It is most definitely official: I am so. Freakin. TIRED of hearing about the Duggars.
I'm just as exhausted by the extreme atheists.
Both make me glad..no...happy...no...THRILLED beyond measure that I am on the path I'm on.
Druidry blends both life in the physical as well as metaphysical realms. It incorporates ALL of life itself, physical and non-physical. There's no shaming, just a friendly hand to hold and God-Within-Nature's guidance if you've lost yourself.
There's an acknowledgement of the Divinity within both masculine and feminine polarities and does not declare one better than the other. It is one of the most egalitarian ways of being I have ever come across.
So why am I writing about this in this specific blog?
Because the Duggars, especially their "patriarch," are twisted, brainwashed, whatever you want to call it, when it comes to sexuality.
I'm not going to write any more on these people because they're so twisted it makes me both speechless and angry at the same time.
They make me want to start a new sexual revolution, akin to the one in the 1960s...only with a bit more sensible responsibility, of course. ;-)
But perhaps I'll be a bit more surreptitious about it. Ideas have power...which is why I will likely migrate this blog over to Tumblr and get an actual domain name for this. Okay, so sexual openness and lack of shame has been around for a while--it's nothing new...but is there a way I could add to it?
Forthrightness...that's a part of it.
Humor...no sense in treating sex so starkly that it still can't be laughed about.
Ultimately, Truth and Beauty of the whole thing. There's even a beauty, however dark it may seem, to certain kinky things.
I've even had thoughts about applying for a part-time job at Romantix. That would make my mom cringe and my dad raise his eyebrows.
But I was not born an Indigo for nothing. ;-)
Laterz,
Kat ^.^
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Blurred Lines: My Reaction
So, the controversial song of 2013 and 2014 was "Blurred Lines," by Robin Thicke.
All right, so I'm a year or two late in making this blog, let alone thinking of the concept. So sue me. I still don't know what to make of this song, so I'm going to write about it anyway. Just because I've been wanting to.
Here is my basic reaction:
On the one hand, I think: "Okay, I've written erotica, and I'm pretty liberal with my views."
But on the other hand, I think: "for some reason, I get an uncomfortable feeling in my gut watching it."
Now, considering I created this blog to talk about sex and sensuality, sensual living, etc, you'd think I'd have all kinds of good feelings about this--sticking with the theme of the blog.
This song really does create some "blurred lines" in my psyche. Even in this 37-year-old brain, there is some serious confusion reigning, thanks to this song. I don't know whether to praise it or loathe it.
I mean, even "Fifty Shades of Grey" has less confusing a message than "Blurred Lines."
The one thing I've managed to pick out from the song is about supposedly a "good girl" possibly being a "wild animal" in bed underneath that "innocent" facade.
Really, that's about it. And considering a further discussion on this topic, I can't help but think: where the hell to start? I mean, I don't want to sound like an ivory tower professor, all properly pedantic.
But I have my own deeper thoughts on human sexuality and how it's been treated over the millenia. And right now, they're a bit hard to articulate because the song's so freaking confusing.
Well, one thought's maybe not so difficult: human sexuality is an extraordinary thing...complicated and simple at the same time, if you can imagine it. What could be simpler than two people being attracted to each other, and wanting loving companionship at the same time? Yet what could be more complicated than two people with histories, with baggage, still finding each other and managing, through the haze of their emotional wounds, to fall in love with each other--romantically, erotically, heart and soul, down to their bones?
This kind of deep questioning in my heart and mind makes Robin Thicke's song seem so...cheap. I mean, I don't want to judge others for just jumping into bed together if they really feel they want to. The potency of sexual attraction is hard to deny, no matter where you are on the spiritual spectrum.
Which brings me to the other part of the conundrum about sex: Western Puritanism, or the remaining chokehold it has on the way we think about something that should be seen as normal, has taught generations of Americans that the body is bad, and sex is even worse because, oh mercy-sakes-alive, it actually feels good.
And in the Puritanical world, if you're feeling good about anything, because of anything, you're being influenced by the devil, and God will judge you for all the moments you're being joyful and happy, especially if you've got a crush on someone, they're crushing on you right back and holy-moly, you guys wanna get it on--or, at least do some serious making out.
On the other end, here's Robin Thicke's song, with the lyric of "the way you grab me/you wanna get nasty."
Well...in my view, sex is far from "nasty." It's one of the most beautiful things ever, especially if you're with someone that loves you, and you love them back, regardless of whether you're married or not.
It's even more powerful and beautiful if you're one of those people who's not exactly been lucky in love and you finally find that one person who represents the end of your search.
And maybe that's why "Blurred Lines" makes me so uncomfortable. Yes, I'll be honest about that. It makes me uncomfortable. Okay, yes, it's true, life begins at the end of one's comfort zone. Thanks to Neale Donald Walsch for that quote.
But here's the crux of it: I'm extremely romantic and spiritual. Not in the uber-religious sense...but in that heady, profound, mystical-experience sense that sexual encounters have the potential to be.
Even "Fifty Shades" feels more profound, in its own way than "Blurred Lines" does. Because even "Fifty Shades" has some level of deeper emotion to it. "Blurred Lines" feels...shallow...truly superficial. It's almost like the ultimate song of the one-night stand.
And even in the "Fifty Shades" series, there's some serious stuff going on between Anastasia and Christian. Definitely some deep emotional stuff that I think is worth exploring.
But "Blurred Lines," deep down, makes me cringe. In addition to what I said before, I think it's because of the idea that, in the song's lyrics, the guy is saying, "I'm gonna liberate ya."
Oookaay...from what, exactly? Is the guy saying that the girl should just toss away any and all ideas of connection on the emotional level and she should go ahead and just connect only on the physical? Is that it?
See what I mean about the song itself being confusing? Hell, the song pretty much sums up the very confused, schizoid state of sexuality in America. Only it doesn't quite get to the point of it as dramatically or even romantically as "Fifty Shades." Yes, there are some romantic bits in those books, despite Christian Grey himself saying he's "not a hearts-and-flowers" guy.
Yes, I keep comparing the two creative works, though I think "Fifty Shades" was a damn sight more creative than "Blurred Lines" was.
And frankly, as a final thought: Regardless of the fact that I am thoroughly NOT into BDSM, I think "Fifty Shades" has done more to actually liberate people and start a decent conversation than that crazy Robin Thicke song. Sorry, Mr. Thicke, but you really played to the lowest common denominator, far lower than E.L. James did.
That's my take on "Blurred Lines." I said my piece. I may or may not reference it again. I hope I don't have to.
Until Later,
Kat
All right, so I'm a year or two late in making this blog, let alone thinking of the concept. So sue me. I still don't know what to make of this song, so I'm going to write about it anyway. Just because I've been wanting to.
Here is my basic reaction:
On the one hand, I think: "Okay, I've written erotica, and I'm pretty liberal with my views."
But on the other hand, I think: "for some reason, I get an uncomfortable feeling in my gut watching it."
Now, considering I created this blog to talk about sex and sensuality, sensual living, etc, you'd think I'd have all kinds of good feelings about this--sticking with the theme of the blog.
This song really does create some "blurred lines" in my psyche. Even in this 37-year-old brain, there is some serious confusion reigning, thanks to this song. I don't know whether to praise it or loathe it.
I mean, even "Fifty Shades of Grey" has less confusing a message than "Blurred Lines."
The one thing I've managed to pick out from the song is about supposedly a "good girl" possibly being a "wild animal" in bed underneath that "innocent" facade.
Really, that's about it. And considering a further discussion on this topic, I can't help but think: where the hell to start? I mean, I don't want to sound like an ivory tower professor, all properly pedantic.
But I have my own deeper thoughts on human sexuality and how it's been treated over the millenia. And right now, they're a bit hard to articulate because the song's so freaking confusing.
Well, one thought's maybe not so difficult: human sexuality is an extraordinary thing...complicated and simple at the same time, if you can imagine it. What could be simpler than two people being attracted to each other, and wanting loving companionship at the same time? Yet what could be more complicated than two people with histories, with baggage, still finding each other and managing, through the haze of their emotional wounds, to fall in love with each other--romantically, erotically, heart and soul, down to their bones?
This kind of deep questioning in my heart and mind makes Robin Thicke's song seem so...cheap. I mean, I don't want to judge others for just jumping into bed together if they really feel they want to. The potency of sexual attraction is hard to deny, no matter where you are on the spiritual spectrum.
Which brings me to the other part of the conundrum about sex: Western Puritanism, or the remaining chokehold it has on the way we think about something that should be seen as normal, has taught generations of Americans that the body is bad, and sex is even worse because, oh mercy-sakes-alive, it actually feels good.
And in the Puritanical world, if you're feeling good about anything, because of anything, you're being influenced by the devil, and God will judge you for all the moments you're being joyful and happy, especially if you've got a crush on someone, they're crushing on you right back and holy-moly, you guys wanna get it on--or, at least do some serious making out.
On the other end, here's Robin Thicke's song, with the lyric of "the way you grab me/you wanna get nasty."
Well...in my view, sex is far from "nasty." It's one of the most beautiful things ever, especially if you're with someone that loves you, and you love them back, regardless of whether you're married or not.
It's even more powerful and beautiful if you're one of those people who's not exactly been lucky in love and you finally find that one person who represents the end of your search.
And maybe that's why "Blurred Lines" makes me so uncomfortable. Yes, I'll be honest about that. It makes me uncomfortable. Okay, yes, it's true, life begins at the end of one's comfort zone. Thanks to Neale Donald Walsch for that quote.
But here's the crux of it: I'm extremely romantic and spiritual. Not in the uber-religious sense...but in that heady, profound, mystical-experience sense that sexual encounters have the potential to be.
Even "Fifty Shades" feels more profound, in its own way than "Blurred Lines" does. Because even "Fifty Shades" has some level of deeper emotion to it. "Blurred Lines" feels...shallow...truly superficial. It's almost like the ultimate song of the one-night stand.
And even in the "Fifty Shades" series, there's some serious stuff going on between Anastasia and Christian. Definitely some deep emotional stuff that I think is worth exploring.
But "Blurred Lines," deep down, makes me cringe. In addition to what I said before, I think it's because of the idea that, in the song's lyrics, the guy is saying, "I'm gonna liberate ya."
Oookaay...from what, exactly? Is the guy saying that the girl should just toss away any and all ideas of connection on the emotional level and she should go ahead and just connect only on the physical? Is that it?
See what I mean about the song itself being confusing? Hell, the song pretty much sums up the very confused, schizoid state of sexuality in America. Only it doesn't quite get to the point of it as dramatically or even romantically as "Fifty Shades." Yes, there are some romantic bits in those books, despite Christian Grey himself saying he's "not a hearts-and-flowers" guy.
Yes, I keep comparing the two creative works, though I think "Fifty Shades" was a damn sight more creative than "Blurred Lines" was.
And frankly, as a final thought: Regardless of the fact that I am thoroughly NOT into BDSM, I think "Fifty Shades" has done more to actually liberate people and start a decent conversation than that crazy Robin Thicke song. Sorry, Mr. Thicke, but you really played to the lowest common denominator, far lower than E.L. James did.
That's my take on "Blurred Lines." I said my piece. I may or may not reference it again. I hope I don't have to.
Until Later,
Kat
John Oliver: Rockin' Sex Ed Like a Boss
I just watched a seriously hilarious episode of "Last Week Tonight," hosted by one of the most awesome Brits ever: John Oliver.
In this episode, aired 3 weeks ago on August 9th, John took up the very important--and for many Americans--nerve-wracking topic of sex ed.
Depending how old you are, some of you might have heard of the old play "No Sex Please, We're British."
Ha! Not in the 21st century, honey. John Oliver is forthright and his sense of humor about the topic is second-to-none.
I could write about the whole thing, but I think it would just be better if I posted the video. Because his research is impeccable, and I doubt seriously I could have been any funnier about the topic than he was.
Let me just say this before I go:
If all acts of love and pleasure are the Goddess's rituals, then there are way too many people who live in fear that they're actually going to enjoy something when it comes to sex, for fear that they would make their version of God angry. And I say "version of God," because in my experience, the Divine Creator is not some bearded dude who wants to wreak vengeance on us. No. That would be a Zeus-like character.
And in truth, Zeus himself was known to pick up unwilling chicks and impregnate them (not exactly the model of worrying about whether the girl was consenting or not), so we humans have come up with some really weird ideas about what the Divine Creator is really like.
Seriously, this whole episode of John Oliver's show came very, very close to pushing me towards becoming full-on Pagan. But then again, to some people, I might be, just because I acknowledge Jesus, but I'm hardly a "Jesus freak." I don't do the Bible study thing, just because, well...I've been more or less doing "graduate-level" work on the Other Side during my Dreamwalks. No Bible required.
Besides, I'm more into Neale Donald Walsch's stuff. :P
Anywho, here's the video:
Laters,
Kat ^.^
In this episode, aired 3 weeks ago on August 9th, John took up the very important--and for many Americans--nerve-wracking topic of sex ed.
Depending how old you are, some of you might have heard of the old play "No Sex Please, We're British."
Ha! Not in the 21st century, honey. John Oliver is forthright and his sense of humor about the topic is second-to-none.
I could write about the whole thing, but I think it would just be better if I posted the video. Because his research is impeccable, and I doubt seriously I could have been any funnier about the topic than he was.
Let me just say this before I go:
If all acts of love and pleasure are the Goddess's rituals, then there are way too many people who live in fear that they're actually going to enjoy something when it comes to sex, for fear that they would make their version of God angry. And I say "version of God," because in my experience, the Divine Creator is not some bearded dude who wants to wreak vengeance on us. No. That would be a Zeus-like character.
And in truth, Zeus himself was known to pick up unwilling chicks and impregnate them (not exactly the model of worrying about whether the girl was consenting or not), so we humans have come up with some really weird ideas about what the Divine Creator is really like.
Seriously, this whole episode of John Oliver's show came very, very close to pushing me towards becoming full-on Pagan. But then again, to some people, I might be, just because I acknowledge Jesus, but I'm hardly a "Jesus freak." I don't do the Bible study thing, just because, well...I've been more or less doing "graduate-level" work on the Other Side during my Dreamwalks. No Bible required.
Besides, I'm more into Neale Donald Walsch's stuff. :P
Anywho, here's the video:
Laters,
Kat ^.^
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)