Mental exhibitionists & social media voyeurism | Perception Matters
The indecency of baring our body politic to others
How much of socio political discourse is people being mental exhibitionists & flashers or engaging in public therapy sessions?
This could explain why some people do not want to engage with others based on what they say.
For example a an exhibitionists may walk around in a nudist colony but there are understood rules that you can't just grab a titty or tug a penis because the naked body has been presented. If the hypothetical socio-poli-exhibitionist says X thing and you ask about X without them giving prior consent to ask it's like mentally groping their "body politic."
I assume that a typical flasher isn't doing it hoping you will stop and engage in any sexual intercourse & would not not approve of being photographed others who say them flash someone then have their identity spread around. Evidence for this is the REEEaction to screen capping and spreading what these hypothetical socio-poli-flashers post.
As for the the therapy equivalent, people who choose to engage in conversations with others, will none the less object to the free sharing of it. Claiming it's only supposed to be for a select group of approved listeners & credentialed responders. They create a sort of qualified publicity
Additional aspect of this select publication is how some exhibitionists may get a rush from having sex in public where there is a chance of being seen by others. Most would stop if seen but even those few who don't mind being seen would not extend that visual acceptance & welcome any viewer who wants to physically participate.
This will come up again & it came up before I came to the primary topic of exhibitionism and/or therapy. Following a report of yet another rapper shot dead in so a major US city, I posted a status "Musicians of color are disproportionately shot in the USA. What's the Critical Race Theory (a legal framework) analysis of this?"
A friend answered that they aren't being shot by white supremacists.
I then shared my view that in actuality some who have this focus on white super agency are white supremacists. If you think a white person owning an ancestor hundreds of years ago has more effect on the current person than their black parents, that is considering that dead white historical person as supremely powerful than living breathing black ones that exit today.
I went to Twitter, found Ruto Twitter thread of a public therapy session, & shared the tweet that said "The solution, according to one panelist, is for straight white Americans to provide cash “reparations” to trans people. “If you’re white and your parents have a savings account, that is very much so connected to slavery and land theft, pay people ... Pay that money to us now.”" as an example of that condition.
This was the conversation that followed:
TJ: Not only insane, but evil. They’re actually claiming that historical slavery, which they never experienced, entitles them to enslave other people according to race. This is evil and racist on so many levels that it deserves nothing but contempt. No one owes these deranged people anything. Slavery didn’t cause their problems, they did it to themselves.
Me: most of them are not well people.
TJ: If they want to place some well deserved blame on someone else, then they should blame the Leftist educators and politicians who have encouraged them to see themselves as perpetual victims who have been held down by others, rather than teaching them to better themselves
Me: Should be an analysis of their parents. However the term "hits too close to home" is apt for very real reasons. As children we form an attachment to primary caregivers then compartmentalize abuse as part of what needs to be accepted to live. It gets to a point where as an adult you have the agency and responsibility to improve yourself but the inability to get past the walls we built can be crippling to finding and carrying out solutions.
So like we did as children, shifting blame to those outside of primary care giver due to need to live. As people of adult age we also shift blame outside of those responsible for primary care (our adult selves) onto things like slavery or even leftist educators and politicians. Not saying those 3 things are good, but they also are not more powerful than a sufficiently confident & determined self. Evidenced by myriad examples of people who experienced the same history but still are adulting in relatively functional & productive ways.
Before continuing about exposing our thoughts in exhibitionist or therapeutic ways, I will clarify that my characterization of mental childhood is not one that is inherently negative.
Childhood has its limitations & challenges but I view it as inherently hopeful & full of potential. Childhood is a term that refers objectively to a time-span at the beginning of an organism/entity's growth & subjectively compared to the potential of said organism/entity's total span of existence.
For example, if I decided to try learning Mandarin Chinese, for months or years I would be at a childhood level of comprehension & ability. I would be treated as someone trying to learn. If I remained at this level for a decade and confidently presented myself at a literary conference about great historical works in Mandarin, it would be as much a shame on anyone who took what I said seriously as it would be on me for complaining that I was not given an equal platform to present my literature, because Chinese markets even make companies like Disney de platform million dollar actors of negro genetics form their billion dollar global properties.
Exposure of our inner child's thought's is different than presenting the underlying thought patterns of an adult mind. Back to public exposure of the commonly private.
I think this comparison fits content such as the session covered in Christopher Ruto's thread & article "The “Gender-Variant Universe” : A consortium of publicly subsidized nonprofits wants to “decolonize gender” and normalize male genitalia as a form of authentic womanhood."
There is an intimacy to what is being spoken of in sessions like the one this coalition had, that most viewers would think is better reserved to private interactions and kept among close friends. Though the restraint may be common sense for adults living 'in a society' we may expect children to say things that come to their mind to relative strangers they perceive as somewhat open to listening. 4 year old is sitting at the table at a dinner party of some house your parents took you to. Big people holding some yellowish stuff in glasses and listening to one of them speaking. You stand up and loudly announce that you need to go tinkle so can someone tell you where the bathroom is. Try that as a 24 year old.
Regardless of lingering effects of adverse childhoods, and I speak from personal experience to their effects, the people in the The “Gender-Variant Universe” session do not have the socio-political influence of children. More so about those funding, encouraging and spreading this sort of thing. They are of adult ages & should be treated as such. If you want to engage in adult spaces, with adult abilities you should be held to standards of adult discourse and decorum.
'You show me yours, I show you mine' sort of thing may be waved off between curious 5 year olds but when those of adult ages do it among themselves it is generally judged as pornographic. When it's between adult aged people and children it almost always abusive & predatory. Almost all of us recognize this distinction, some try and bring children into the equation to benefit from the exceptions society grants their behavior.
Public breastfeeding for example. It's natural to breast feed. A breast is naturally evolved to create breast milk. A child naturally wants to suckle when hungry. X out their breast in public to feed their own child is treated differently than if X did it to let someone of adult age do so. Even if said adult was the child of X. Public breastfeeding of ones child would be different from X as a breast feeding enthusiasts saying they should be allowed to offer their breasts to Y children put under their care by Z parents for things such as learning the alphabet. Regardless of the fact that breast feeding is nutritious, healthy & and very positive for the development of a growing child. Context matters here.
We recognize the object X may be natural but the subjects involved change the dynamics. Urinating is natural. However if at a barbecue in a park, upon heeding nature's call X proceeds to pull out their penis and empty their bladder it would likely cause a stir. Regardless of if X urinates into a bottle and then cleans up with the hand sanitizer that they carry for that purpose, or how many other people have a penis or had seen them before.
Natural ≠ human nature ≠ nurture ≠ human civilization.
Depending on the venue and parties involved, asking for or presenting to certain socio-political thoughts has a level of voyeurism to it. Reactions to queries can be like those you'd expect from asking for nudes or sending unsolicited dick pics. Claiming that you are just commenting on what has been presented willingly is not enough though. X may present themselves in Y manner with express intention of attract the attention of Z. If you remark to X about the Y they chose to present and are not Z, you may find yourself facing condemnation.
You may be at a party talking about a recent movie then someone makes a comment about their perception of a characters inferred political leaning based on a personal anecdote, and its almost like you were just walking along in a group, got to some stairs, looked up and caught a glimpse of the persons panties.
Or you are out in some public transportation and some vagrant looking person gets on and starts acting out. While commiserating with about the disruption with the person you are sitting next to says something about their feelings toward that sort of persons place in society, and it's almost like they had been physically jostled by someone rushing to disembark and while you reached out to help them, they had a nip-slip.
The parallels of this sort of discourse being an exhibitionist of ones mind is easy to see when topics are sexual, but it is not limited to the sexual. Here are other examples.
Imagine some kids don't really understand biology. they are talking among themselves about how their bodies all have arms and legs, so why shouldn't they be able to do X things a larger friend of different sex can. Adults can then explain the differences in biology and evolutionary selection pressures in a level appropriate for a child of that age to understand. Having different abilities does not mean one is more or less healthy (good) but some limitations are self imposed.
Another case could be a child saying if they meet a child with X thing, then they too should be able to seize it and use X thing because they need it. An adult, or even older child, could explain simple concept of private property and how the child would not want to have someone take something of theirs just because they did not have one of their own without at least asking. Simply having someone ask them to use their X does not mean they would have to say yes to giving their X away either.
These are ways we would deal with children. We assume adults have understood certain concepts about as independent social beings & the politics of living with others in a civilization. It would be considered wrong by many to just tell a child you can physically do anything you want to or are owed anything you feel you need. But some seem say thing things to these adult age exhibitionists of the mind that they thing average 10 year old would consider absurd.
Sure to each according to their need. That person has something you want, someone should make sure you have it too, even if it means taking it away form that person. Be positive about your body, don't let anyone tell you that you control its current state or that different results can be expected from the diverse ranges of bodies we have.
Identify a need for X and society should provide you X.
Identify a problem of X and society should solve X.
Identify as X and society should refer to you as X.
Even a good therapist, friend or loved one would not advise this to a patient that was truly seeking help, be they an actual child, be it by age or just mentally in any given sphere.
Problems occur due to how we define X rather than what X is. When presented with someone's socio political body I will try to first try and ascertain what the status of that body is. Assuming you want actual productive conversation these three points may be helpful to you:
Can they actually impel me, or those I care about to do anything based on what they have presented against our will?
Are they willing to engage in honest discourse?
Are they actually capable of doing so in whatever venue is available?
If the answer to number 1 is a no, I could almost always benefit from spending more time on productive adulting. For example If I had trained up my Mandarin Chinese and was on the way to be part of a panel at a conference on contemporary Chinese science fiction, accepting the challenge to a game of basketball because some 10 year old girl says If I don't I must be scared of strong women & the fundamentals of women's basketball, is not a thing that would happen.
If the answer to number 1 is yes, be it directly or using proxy violence, defining the X is key to how 2 and 3 will go.
If they define the need for taxation as a social good that society must be provided by redistributing what you have earned, trying to engage the taxation agency tasked with collecting form you in an honest discourse won't keep armed agents of the state coming to take you off to jail. If it's someone at the barbecue after that 'call of nature' claiming higher taxation would lead to more public restrooms and less need for people to pee in bottles then discussing how even if extortion was not unethical, and there are things such as regulations and general waste of current taxed revenue that are more responsible for the lack of bathrooms. Let alone the basic level of control we should expect from individual adults over their natural urges.
If this was after being on the previously public transport. Vagrant had gotten then caused a scene after answering natures call. Someone that had been target of the effluent evacuations currently raging about the lack of police protection, would not be capable of discussing how police by definition are not tasked with preventing crimes or that the vagrant actually identified as a woman so they should have said "how could SHE whip out HER penis & no one did anything about it!?"
lulz of the post
Thank you for reading. Subscribe to the Blog for more or
YouTube | Rumble | Instagram | Behance | Twitter | Substack | Minds | BitChute | Odysee | Paypal | Store