Amiable Amy, Creepy Blogger - A Challenge

When you watch those two videos, don't you feel that one gives you warm, fuzzy feelings of positivity and empowerment, while the other is just... creepy? One makes you want to hug the person, while the other just makes you want to call the cops.

Actually, one is by Amy Walker, the other is by yours truly, and mine is a reaction to hers.

This blog is not about those videos per se, but about the reactions to those videos - and more precisely, what our reactions can teach us about ourselves.

Of course, one cannot contest the fact that Amy Walker is way more attractive than me. She is also a well-known actress. And, of course, she is a woman.

When I did my video, my intention was simply to spread the positive message she gave, a message about acceptance and empowerment. I thought that this was a good idea, and wouldn't it be nice if the thing went viral and lots of people started sharing their own version of that positivity.

Of course, this is not how things went down. The comments to my video were largely negative. At first, I was a bit angry - not as in, gotta go and kill a coder - just a bit frustrated. After the anger subsided, I became fascinated with the question why people would reject a message of positivity and empowerment, in an environment like youtube where no harm whatsoever can be done, at least not directly.

So here are my hypotheses:

One is about the halo-effect - the well-known psychological effect where tend to ascribe positive ethical attributes to people who we find physically attractive. It's why protagonists in a romantic drama will never be ugly, fat people with pimples and a dry-speaking challenge. People like that can, of course, be the most loving, caring and gentle of all. We just don't like to see them in our movies, and if we do, we can't have them be the good guys. It's why Legolas is blond and beautiful, while Uruk-Hai are black, ugly, and covered in mud (yes, that's also a racist stereotype, right there). Noble immortality and ugliness do not mix.

Another is about a gender stereotype. A woman being generally supportive to humanity is believable, but if a guy does the same, then he must be after something. Men are not supposed to behave that way.

The third is, of course, simply a lack of acting skills on my part. When Amy Walker wants to do "supportive", then she does, while I can only try to be honest. We have to work with what we've got. I could improve those skills, but frankly, the thing doesn't matter enough to me. (And, of course, I have the very same prejudices and biases in my head as everyone does, which might also help explain why it does come out a bit weird when I try it.)

And last but not least, there is the issue of general cautiousness. A stranger on the street telling me, out of the blue, that I am a good person who deserves to reach his goals - something fishy must be going on! I'd fully expect them to ask for money in the next sentence. Even if it's the internet, even if the guy cannot actually hurt me, still my gut reaction is to run away fast and far.

So, here's your challenge:

• Re-watch those two videos
• Be absolutely positive about the fact that you really know nothing about Amy or me
• Be aware of your emotional reactions
• Instead of projecting those feelings on me or Amy Walker, look into your soul and try to find out what they tell you about yourself
• Post your insights somewhere on the internet

"I AM NOT ASHAMED OF FAITH!"

Here's an interestingly rare take on the atheist-vs-theist debate by a christian: Youtuber "Inward Burn" honestly admits to the fundamentals of his christianity being irrational - credo quia absurdum, fideism at its best. A rare beast in today's world, in which everyone strives to appear rational and logical. There is something quite refreshing to it... and yet, there is also something rather uneasy about it. Let's start from a few comments that, to me, seem to sum the whole idea up:


"I don't base what I believe about Jesus Christ on logic... I don't think I have to base it on logic, but on faith."

Indeed, you don't have to base your opinions on logic. The question is, though, what do you mean when you say you don't have to do that? In an ethical sense, you certainly don't; you can believe whatever you like. But you do pay a price for that freedom. You lose the ability to defend your beliefs.

See, you're right to your opinion is not the whole picture. After all, you choose to go on the internet. You log onto youtube and share your opinions. What are your expectations in doing that? Do you expect your viewers to just listen and be silently swayed?

If that is the case, I'm sorry, you lost me - I choose not to go for that.

But if you're in for actual dialogue, then the next question is this: Do you grant me the same right you reserve for yourself? Let's say that I was a staunch antisemite, a sexist who is convinced that christians are below human and should be beaten and bullied. And the only reason I can give for that is that I have faith in those beliefs, I don't base them on logic, and I don't think I have to.

Would you seriously just accept that, in silence? Would you not try to convince me of being wrong?

I certainly hope that you wouldn't give me that.

It's a tough one, isn't it. I mean, basing it all on faith is good and well... but no man is an island, and some beliefs are just plain stupid. We live in a community, we thrive on social interaction, we depend on it to a degree that is often uncomfortable to think about. I predict that, as long as you're not living inside a very intense and tied-up christian community, you won't be able to avoid discussing your beliefs with atheists. And they will demand equal rights in those conversations.

See, as an atheist and someone who strives to base his beliefs on reason, I will always grant you the right to confront my deepest beliefs with your arguments. I might grumble, and I might be embarrassed, but if I find that you are right, I will eventually come around and accept that I was wrong. I have seen many, many times that this is ultimately better for myself.

And, while you surely have the right to your irrational beliefs, the whole situation changes when you want to interact with me. Because I simply demand that we stand on equal footing. Your beliefs are exactly as sacred as mine - that is, they're not sacred at all. I can attack yours, you can attack mine. Plain and simple.

"I'm not ashamed to say that I believe."

I never quite got that line. Of course you're not - what's the point? After all, you have to take your own decisions, so what is there to be ashamed (or, since we're on it, to be proud) of?

"I'm delusional, and I accept that. I don't believe in logic."

And I don't believe that this is true. Imagine you're at the grocery store. You're buying some apples, a loaf of bread, whatever. Apples cost $2, bread costs $1.50. Sales clerk tells you that's $3.50.

Are you seriously telling me that you don't believe that there is logic to that? Do you assume that the sales clerk had some kind of divine revelation?

Of course you don't. That's because you believe in logic.

It's just that you reserve some special place for things that you exclude from your belief in logic. And the interesting part will become very apparent when you try to answer the following questions: How exactly do you determine to what category one specific assertion, claim, or belief belongs? Where exactly do you draw the line? And is this delineation between what's rational and what's irrational itself rational, or not?

These are tough ones, I know. Take your time. I believe it's time well spent.

"Anna Marti: Sacred Tantrika"

I found this interesting article called "Anna Marti: Sacred Tantrika - interview by Dedric". Practically every sentence makes me want to comment on it. I'll select those that speak the most to me (and the least).

As far as I can understand, all spiritual systems have their inception with an individual having an altered state experience: the ego boundaries dissolve and there's a connection, there's an acknowledgement, there's a deep knowing of relationship with all things...

At the very least, it would seem like this is the case, yes. Interestingly, most christians would probably not want to have christianity seen in that light, even though Jesus had a very obvious initiation experience involving prolonged fasting and hallucinations right at the beginning of his career.

As I understand Tantra, philosophically it's not unlike quantum physics.

Rule #1 of discussing spirituality: Don't bring quantum physics in it. You don't understand quantum physics; I don't understand quantum physics; let's leave it at that.

There have been individuals who have found that if you hang out in high states of arousal for long periods of time, as well as doing all these other practices to purify the mind and the body and the emotions, that you can enter a room of expanded consciousness 

I am sure, and I think that I know this from experience, that high states of arousal can lead to a feeling of expanded bliss. I'm not quite certain whether I'd dare talk about expanded consciousness here, though. How would one go about discerning that from merely feeling extremely well. How do we distinguish the (great, excellent, wonderful) feeling of ecstatic union with the universe from actually being one with all?

In this country we think we've got the copyright on dysfunctional sexuality, but in almost every spiritual system there's a huge schism between body and spirit.

I'm pretty certain I second that. Now, if we eliminate the pure power aspect of a priestly caste trying to dominate the rest of society, the question is - why? Why does this go for almost every spiritual system? I mean, it is obvious why those in power would want such a system - but why do the adherents want it? Millions of them, no less! Is this a phenomenon that can be explained as evolution of some kind? Do systems that are grounded in a dualism like that just survive longer, for some reason? 

What has happened in this country is that because we're a capitalistic society we've taken that dysfunction and turned it into business.

Sure, as with every other thing out there.

I don't think there's a quick fix for us as human beings in connecting with each other; I think it takes a tremendous amount of intention and integrity and commitment and work. But, our culture is not built on things taking time, it's built on "I want something right now, I want to fix this right now." So it's a perfect market for books and videos and workshops.

Yep. And so, we came up with the concept of self-help.

Osho, from my limited understanding, was probably one of the foremost Tantra teachers of our generation.

Osho, from my understanding, was a lying, stealing, mischievous fraud. Granted, that doesn't mean he was not a good tantra teacher, but I'd rather trust the heuristic that people of integrity and high moral standards might make for better teachers in subjects like that.

Yeah, I can help you have better orgasms, but trust me: it's not going to make you happy.

On its own, probably not. But tantric practice did help me relax and be in the moment a lot more; and that helps me be better, not only in bed, but in general. More patient, less driven by fear and anxiety and the need to achieve whatever goal. So, yes, better orgasms play an important part in being happier, even though they're not the sole ingredient; they're a tool, more than a goal in and of themselves.

People are not going to be very excited about this, but I think the commitment to your own personal growing up is what is going to give you a better relationship and sex life. That requires a spiritual life; I don't care how you do it, but you need a belief in something that's bigger than your individual ego. Clearing up your emotional garbage, whether that's through individual therapy or group therapy, is also helpful; we've all got it, and I don't know too many people who don't need a little bit of work getting through it so that when I come into relationship I'm not bringing my mom and my dad and every lover I've ever had to you. It's just a commitment to be honest with myself and in integrity with myself.

I contest the metaphor of size in this context. What exactly does it mean for something to be "bigger than me"? I have no answer to that. And also, if "belief" entails asserting the existence of entities without any proof or evidence, then I don't think that this can be a path that leads to more honesty. So belief in something bigger than myself is really an impediment to "spiritual growth" in whatever sense. I'd rather commit to becoming better at giving empathy, and loving my girlfriend. I have a hunch that this might be what really helps, way more so than belief, regardless in what.

There are a bazillion books and videos about sexual techniques, and if they worked people would be having a lot more fun than they seem to be having.

Agreed; this is a tell-tale sign that something is not quite right in the state of denmark.

Ultimately, what is really healing is sex with meaning

Yes. But, going back to the context of spirituality and belief above, meaning is not something that is there, and I have to accept it (or not). Meaning is more like a process, an action, that takes my own active participation. I'm not sure that I can produce meaning on my own (after all, I myself am largely a product of society, earth, my environment), but I am certain that I am part, participant, and ingredient, of that process.

Protect Our Young! Make Better Porn!

As an aside to last nights posting on porn, and after a good talk last night with my girlfriend the pornstar, something quite astonishing has hit me:

Many people (and among them, many conservative christians) will rant against porn. They will not distinguish between good and bad porn, or between different sub-genres of porn, like gay or het porn. Neither will they distinguish between erotic media, and porn in the strict sense. (I do have fond memories of "Tender Cousins".)

But what's really odd is that they don't offer any real solutions. I mean, if the problem you have in porn is how it portrays women in a denigrating way, then why don't you go ahead and make some erotic movies that don't do that? Why don't you go out and search such media, and then promote them all over the internet?

We don't need a ban on porn - we need better pornography.

If we want to protect our young, I believe that's what we ought to do, regardless of whether we approve of porn or not; regardless of whether you're a christian or a muslim or an atheist; regardless of whether you're a feminist, a men's rights activist, or just don't give a damn about politics.

Look, a 12 year old is not going to have great judgment when it comes to porn, and s/he will have access to it. That's just a fact. Prohibition will not work, judging from every single time it failed before. Therefore we should promote sensual, loving, and sexy depictions of human sexuality. If we manage to sneak a little accurate information in without being cheesy, even better.

Accurate, loving, and sexy. The last part matters! Boring lectures on how to put on a condom will not do the trick. Showing that lovemaking is sensual and blissful, along with whatever godly mission you choose to project into it, probably stands a chance of getting the job done. To be clear - by "job", I mean preparing teenagers for actual, real sexuality, as it is practiced in day-to-day life; not some idealized fantasy version of christian family life. And I also mean arousing them and giving them something to lust after. While we're at it, why not arouse them a bit, why not show how much fun and joy and bliss there is to be found in bed?

In short, we need better pornography. Way, way better pornography.

"Cyclical Impact of Porn"

In the above video, youtube user anewchristian72 essentially tells us that porn affects young men's sexuality by filling them up (npi) with unrealistic expectations about female sexuality. I won't go into the fact that he equates porn with heterosexual porn, and bad het porn at that (and how about written erotica? How about comics?). Let's let him pass on that.

While it's not surprising that a christian rants against porn, I would like to point out a few aspects that I found particularly interesting with this little video:

One is that he only talks about the unrealistic portrayal of women in porn. I won't deny that this is true for the  vast majority of heterosexual pornography (one absolutely amazing exception being comstock films - if you have additional examples of porn that is actually good, please let me know). I would like to add, though, that the portrayal of men in het porn is at least as unrealistic. If we are to assume that this wrongful imagery influences young men in bad ways by way of false expectations, then shouldn't we assume that the portrayal of their own gender, with extremely huge cocks that are always ready, always erect, and their owners always horny and willing no matter what, is even more devastating to those young souls?

I was about to write, in accordance with anewchristian72's opinion and feminist mainstream, that the portrayal of women in het porn is a lot more denigrating than that of the male protagonists - but is this indeed true? Men are reduced to sex machines who have nothing on their minds except fucking women - how is this not supposed to be denigrating to my gender? Maybe there is some difference in quantity here, but certainly not in principle.

A second observation: He does not present any facts, he doesn't quote any studies, he doesn't even reference personal experience. I'm always amazed when that happens. How does he know what he claims to know? How can we test his claims to be true? As mentioned before, I like it when people qualify their claims with regard to their supposed ontological status.

Thirdly, I find it interesting how people just assume that young minds are impressionable, and therefore, whatever they see in whatever erotic product of their choice will be directly reflected in their sexual behaviour. I wonder if that is indeed the case. People don't go all panicky just because of some sci-fi flick. People don't run into the streets with guns after watching Die Hard. On the other hand, people are affected by advertisement, of course. I would like to know things like that in a little more detail, before starting off with sweeping judgments about the whole erotica industry based on a lot of ideology and little factual knowledge.

So, yeah, that's it. No punchline here, as I have to go home now and spend some quality time in bed with my girlfriend, the porn star.

One Of The Most Important Questions You'll Never Answer

What I don't get is how people manage to KNOW all that stuff.... I mean, they just... somehow... KNOW that only life-long monogamy can be the way to go for everyone, that black people are stupid, that women are superior, that intelligence is the measure of a human, that empathy is extremely important, that rape is a faith worse than death, that god exists, that Jesus died for our sins, that Mohammed was the last prophet, that a huge pandemia is coming, that homosexuals can't raise kids...

(Hint: I do share at least one of those beliefs. Challenge: Find out which one.)

How does one do that?

"...destroys it..."

This is a reply to faithquestions' youtube video entitled "The Foundation of Atheism Destroys It".

Starting this off, let me say that I never quite understood the rhetoric of "destroying worldview X with one argument". Not even getting into why (in this specific case) atheism is not exactly a worldview, it is an illusion to think that a person's views are so easily shattered. People adhere to their views for many reasons, the fewest of which are rational. Moreover, our worldview is something akin to a mental home. Throwing it away can cause severe discomfort to most people. So you'd have to do a lot more than pointing out one logical fallacy in order to shake the views of more than a small handful of people.

Now, let me agree with you: Yes, the fact that we have no absolute foundation for human morality is a severe problem. It means that we cannot rely on each other to share the same morality. It means that my neighbour might find it acceptable to beat his wife. It means that, beside the threat of punishment, I have no strictly rational means of convincing him that his behaviour is wrong. The only hope I have is that he has access to his basic human faculties of empathy and reason, and that I can get him to see how his behaviour violates those.

I find it interesting, and somewhat unsettling, that so many people seem to have a very specific set of demands towards a worldview: that it provide them with a sense of meaning, that it provide them with a foundation for their morality, that it tell them that human life has intrinsic value.

I believe that this is putting the cart before the horse. My worldview, quite literally, is how I see the world. And the one prime directive in choosing how I see the world is... whether this is in accordance with the facts. Can I show that there is intrinsic meaning to human life? Can I show that domestic violence is absolutely wrong? If so, then it is the case that these absolutes do exist. If not, they don't.

We don't seem to be able to show that an absolute foundation for morality (not to be confused with objective morality; those are two very distinct concepts!) actually exists. So we have to assume that it doesn't, regardless of whether this suits our tastes and titillates our religious sensibilities or not. We have to be guided by facts, not by assumptions.

And then we have to work from that.