, implicit biases leading you to dismiss what I have to say because I’m Black.

In an age when it’s so popular to be an amateur psychoanalyst, we often see people dismissing others – all the while admitting their arguments make some sense – on the basis of suspecting a subconscious bias. Which is something anyone can engage in, as it requires no proof; it requires nothing but the absolute wish of the amateur psychoanalyst to impose their view at all cost.

For many people, it’s tempting to speak up when you encounter a fact you believe is wrong. Correcting someone seems pretty straight forward – so does it really relate to racism?

In certain cases, it does. And if you’re a white person talking with a person of color about racism, it’s best to keep this possibility in mind.

Because of white supremacy, many white people – especially white men, who are alsoinfluenced by patriarchy – have been conditioned to speak over other people and dominate spaces.

This is followed by a few more paragraphs which have nothing whatsoever to do with the heading, which is about facts and contradicting others when the facts they present are wrong (to one’s knowledge anyway). Facts are empirical, objective, obtained from trustworthy sources; stating them is in no way connected to the lengthy whine about how white people “think they are entitled to talk over others”.

Presenting a fact which contradicts the narrative of the person you’re speaking to has nothing to do with their race or any other characteristics.

There’s nothing wrong with clearing up information if you come across something you believe is incorrect. But approach the situation with some humility. Ask questions to figure out why there’s a difference between what I’m saying and what you believe is true.

You might find that your information is wrong, that I interpret it differently, or that we’re on the same page, but I use different language rooted in my experience. And you’ll probably learn something new.

“That I interpret it differently” is not an argument against any proven fact.

So it’s not up to you to decide what I should be offended by. Save your whitesplanation if you want to explain why I’m overreacting to a well-meaning compliment (which isn’t a complimentat all) by cringing at “you’re pretty for a Black girl.”

After I’ve dealt with microaggressions on a daily basis for so long, it’s just cruel to expect me to minimize my feelings about racism.

First of all, several paragraphs list this one imaginary “compliment”, you’re pretty for a Black girl, as an argument (and I’ve seen it elsewhere on the site). Please explain to me how this manner of approaching a person would even germinate in the mind of someone who doesn’t suffer from severe mental retardation.The only type of person likely to think that way (but not stupid enough to say it to a woman he’s attracted to) would be a genuine racist. And a genuine racist is not likely to approach you in the first place.Anyone with a brain can see that is not a compliment. Hence listing it as an example of dodgy compliments you receive and throwing the rest in with it is intellectually dishonest.

Like so many whitesplainers, you believe what you say is important because you have logic on your side. Objectivity is an understandable goal, but think about what it means to believe you’re the only one who can bring “reason” into the conversation.

The truth is that you’re just as biased as anyone else – your perspective is influenced by your own experiences and position of privilege. That also gives you a biased point of view on what “objectivity” means.

What position of privilege? Would you say the same to a homeless person or one that has lived in poverty all their life, just because of skin colour? How racist is that?

There is no possible bias regarding what objectivity means. Bias and objectivity are antithetical notions. Here’s a definition:

“judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices”

For instance, have you ever felt the need to point out that a person of color was “generalizing” white people when they talked about racism?

Of course. Only when reading bullshit articles from bullshiters on bullshit websites; such an interaction has not presented itself in real life yet (perhaps because most people’s heads are not so full of bullshit). The logical reason one would raise the issue is that such a generalisation is indeed racist.

Except there’s actually a problem with rushing to say that “not all white people” are part of the problem of white supremacy.  If I focused on reassuring every white person that they’re not personally responsible, then nobody would get the chance to examine how they might contribute (..)

Therefore they are a problem, all down to the last one, and all just might contribute to a system of thought which is actually marginal in western societies. Not racist at all, huh?

OK; I’m done quoting as I just don’t have the patience or stomach for this stuff.

My two cents on this issue: when people empathise with others who have been subjected to real racism, it’s not because of the race of the latter; it’s because we’re all human an can all put ourselves in the shoes of someone who has suffered as a result of discrimination. Solidarity is meant to create unity, not more division. 

The reason people engage you in a debate is because they presume your intelligence; your rational capability; your ability to discern one situation from another – as opposed to presuming you would think or feel in a certain way because of your race.

The only thing this type of rhetoric achieves is turning potential racists into full-blown ones, as well as scaring off people who are inclined to feel insecure about relating to those of  a different ethnicity, race or background, for fear of stepping on a landmnine of oversensitivity. 

No good comes out of this. None whatsoever.

Microagressions: “Intention Is Irrelevant”

Remember the days when even proper bad behaviour could be excused by simply saying one meant no offence? Well, those days are long buried under the rubble of what used to be rational thinking. Hunting on barren ground for victimless crimes has turned into a hobby for some people.

Microaggressions are a great example of that.

According to this article, brought to you by the fountain of wisdom that is intersectional feminism, intention is completely irrelevant when microaggressions are perceived.

It’s important for us to remember that just because a perpetrator of racism is clueless (or in denial) about the impact of their words doesn’t mean that their actions were any less violent or that the impact of that violence is changed.

Which basically means that anything anyone perceives as an insult or a threat must be real. For instance, if I suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and thought the devil lived in my freezer, the sheer emotional impact would be enough to give validity to the whole situation. It also means that whoever stands accused of such perceived crimes is guilty by default; there is no chance in hell the “victim” might be overreacting.

Furthermore, we learn why an unwitting “perpetrator of racism” must be dealt with promptly:

Whatever the reason, it amounts to letting racism off the hook. When we allow these small incidences to keep happening, we are allowing racism, in general, to remain a part of our culture. (…) If we only focus on intention, we continue to center and prioritize the perpetrator. And let’s face it: The perpetrator is always a more privileged person who is used to getting their opinions and feelings validated.

Hence, if you are accused – and by default guilty – of a microaggression, you might as well start a fund for the Ku Klux Klan; you are responsible for the propagation of racist attitudes in your community (and in general). Here’s how a couple of tactless words can make a public enemy out of you, from one moment to the next. In any such circumstances, regardless of their particularities, you must be wrong, since you are a privileged piece of shit anyway.

But if ever we hope to truly put an end to racism (or any other injustice for that matter), we, as people who encounter so much marginalization, must also validate our own feelings and opinions. We re-center our attention to our needs and experiences by focusing on impact, not intent.

Which would give a free pass to every whiny, narcissistic, self-obsessed prick to tax others on their words at any given time. As mentioned above, an individual’s perspective might be distorted by psychological or emotional problems; perching them on a throne from where they can condemn others with impunity, based on their feelings alone, is not the brightest idea. Since the word “perpetrator” is used several times in the article to refer to people who are ingenuous of any wrongdoing, I reserve the right to refer to such accusers as hysterical narcs.

Moving on to the three types of microaggressions, detailed below.

Microassaults, the most conscious and intentional form of microaggressions,  best resemble what we are accustomed to thinking of as “old-fashioned” racism.

Some common examples are using racial epithets (or abusive, derogatory language or names), displaying confederate flags or swastikas, mocking another language, telling racist jokes, and serving White customers first.

Mocking another language? As in putting on a fake accent or imitating someone for a laugh? Will ten-year-olds be subject to this accusation as well? About serving white customers first – I’d be really amazed if the author could point to even one such situation in recent decades, in first world countries. And yet, it’s listed here as if it were a frequent occurrence.

Microinsults communicate rudeness and insensitivity towards someone based on their racial identity or heritage. These acts take away a person’s dignity or sense of self-worth, but they do so indirectly. Some microinsults can seem like compliments to the person saying them. (…)

And even more examples (because racism is so frustratingly relentless) are a White person crossing to the other side of the street at the approach of a Black or Latino man, or a storeowner carefully watching or following a customer of color.

I’d say that is a lot more insulting than someone mocking your language, but that’s just me. The question is whether it actually happens, how often it happens and if the people perceiving this might be misinterpreting the situation (how in the world can you tell why a complete stranger crosses the road?).

Microinvalidations exclude or negate the experiences, feelings, and experiential reality of a POC.

A common microinvalidation is the notion of “color blindness” or the assertion that we now live in “post-racial” times. It is also invalidating to downplay occurrences of racism, or to tell a POC, “Stop being so sensitive” or “Not everything’s about race!”

These phrases, perhaps meant to smooth over the perpetrators discomfort of the situation, completely dismiss the racialized experiences of POC.

Hence, reason is now equated with the invalidation of another person’s experience. There is no way under the blue sky that this person might be exaggerating; it’s unconscionable. To quote the PF chief admin, “your feelings are absolutes”.

As POC, we are often silenced or stunned by microaggressions. But just as there are positive ways to deal with stress, there are empowering ways to address microaggressions.

Never mind that the author and afferent clique not only have every opportunity to express their views, but actually enjoy a large platform and others bend over backwards to avoid tripping their wires.

Had enough? No?

Here’s another article on how to be moderate in using the “right pronouns” for people who demand them, as they are even offended by the uncomfortable feeling of having to make a big deal about you using them. The point of it is to not expect a positive reaction (as if someone necessarily did when engaging in this futility, as opposed to merely trying to avoid the anger of the person in need of special words). At the same time, don’t you dare not use them!

Some people make a big deal about gender pronouns – and it’s true that it’s important to get them right! But once you know how it actually feels for someone when you get their pronouns right, you’ll realize there’s no one “right” way to respond. Check it out.

So briefly, if they feel you’re making a big deal (in terms of deserving recognition) out of their utterly uncomfortable demand to mutilate your language with word such as “ze”, they are also entitled to be offended or at least put off by that.

Just make sure you’re not trying too hard to be an “ally”. As there truly is no right way to do it.

More Identity Brain Mash

A short while ago, influential forces in western societies have given us the latest “discovery” in terms of human nature – that a person’s gender has nothing to with their biological sex. This unfounded,  not researched  and unproven view was grabbed by the left with both hands (and even hands it does not possess; such was the desperation) and flung at the world through social activism, as fact.

However, the demolition of the mind does not stop there (by the looks of it, there is no end in sight, until there’s nothing left but a memory of how people used to function and find balance).

Gender identity is separate from gender expression

I understand where some people have trouble: “If you express yourself in this way,” they wonder, “then doesn’t that imply that that is how you identify?”

Sorry for having to explain basic logic, but the mere concept of expressing yourself means projecting an aspect of yourself to the outside world. By doing so, you know exactly how you will be perceived, and it’s only logical for others to believe that you want to be perceived in this manner.

People claiming to be of a different gender than the one indicated by their biological sex often complain of being misgendered. In spite of their efforts to adapt their outer characteristics to the gender they want to be perceived as – one would think.

However, being trans and wanting to be recognised as the opposite sex while preserving all traits of your natural one is deliberately misleading. Wanting to be called a man, to be seen as a man, while being and appearing female in every way is just absurd.

Why would your appearance be called gender expression in the first place, if it has little or nothing to do with the gender you have chosen?

The expression masculine-of-centre is used.

Before even delving into the knot of ideas it must stand for, the very notion begs the question – what is masculine even supposed to represent anymore, if sex is not linked to gender and gender is not linked to gender expression? How can we use and define words such as male, female, masculine and feminine, after completely tearing them down? This should be fun (enough to throw down a pint in one breath to relieve the headache).

So here’s the definition:

Masculine of center (MOC) is a term, coined by B. Cole of the Brown Boi Project, that recognizes the breadth and depth of identity for lesbian/queer/ womyn who tilt toward the masculine side of the gender scale and includes a wide range of identities such as butch, stud, aggressive/AG, dom, macha, tomboi, trans-masculine etc.

So in lay terms, this refers to butch lesbians. For more recent inventions, you can find a broad list here of all “genders” and types of sexual attraction.

Here’s one definition which sums up the spirit of the entire list:

Maverique
Having a gender characterized by autonomy and inner conviction regarding a sense of self that is entirely independent of male/masculine, feminine/femininity, or anything which derives from the two while still being neither without gender nor of a neutral gender. Rhymes with antique (mav-reek).

The question remains – what in the world is masculinity or femininity as a point of reference, in a system of thought which deems it obsolete to be male or female?

As you might expect, that’s not all the “word salad” being served up.

From this article  you can learn that your “romantic” orientation is separate from your sexual one. And in case you didn’t know what a romantic orientation is, here is some enlightenment so you can get to know yourself better:

By “romantic attraction,” I mean a deep desire to have a committed, romantic relationship with someone, and by “sexual attraction,” I mean a desire to have sexual contact with someone.

Pardon my confusion but I was under the impression that the two go together; otherwise we’d call said bond a friendship or platonic love, which has already been coined, so to speak. The desire for physical intimacy in a couple is implied; it’s just what happens.

Although there is one instance when these two “orientations” are invariably separated, and that is  when bestiality is involved. I needn’t explain why, but I do remember a funny line from Father Ted: “We want to stay out of that whole idea of being in love with the horse”.

Cross orientation, also known as “mixed orientation,” is a term given to describe a situation where someone experiences romantic attraction to a different gender group to who they’re sexually attracted to.

An example of someone with a cross-orientation is a woman who is homosexual, but heteroromantic. She would feel sexually attracted to other women, but she’d only experience romantic attraction to people of another gender.

When you start referring to groups in situations which involve individuals, it’s proof that socialism has soaked your brain to the unfortunate degree of  placing everyone into inexistent categories and sticking inexistent labels on them.

This is a personal matter people experience differently and I sincerely doubt every situation of this type has to turn into a pattern  and a lifestyle, to warrant such generalisations.

Someone might also be heterosexual and biromantic, homosexual and panromantic, homoromantic and heterosexual, and so on. For some people, their romantic and sexual orientations might change every day, which means they’re sexually and/or romantically fluid. The possibilities are endless.

You know, I’ve never heard someone say they’re straight today but might be gay tomorrow, or vice-versa. If anything, it goes against what LGBT activism argues, which is that sexual orientation is something you’re born with, influenced by genetic predispositions. This attitude makes it look like a choice one can change on a whim, from one day to the next, like a pair of socks. Sure, there are types who would fuck anything with a pulse, but I trust they are in the absolute minority.

For cross-oriented people, that’s naturally a problem. Sometimes we’re unable to be sexually attracted to someone because of their gender, even if we’re romantically attracted to them – and vice versa.

It’s just a matter of recognising how these two combine and manifest in real life. We can theorise and philosophise all we want; the reality is chemistry plays a big part in how people get together. And if a person decides to form a couple with someone they’re not really attracted to, that is a conscious decision regarding that particular individual, not a “romantic orientation”; as if anyone purposely sought out relationships devoid of physical attraction.

Even those who aren’t cross-oriented might have face a similar issue. For example, a heterosexual woman might find herself sexually attracted to a certain man, without being romantically attracted to him.
Which probably happens on a daily basis to a lot of people, based on instinct alone and not  binding in any way; one does not even have to acknowledge such impulses for more than a split second, let alone ruminate as if they posed an actual problem.

Heteronormative thinking invisibilizes cross-orientation. It tells us that we don’t exist, which is an issue that many queer people face in general.

Because of this, we might have to deal with many incorrect assumptions and expectations. This can lead to us dealing with a number of difficult situations, including:

  • Being expected to enter a romantic relationship with a sexual partner who you’re not romantically attracted to.
  • A romantic partner feeling inadequate because you’re not sexually attracted to them.
  • People assuming that you’re in a sexual relationship with your romantic partner.
  • Being unable to find cross-oriented people represented in the media.

Ultimately, learning about the complexity of attraction will help us challenge these assumptions and affirm the feelings and experiences of cross-oriented people. And it’s really important that we do – because it feels awful to be surrounded by heteronormative thinking when you’re cross-oriented.

Why do I get the feeling some of these people are perpetually alone and split the atom in order to feel better about that?

Partners ultimately not being suitable for each other is an issue which I’m sure predates civilisation; so is one-sided love or one-sided attraction. A “romantic partner” one does not engage with intimately and has no plans of doing so is not a romantic partner, but a friend. None of this is new under the sun; there’s no need to label it and start screeching about “not being represented in the media”.

How about some accountability FFS? Why enter into a relationship which you know is hopeless, if the would-be partner is attracted to you and you are not? Is it carved in stone that all the people you’ll end up sexually active with will be such disappointments on other levels that no other bonds will ever form? Isn’t this world big enough and enjoying enough freedom of movement for you to one day find a suitable partner, with whom all the pieces fit into the puzzle? Is this your way of saying you’ve given up on that prospect and expect those who connect with you intimately to settle for half-assed open relationships? And if so, why not just do that quietly, without feeling the need to blame it on society? Is not settling for such arrangements somehow discriminatory and the fault of heteronormativity?

Here are a few examples of different kinds of attraction:

Sensual attraction is a deep desire to touch someone, to hold them, hug them, and/or cuddle them. 

Aesthetic attraction is an appreciation for the way someone looks.

Platonic attraction is an attraction to someone that isn’t romantic. This often manifests as a desire to be friends.

 What the author defines as sensual attraction is merely an inherent human need, which is rooted in affection. You wouldn’t say you feel sensual attraction towards your children, though you feel the need to cuddle them.

The Merriam Webster definition of “romantic” is of, relating to, or involving love between two people. Hence, platonic attraction combined with sexual attraction. It’s a very simple concept, but somehow manages to elude these strange leftists who could more easily take apart a rocket than figure out how humans actually work.

“Decolonial Love” – Politicising Your Hormones

If you’re one of those people who worry about discriminating against others by exhaling carbon dioxide, with the aid of intersectional feminism you can reach a whole new level of devotion: you can now fight oppression by politicising your romantic relationships.

All you have to do is rewire your brain in order to only experience attraction towards individuals in social categories classed as underprivileged. Sounds easy, right…? Forget the fact that this has no discernible purpose under the Sun – your only goal in life should be the application of feminist principles in every little thing you do, say or even experience internally (while reassuring yourself that feminism is not actually a cult).

If you need to alter your brain chemistry and subconscious mind in order to manipulate your attraction criteria, so be it. Your hormones are supremacist.

During his speech, Diaz introduced the concept of decolonial love with an “apocalyptic proclamation”: “We’re never gonna get anywhere as long as our economies of attraction continue to resemble more or less the economies of attraction of white supremacy.”

In other words, if we cannot change the thinking around who and how we love, as a society, we’ll stay stuck in the ideology of colonialism.

Making our love decolonial is a necessary step to a completely decolonial self, because if we don’t let go of our privileges and closely examine how the forces of oppression play out in our love lives, we are powering the existing injustices of the world.

And the existing forces of oppression for decolonial lovers to fight are numerous: patriarchy, heterosexism, skinny worship, classism, ableism, and what Diaz aptly calls “pigmentation politics.”

In other words, by feeling sexually, emotionally, intellectually attracted to people who are considered privileged – white, heterosexual, “cisgender” etc – we are contributing to the perpetuation of injustice against other categories. As if somehow the community – or the world at large – owned each one of  us down to the bone marrow, holding us accountable for decisions regarding our personal happiness, which have no impact on others. You can’t get more fanatically socialist than that.

These people must live and breath oppression theories every second of their day; they are so high on their own fumes they don’t realise how much these fantasies of micromanaging each individual are straying from human nature.

In former communist countries, each citizen was expected to be completely subjugated to the ideology of the party; to be immersed in it and energised by it. No intrinsic value was to be held in higher regard and no other loyalty was to be prioritised – not even to family members. As such, even small choices made daily were filtered through what the party wanted from an ideal citizen. The same mentality is shared by this so-called social justice crowd.

Your personal happiness means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Hail the matriarchy; everything for the cause! Your entire life should be a shining example of a devoted, practicing feminist – and nothing else.

Some people think it means reserving our love and respect only for people of color (POC) or queer (LGBTQIA+) folks — or especially queer folks of color. That is not the case, as only loving any group of people can fall into exotification or fethishization.

All throughout, the author remains concerned only with the object of the debate, namely those who are more worthy of love than others – never with those she is asking to rewire their hormonal drive in some weird bid to exclude the “privileged” from their desires, which is extremely racist, by the way. What is this supposed to achieve, again? Who would this help and how? The “especially” points out that there is a rank of desirability based on how many oppression badges someone can collect. And the warning follows closely – love them very much, but not too much, as too much would also be insulting.

Since the LGBT community is mentioned, may I ask how a gay person only loving gay people is guilty of exotification or fetishisation? I imagine she would not demand that straight folks reserve their romantic interest for queer folks or vice-versa. So this fetishisation caper doesn’t make any sense between categories which do not interact on a romantic level.

It appears that a significant swathe of the addressees of this moralising piece must be the ones singled out as less lovable – white, heterosexual, “cis” people.

The concept of love as decolonial is not opposed to loving someone deemed desirable by society (in other words, an individual who is able-bodied, conventionally attractive, wealthy financially and socially, and/or comes from a first world country).

The issue is when we are only attracted to those kinds of people and not open to making a romantic or emotional connection with others.

Can I also ask why are anyone’s preferences an issue stretching farther than their private lives ? Whose business is it exactly? Where a person comes from matters for very logical reasons, in terms of the culture they were brought up in. There could be major discrepancies based on that.

I can’t believe I even have to say this, but people don’t actively choose whom they are attracted to. It’s an instinct. What they do with that is a whole different matter – yet that does not alter their initial drive and intrinsic selection criteria.

Just as no one actively chooses to be gay or straight. In fact, LGBT activism is based on the idea of following one’s natural inclinations in terms of attraction, while resisting societal pressures to live conventionally. Whether or not they see themselves as revolutionaries defying the status quo, these lefties are still trying to pressure others regarding a very personal matter. There are trying to set moral norms in an area which needs no intervention or regulation.

Anyhow, the disclaimer was a blatant lie, as you can read below.

The first step to addressing the colonial mindset is awareness. Awareness is key to retraining our reflexes and stopping habits in their tracks.

When I first came to the US, I had a crush on every blond-haired, blue-eyed boy in my class. In my way of thinking, those were the characteristics of a good person. Clearly, I had been exposed to some white supremacy in my early years in China. But when I realized what was at work that magnetized me — and many others — to whiteness, I was no longer so helplessly attracted to those traits.

While questioning what we take for granted can be hard work, it is made exponentially easier if we have practice.

Therefore, this whole movement is not concerned with the inclusion of certain categories but the explicit exclusion of others. Or rather, the exclusion of a specific one, I should say.

Due to this presentation, an individual who “likes Asian women” may think of that as a “preference,” when in reality, it’s a learned form of prejudice that’s based on fetishizing an entire group of people. The same can be said if you rule out an entire race as unattractive or unsuitable. In both cases,it is the stereotype that is deciding, not you.

Excuse me…? What was it you were saying about white people and making a conscious, successful effort to stop being attracted to them, because of colonialism? Isn’t that ruling out a race as unsuitable? Isn’t that letting the stereotype decide? Incredible double-think.

For example: If we are less emotionally invested in our partners, we may end up with the upper hand in the relationship while the other person feels powerless.

There are ways to de-escalate the commitment level without making the other person feel disrespected or powerless. If you communicate your level of commitment clearly, and the other person is still willing to engage in a relationship based on that knowledge, then neither person is taken advantage of.

Treating romantic relationships as pure power dynamics is par for the course with feminism, which rejects the idea of actual love. That’s why, even though “investing emotionally” was involved, the author shies away from the word “love” and uses less intense ones which make the situation seem less personal.

Even in equally committed relationships, it is good to check in about how empowered and respected you feel by your partner and vice versa.

Why not, check in regularly, to verify both parties are still satisfied with the arrangement. Fill out an “equal partner” satisfaction form every month and rate the empowerment you are experiencing.

Engage your decolonial muscles. Build them up. Because we want it to be a fair fight between the reflexes we have inherited and the ones we have chosen for ourselves.

Again – to what avail would this “fight” take place, if not the complete submission to SJW principles, against one’s own natural inclinations?

For the time being, it seems producing these grand ideas vigorously engages people’s decolonial muscles.