11-dimensional space, cyclical history, 42, transcendentalism, Walt Disney, depth psychology, super-string theory, Shakers, Social Studies, and the Dodo bird: hmmmmm, much food for thought. I'm sure they're all related somehow to why female relatives accept our CDing more easily than male ones do--but I'll let someone else figure it out (I wouldn't want to be accused of trying to impose order on chaos ).
Yes, I will agree that the majority of society have excluded us and at times unwittingly included us in disguise. The human race in general lives in fear of a multitude of unknowns.
Is it any wonder that they isolate us and other minority groups for fear of our differences. We need to keep in perspective why this is maybe done. People are always shy of differences. Race, religion, creed, and other parameters are often a basis for social bias.
I for one do not want to gravitate in that direction.
This is just a note about Ice Age at least the animated I one I think you are refering to that came out in 2002. It is not a Disney movie it is actually made by Fox Animation Studios. Just thought I would put my two cents in thats all.
I just have to see The Ice Age, now. I'm a big fan of Shrek, Antz (Woody Allen as an ant!--it works for me), the two Toy Stories, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and A Bug's Life. I don't know why I haven't seen The Ice Age yet; it's come highly recommended by friends and colleagues. And by my little niece, too. I'll check it out.
This is a new post but in this string so I thought would add to it.
Yesterday the older of my two younger brothers was home Thanksgiving and I was having dinner with the family. Anyway, I was getting clothes out the laundry (oh yeah I do my laundry at my parents saves me some money and I do not like the machines at my apartment) and my brother comes up to and tells me, part of this I knew as does most the family, that he is bi-sexual. Then something happened that blew me away and made it possible more me to tell him that I am CD. He tells me that he sometimes wheres women's panties. We then got to talking for a while. I want to have him come over and see my closet where I keep all my dresses and see what he thinks. It really blew me away, thought not really unexected, I do not believe that he is as far of CD as myself, but I do not go out in public fully dressed so that's that. It was, to say the least, an interesting end to Thanksgiving dinner.
I would agree with you that chemicals and chemical reactions make us tick, but I would also add that the resulting emotions are responsible for much of how people act and live their daily life.
I believe that the existence of moral codes is responsible for much of the guilt which people hold within and live with continually. If a person sees theirself as having acted in a way, which, in their ingrained belief and teachings, is not good and is a violation of the 'rules', then it can lead to deep feelings of guilt, which can then be a major contribution as to how that person acts in the future.
Unfortunately moral codes are a bunch of fixed ideas and cannot ever work in all circumstances. Humans being 'herd animals', we tend to commit to following the moral codes of the herd, (even if only in an outward appearance for the benefit of those surrounding us), which stipulate how one is supposed to behave, and by being a member of 'the herd' it is expected that one implicitly agrees that the rules are good.
These codes are usually originated by someone who has established a position of authority, usually with the intent to control and supposedly enhance peoples lives, they may have been created with the best of intentions, but there never was and never will be, one size fits all.
Unfortunately for most of us, these moral codes were impressed into us at the earliest age, including the code which says that boys do this and girls do that, but chemical reactions within a number of people lead us to react in a way which is seen by some as outside the moral code. So, does that make what we do wrong? I would argue strongly and emphatically that the answer is a big no. A moral code is something which has been formulated outside of nature, it is a manufactured idea, but humans being 'herd animals', when we continually make perpetrations of the codes, it can manifest itself into such a burden to where it adversely effects peoples lives, it leads to deep feelings of guilt which causes them to act in a way which makes their life a well of depression.
We are often our own worst judge and I've seen people punish themselves so severely due to the belief that continually crossdressing is a bad thing to do, they believe it is a violation of the moral codes they grew up with and some believe it is a sin. My view is that something which feels so good and makes me so happy, peaceful and content and a better person to live with cannot be a bad thing. I believe it is natural for me to be the person I am and to do what I do. If it was a choice that I consciouly took to live a life of wearing womens clothing then I may view my actions in a different light. The fact that I have no memory whatsoever of male clothing being right for me goes a long way to proving to me that nature made me the way I am, I have had psycs tell me that it is a choice not a birth right, but many times I have strongly argued that out, in the unshakable belief that this is how it was meant to be for me, and it is the same for many, many others too. They are unable to ever see it from this side, as I do. How we act and react many times is out of our control, it comes from within, that is a firm belief of mine, which has only strengthens as time goes by.
Kind Regards.
Sally.
Watch nature, because it’s our greatest teacher, it moves and flows and moves on again. We can never be free until we disengage, so allow life to flow as you find it. The way it is, is the way it is.
Great points. I would like to expand on the failure of the moral and ethical codes we create.
Imagine, for a moment, that the intents and workings of our morals and ethics are flawed, perhaps not of themselves, but from their source. Religion. Societal riguers du jour. You name it. The foundation itself is flawed. We as humans, even when done unintentionally, jam our guilts and fears into the institutions we build for ourselves. It is a flawed vision, and we end up with a picture that is not always so flattering when held up to a mirror. If we can learn to build an set of morals and ethics that can be more encompassing, we can move beyond the point where we allow our collective fears to control us.
I just finished reading a short but thought provoking article on this very subject by the Dalai Lama entitled "The Ethics of Interdependence". The question posed to the Lama asks where we can turn for a morality that is relevant in our contemporary age. The Lama decides that we must find a secular ethics founded on interdependence, which necessitates care for each other. "Then", as he puts it, "people would discover that, according to that reality, affection and compassion are essential if anything is ever going to change."
Wonderful thought proking sentiment here! I agree with almost all of it. However, I think the concept of morality has at least some minimal place in society. No rule ever fits all, or covers every situation, but some of the oldest rules do pretty well. Take for example: the golden rule - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Does anyone have any real serious objections to that one?
Fred Phelps, on the other hand, can take his perverted view of morality and put it (multiple shameful expletives tastefully left to the reader's vivid imagination)!
(If you do not know who Fred Phelps is, you are better off not knowing. He actively promotes hatred towards homosexuals and their sympathizers, on religious grounds. Hatred is not a family value.)
Take for example: the golden rule - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Does anyone have any real serious objections to that one?
Bernice - Ask and ye shal receive. I do have an odjection to the Golden Rule. Actually, I have an improvement called the Platinum Rule. To assume we all like to be treated the same would ignore the differences that make each of us unique. The Platinum Rule says "Do unto others as others want to be done unto". This way you are not assuming they want to be treated the same as you. You are treating them the way you know they want to be treated.
I learned about this in a sales meeting. The same salse pitch won't work on every customer. You have to size them up and sell to each customer in a way that they will respond to. In essence you have to treat them the way they want to be treated.
It may seem subtle, but it makes a huge difference.
Every client that I have ever worked with, requires of me, that I examine what it is they want and try to meet their needs. Even if their needs are not on the table, they want me to find them and deliver the goods.
I have always practiced the "golden rule" but I also had to learn to apply Genifer's idea as a "Consulting Engineer" and business owner in the systems engineering field of computer networking. Not an easy task where the average IT person lasts just 5 years in their position if they have a reasonable work environment and boss to work for, all else being equal.
What a wonderful tangent this, about moral codes and golden rules! I think there's a bit of truth in all the viewpoints expressed here. The Golden Rule (in both its aspects: "Do unto others..." and "Do not do unto others...") has been codified in the major religious and philosophical traditions for obvious reasons, the main one being that, without it, the human community can't very well hold together. It's a matter of common sense; if we don't look out as much for our neighbour's interests as we do for our own, our neighbour will not long want to associate with us. The real question, here, is: who is our neighbour? (My own answer: everything around me that has life, including people.)
The Dalaï Lama's "Ethics of Interdependence" (and a wonderful ethics it is!) is one of compassion. I think it sits well with, say, gender-variant individuals, who so much wish others could understand the pain and the suffering that can come from being who we are, and who also have some understanding of what it means to walk in another person's shoes. The refrain is almost always this: "I will do anything for your happiness and well-being if you could only love and accept me as I am." There are few desires that are as human and as compassionate as that of wanting to cradle others in their pain, in the clear understanding of what they're going through for having been there ourselves. The nature of this very forum is a good case in point.
Genifer's Platinum Rule is an interesting variation. The only difficulty I have with it is this: too many are the persons who either don't know or can't express what their true needs are. Rather than allowing my ignorance to have me waffle on the issue of how best to enter into a relationship with these people, I'd rather assume that, seeing as we're all human beings (our lowest common denominator), their needs are probably very similar to mine. And I'll act accordingly. The trouble with borrowing moral codes from the business world, it seems to me, is that we run the risk of creating needs in others that they don't really have (the aim, for example, of any good marketing firm), while downplaying those needs they do have that are contrary to, or that don't serve, our own needs. I believe (and I'll let my own moral compass show, here) that wanting another person's well-being is an end and a good in itself. It can be no other way. Ultimately, I will benefit from this as much as my neighbour, when I keep in mind that we are all, indeed, interdependent.
CJ Said:
"-dimensional space, cyclical history, 42, transcendentalism, Walt Disney, depth psychology, super-string theory, Shakers, Social Studies, and the Dodo bird: hmmmmm, much food for thought. I'm sure they're all related somehow to why female relatives accept our CDing more easily than male ones do--but I'll let someone else figure it out (I wouldn't want to be accused of trying to impose order on chaos."
I think that if there is an answer to this, it would be that perhaps, women [gg] are not as threatened by the idea as perhaps another male might be. Considering that the male may be in rather sensitive situations with another male as in any group activity, there needs to be informal trust between the participants. Also, I find it noteworthy for an example that when men view two women being intimate, they consider that arousing, but when viewing two men, the immediate response would be "disgusting" for a hetrosexual male.
When a young chimpanzee only a few days old sees a snake, they recoil to their mother instinctively. When seeing a puppy or other domestic baby animal they often act unconcerned and even may reach out to the animal if there is sufficient incentive from the mother.
Perhaps, humans have a built-in emotional reaction similar when viewing combinations that they would normally reject. I have no scientific basis for the human behavior, but it the case of the chimpanzee, there have been countless studies that support the above comments.
I do not mean to compare our behavior to animal life but it seems that it could be possible that we reject certain things by genetic training. After all, we are not nearly as independent as we make ourselves out to be. Humans live a very fragilie life at best. Everyday for the most part, exposing ourselves to the natural and not so natural elements of life. We are here because we are here, rather than because we in some way or concern, managed our way to the next day. Our time wasn't up, that to me is about it.
Just perhaps, women [gg] are not as threatened by the concept as our male counterparts may be for those reasons.
).
