Incel - personal perspectives

[Soror O]

That was my prologue "against biology", by which I mean biology taken as a reason to remain in something that is familiar for us as a species. (For it seems to be biologico-sociologically usual tendency for men to seek out different partners and for women to seek for monogamy, since by this habit there is (a) enough competed offspring and (b) it gets cared for & most likely survives.)

I'm going to argue with your socio-biological model here - although it's quite irrelevant to the bigger point of your post (which was agreeable to me).

I have a firm belief (and I have read similar theories from evolutionary biologists) that women have been socio-biologically "wired" to be promiscuous. There are couple of implications/reasons for that: 1) the ovum chooses actively between different spermcells. More spermcells means more (and competing) options to choose from. Nature loves abundance and variability of choises and there is a reason for that. 2) Men not knowing which child is really theirs are more likely to care and provide for even for children who are not their biological offspring. This is highly beneficial to women as they are not dependent on any particular - or just one - male (the father) to provide for their offspring. More over - this increases the social cohesion and encourages non-violence within small communities - men are less violent if the changes are that they'd end up hurting their own offspring.

This "well kept secret" regarding the promiscuous nature of women is one reason behind the patriarcal control industry from chastity belts to the myth of women being inherently monogamous. However - as you wisely stated - this does not imply that one ought to act out regarding any assumed biological model. Rather - I think that evolution is about... evolution: overcoming previous models of being and updating them. Even more so: esoterically we are not allowed to view ourselves as biologically (or otherwise) determined species.

[Nefastos]

Your argument was very welcome, and I'd have no problem being wrong in this. My recent delving into some of the foundations of the patriarchal system (in going all the way through the Old Testament Bible, which is still considered as a holy book by billions) makes it easy for me to accept that many things that by fast thinking seem to be biological, are instead based on sociological projection.

[Soror O]

Who knows how it really is, I was just geekying (to forget about my own difficult emotions). I don't know if it's really relevant what or how we are "as species", it has quite little relevance on an individual level. But yeah, it's a nice to speculate and asking is always worthwile.

[Kavi]

I have been reading book called "Women with mustaches and men without beards" by Afshaneh Najmabadi (book is about how beauty ideals for men and women were the same during 19th century in Iran) and she makes a claim that according to European view sexuality of women has been seen as passive whereas in Islamic cultures such as Iran women are seen as active. I don't know how she comes to this conclusion but she makes this kind of statement in this book.

[Angolmois]

whereas in Islamic cultures such as Iran women are seen as active.

No wonder they have clothed them in black garbs and suppressed Eros in culture. Frithjof Schuon justified this by saying that in Kali Yuga one can't be sure of the virtuosity of either men or women so any trace of outright eroticism in society and culture should be done away with; this is not either realistic nor reasonable in my opinion. One can - and I'll argue that most will - feel even more lust towards women (or men) if they are clothed than if they are naked. We all know the west has gone into the opposite direction and we live in a hyper-sexualized civilization, which I think has only downplayed true erotic attraction. A balance would be direly needed.

[Nefastos]

according to European view sexuality of women has been seen as passive whereas in Islamic cultures such as Iran women are seen as active. I don't know how she comes to this conclusion but she makes this kind of statement in this book.

Could this have a connection to the Indian doctrine of shakti? In that doctrine, as we know, the feminine part – the wife, the force* – is the dynamic one. Iran isn't so far from the cradle of that idea.

(* This would be funnier in Finnish.)

[Kavi]

whereas in Islamic cultures such as Iran women are seen as active.

No wonder they have clothed them in black garbs and suppressed Eros in culture. Frithjof Schuon justified this by saying that in Kali Yuga one can't be sure of the virtuosity of either men or women so any trace of outright eroticism in society and culture should be done away with; this is not either realistic nor reasonable in my opinion. One can - and I'll argue that most will - feel even more lust towards women (or men) if they are clothed than if they are naked. We all know the west has gone into the opposite direction and we live in a hyper-sexualized civilization, which I think has only downplayed true erotic attraction. A balance would be direly needed.

I have to apologize for I re-read the chapter and forgot that Afsaneh is referring to earlier study and book by Fatima Mernissi "Beyond the Veil".
Nevertheless I might be quite a bad candidate to talk about this topic but I leave a citation just for interest.

p.132
"Fatima Mernissi’s Beyond the Veil (1975) offered a bold proposition about the structural work of the veil in Islamic societies.
Mernissi argued that Christianity and other Western philosophical traditions, including Freudian psychoanalysis, presumed a passive female sexuality.
Islamic doctrine, on the other hand, was based on the assumption of an active female sexuality.
If it is not contained and controlled, this powerful force would cause social
chaos (fitna) and threaten men’s civic and religious lives.
The veil and the closely related institutions of gender segregation are the mechanisms through which Muslim societies contain and control female sexuality.
This proposition is predicated on the heterosexual presumption that active female sexuality is eternally searching for a phallus.
If it were not, institutions of gender segregation would hardly contain and control it.
Quite the contrary! Moreover, if we do not assume the naturalness of heterosociality, any more than the naturalness of heterosexuality, if we consider heterosocialization as a social achievement, a learned performance, then we need to radically rethink the veil and gender segregation as institutions for regulation of heterosociality and prevention of unlicensed heterosexuality"

according to European view sexuality of women has been seen as passive whereas in Islamic cultures such as Iran women are seen as active. I don't know how she comes to this conclusion but she makes this kind of statement in this book.

Could this have a connection to the Indian doctrine of shakti? In that doctrine, as we know, the feminine part – the wife, the force* – is the dynamic one. Iran isn't so far from the cradle of that idea.

(* This would be funnier in Finnish.)

I have thought about this before but I haven't gotten any solution or "lead" that I could say yes.
I am way out of my field, but thinking of that sanskrit word soma in Avestan language is haoma, there could be some linkage to other ideas or doctrines too, but because thinking might change alongside with language or vice versa and due to historical events etc. so even then it's maybe better to withhold from making such certain conclusions.
Any way it's interesting topics!

I didn't know that it seems that (according to wiktionary) vaimo (the wife) really is cognated from proto-finnic word meaning spirit or soul... it makes this wordplay very interesting and funny, yes!
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstr ... nnic/vaimo

[Angolmois]

I didn't know about the etymology of vaimo as soul but it does make sense. Makes me think of pagan notions of the Lucifer-Ego as a feminine force such as a valkyrie, and also brings to my mind Tähtikoulut of Ervast where he says that the soul of a culture is transmitted through the Mother.

[Peregrina]

This all said, I think our biologico-sociological schemas are often more like opposing challenges than good signposts for an occultist. They point out to the past, while the spiritual challenges pave the road to future development. Evolving of species under pressure (not too much, or too little pressure, which would both turn us to regression instead) is a fact known to science, and for human beings such development to adepthood does not need to require millions of years, but mere thousands. This is because our more advanced help within, the Master, makes for us possible to make the best out of our biologico-sociological states.

That was my prologue "against biology", by which I mean biology taken as a reason to remain in something that is familiar for us as a species.

I get your point and I believe such is the case with many or even most biologico-sociological schemas, though in the case of polyamory the challenge might not be directing one's wayward energies to one relationship but to accept that the demand of monogamy is as unhealthy to many as selibacy is.

My most important point is: Almost anyone who have been in monogamous relationship based on love knows how demanding it is to create that intimate union which seeks to take into consideration every aspect of one's partner. To be truly considerate, and to grow together as a result. The more intimate the relationship is, the more deep, the more one has to immerse oneself into the partner's psyche also. And the balance thus created is a careful unity of two different people. This is extremely demanding a process, the two in many ways becoming a solid one, energetically. (This is why the alchemical Great Work is symbolically a union between the husband and the wife. These are the two cosmic polarities, the two polarities in one aspirant, and two polarities in a romantic relationship.)

Thus, to consider not making the alchemy simpler, but even more complicated, by adding a new component/s to this demanding process of two, sounds pretty much overwhelming. I believe there is only one possibility in most such relationships: to compromise the depth sector. Only if the energies are no longer that intensely intimate, can they be left flowing to several directions. But this would be the opposite of the Great Work, which seeks more intimate unity, polarities immersing to form a new being, that would be like a ideal amalgam of its two component parts. Now, of course, one may not think the relationship as the Great Work! In case the relationship is instead comradeship, friendship, possibility to explore the self, receive & give warmth & love, and remain working on one's own Great Work only inside oneself, such a removed energetical sector may become unnecessary to think about, at least to such an utmost degree. There may be all kind of good results even though there is less tying intimacy.

I tend to think that all the people we meet and interact with are part of the Great Work. And I am a bit sceptical about the idea that one romantic/ sexual partner could fulfill all soul-level needs, though perhaps there is a difference in the way different types of karmic streams/souls operate. Perhaps others thrive best when being all over the place and gathering what they need for growth from many different sources and others benefit most when focusing on certain relationships and activities.
Or perhaps I'm merely romanticising the spirit of our AD/HD-age because I'm heavily influenced by it and alchemical marriage is possible only for those who are more centered and can distinguish wants from needs

My examples of the idea were admittedly badly slithered to, which is a common problem for me especially when I have to come up with them fast (O how much trust hangs on the clarity of arguments! It is unfortunate that people often take their stances and positions according to the clarity some argument has been expressed, and not seriously considering also the more faint voices that are yet to completely unearth - a tragedy of my life).

I struggle with this too, or perhaps the problem is that I don't struggle enough but have accepted too easily the idea that I don't know how to build clear arguments when I should have learned how to do it. Sort of got a bit depressed when realising how poor my argumentative skills are and just dropped the case. Luckily I can't run from this challenge anymore

[Smaragd]

My examples of the idea were admittedly badly slithered to, which is a common problem for me especially when I have to come up with them fast (O how much trust hangs on the clarity of arguments! It is unfortunate that people often take their stances and positions according to the clarity some argument has been expressed, and not seriously considering also the more faint voices that are yet to completely unearth - a tragedy of my life).

I struggle with this too, or perhaps the problem is that I don't struggle enough but have accepted too easily the idea that I don't know how to build clear arguments when I should have learned how to do it. Sort of got a bit depressed when realising how poor my argumentative skills are and just dropped the case. Luckily I can't run from this challenge anymore

I think I can make quite good arguments, but the problem is that many times the things are so deep and previously unexpressed or not expressed many times enough so that I could pour out the whole thing clear as crystal. Each time I give words to these things, they seem to get some of that mud off. To some it seems like words are a burden themselves and I understand the heaviness coming from words not being enough, and thus having some unnecessary mass on them, but it seems like these perspective might be about the same thing coming from two different directions: words not being enough is the muddyness of expression, and making an effort to lift the swamp monster out many times enough would eventually make words enough. The more occult things we are nearing the harder it seems to give words to them, but I guess everything will have some more or less perfect expression before the whole world is lifted back into non-existence.