About Me

My photo

Did Socrates say "Know Thyself", or was he misunderstood, as all are. Show Thyself is all we can do. The knowing is unknowable.  

I am filled with joy.  It can't be helped.  

Became a Farmer, Builder, Musician, Tank Commander, Librarian, Lawyer and Minister. I have failed at many things. And now retired.  Filled, just filled, with Joy. 

Saturday, January 19, 2008

How Pitiable, and Glorious are the Natural Urges

I am deeply offended by people who pretend that they are in any ANY ANY way "above" Nature. For example, people are entitled to wear WHATEVER they want to wear. And if they choose to join a group that wears UNIFORMS, good for them. However, there really is NO excuse or rationale for requiring a Dress Code that is UN-NATURAL.

Specifically, the wearing of disguises in public is not only offensive, it can only be taken as a deliberate affront. To REQUIRE a woman to wear a SACK covering her entire body -- including her ears, head, nose, and eyes -- her BREATHING organs! -- is simply one of the most evil means of subordination ever devised. It is ONLY justified as an effective means of oppressing a subordinated population.

I realize that "Religious" authorities have invoked various texts to justify such oppressive Dress Codes. While "modesty" is a legitimate criteria, there is in fact nothing modest about oppressive Dress Codes or enforcement of oppressive and un-natural coverings. There is NO WORD in the Torah, the Bible, or the Qoran which comes even remotely close to UN-Natural apparel requirements.

Males will look for women, no matter what women are wearing, and no matter whether the women are imprisoned, or locked up. To claim that women are covered and locked away for their own protection, is to add invidious irony to the perversion. Covering the women in sacks does not diminish, it keens, the natural impulse of the male. Whether males and females are CREATED by Allah, or are the result of evolution from tardigrades and apes, ALL clothes should meet Natural requirements. If an article of clothing is UN-attractive, one should think twice, many times, before donning it.

Attractiveness is the Point. It is Natural for us to gaze upon each other. We have an extraordinary number of "expressions" in our faces, built by an elaborate number of delicate muscles. We are SUPPOSED to look at each other. And the reason the practitioners of Religion spend an inordinate amount of time talking about Dress Codes is that the desire to see a naked person is a universal. The awe one feels in seeing the movement, the astonishing talent or grace of an arm, an eyelid, or to hear a voice, is what we do and should hope for.

Males will jump through hoops to smell, or just imagine, or to be overcome with awe over the peculiar GRACE, the way each woman MOVES. And some mullah is not "permitting" these Natural hopes? How frustrating it must be to a man who is constantly scheming to get a few million sperms next to just one egg. And the man is a priest, a pope, an ayatollah, a man of authority and grace, we must respect, and yet he has no respect for his own Natural instincts?

The more a Religion devotes itself to clothes, the more pitiable the sight. Pathetic is the effort to put a finger into the tide of Nature, and pretend to prevent its rise. A veil is like being buried alive. There is nothing modest about wearing a grave. I have seen women gathering roots in the marshes wearing nothing but string skirts, and they were at once more modest, and more comely, than the queens of piety, showing their pretentions for all to see.

No man is uglier, and less worthy, than the one who takes things and people to himself as his possessions. As if he has "special needs". No mouth can form another credible word, after it has promised "virgins" as a reward in an After-life, for a man condemned to live in This Life without the kindness of sex. The Wine, the Women, the Song -- bring it on!
Post a Comment