Archive for May, 2009

Never let it be said that JW is coy about borrowing themes and orchestrations. Much of 0:00 to 1:13 sounds like pure rehearsal of the finale from Hanson’s 2nd Symphony. But you have to admire a stylish jewel thief, one who is allegro con brio!

Love ♥, andrea


Read Full Post »

Dear jokey Youtubepooper,

Take yourself back to the more innocent days when all you wanted to do was post oldies you liked. Ah shucks.

Still, this feel-good song is both bittersweet and idealistic about the possibility of life-transforming love.

Perhaps the greatest secret of happiness is to be able sincerely to offer someone everlasting love and erotic intimacy as the pinnacle of your friendship and respect.

Then to do this with several people simultaneously – time, emotional energy and toothpaste stocks permitting 😉

That is the flaming insight of polyamoury. Compersion and pleasure in your lovers sharing themselves with other people is a noble ideal, the very opposite and antidote to jealousy.

Couple this with a rejection of sex and gender dimorphism, and an understanding that there are only people, not women or men, nor even the very attractive persons we perceive as trans, or intersex or androgynous. I know I say this often, but I may be excused, because the propaganda of dimorphic hetero-normativity is shouted from every bill-board and street corner we walk past. And I know I say this as a sex and gender queer-campaigner, who often slides herself into the radical trans or androgyne rainbow.

A world of polyamourous persons, who are not sex or gender typed, and with many, many differing affectional orientations. Now doesn’t that sound delicious?

Regards and ♥, andrea

Read Full Post »

Dear Ridha,

Honestly, I hate to stand out from the crowd ;-). But the psychosexual system within the Islamic Ideology (play-acted here with such cringingly bad stagecraft), the system of guilt about ones erotic self, and the fragmentation of oneself into elements of purer or truer personhood stripped of public erotic power, such a system is …. well, it is shockingly perverse nonsense.

One key error is that a political rights problem in hetero-normative relations – viz a supposed individual power imbalance between XY and XX people – is inverted and internalised into a matter of shame within the self of the XX person claiming political injustice. I say “supposed”, because we XX people kick ass. Our emotional depth, maturity, expressiveness and engageablity make most XY people look mere amateurs at life and love. Aphrodite and Athena combined are the mistresses of the world.

The predominant XY envy of such knowledge, and our creative power to give birth, animates much of the nastiness of Abrahamic monotheism, in particular the twisted condemnation of our wisdom and selves as earthy or carnal or profane. Of course, this condemnation is slyly re-packaged as “higher-respect”. The sort of non-respect expressed in denial of political equality, and paranoid hyper-management of our romantic and erotic lives….

…. and most perfectly signalled by attempts to internalise this hyper-scrutiny by the very system of self-shame portrayed in this laughable vid.

My goddess, s/he removed her hijab. Shock-horror. F*ck me, I’ll be taking off my knickers next, when I come across some sexy XX person, or maybe an XY character fitted with a penis, whom I want to get moist and intimate with. How haram. Whatever next? Making out at some trans poly-party? Tut, tut, I need brainwashing with more Quranic studies.

The person at 2:43 says “you don’t realise you’re getting brainwashed”. Never was so much criticism of oneself and ones co-religionists voiced by someone so unaware!

I recommend a better education system, in which everyone is taught from infancy to age 16, by appropriate steps, that we are polyamourous and bisexual. This would allow an easy communications channel between self-image and the still dominant dimorphic hetero-normative public ideology. Without such a reconciliation process, youngsters might grow up a little confused 😉

Then at 16, for A-levels, we should learn that sex and gender dimorphism is an illusion. We would step up to the graduation ceremony with the visionary understanding that there is no female or male. Only a world of fabulous, erotic-positive adult persons, with a thousand varying affectional orientations, driven by love and reverence and desire for each other. That is a genuine system of progressive, humanist morality, not this arid desert dogma.

Regards, andrea ♥

Read Full Post »

Oh yes, when I’m sprightly stepping down Piccadilly or strolling along Birdcage Walk, laughing and flirting with a dear friend, perhaps the “Sherlock Holmes of the Heart”, this jaunty march has me twirling my parasol.

Who would not want to kiss and get undressed with each passer-by, with the summer’s warmth and Coates’ melody in ones feelings!

August, Hyde Park, wearing beautiful linen and cotton and silk dresses, intimate company, scandalous conversation, love and the Proms Season ….

… That is heaven on earth, or at least a fine life in this wicked city.

Regards and ♥ andrea

Read Full Post »

I like the juridical concept of certainty in evidence of wrongdoing, if by this is meant proof beyond reasonable doubt, in the minds of panels of independent jurors determining criminal accusations.

I also like the idea of weighty penalties for witnesses who perjure themselves when giving evidence against defendants.

I moreover like the idea of degrees of reasonable belief (7:15), and the appropriateness of differing degrees of belief to different types of decision-making. The weightier the consequences of the decision, especially if mistaken, the higher the required degree of reasonable belief.

But, this learned Islamic scholar is wrong to equate (i) easy going trust and confidence in social relations with (ii) complete lack of doubt about someone’s motives or beliefs.

That the delightful pleasures of making love with different people could possibly be equated (6:20) with the evil of murder shows a perverted scale of moral values. Adultery is a non-concept. The world would be a better place if we all were openly and joyfully polyamourous and bisexual.

The root problem is crystallised by the scholar at 3:00 and 8:30. Religious belief is to be equated with complete certainty. Indeed, religion has the function of collective thought-control – the bringing of a group of people into synchronised belief, where each person does not doubt what s/he believes, and does not doubt that all others hold exactly the same beliefs. That is why religion is the enemy of an open, democratic, critical, evolving society, and of radical freedom of expression.

The quote at 3:25 from Russell, a life-long critic of religion, doesn’t reflect the fact that Bertie was being ironical about the deleterious effects of people’s hunger for certainty.

In fact, there is never complete certainty, not even in such things as fundamental rules of inference, such as NOT [ p and NOT p ]. There are only provisional hypotheses, selected as the best currently available from the range of alternate explanations, in the light of the evidence. It is precisely the thirst for absolute, unquestionable, “blinding” certainty that is the nub of the neurotic impulse, whether in religion, science, love, or logic.

To be grown-up, is to learn how to live calmly with doubt, regarding ones own thoughts and yearnings, the lives and feelings of others, and the constitution of the world. C’est la vie, mes amis.

Regards and ♥, andrea

Read Full Post »

Dear cdk007,

Great vid. I have a puzzle. Your wisdom welcome.

There are good arguments against being self-fertile. Or at least, being self-fertile by default, as opposed to during stressful environmental conditions. But the deeper question is why is there sexual dimorphism at all? For this argument, let us define “sex type” as a derivative concept. Sex-type is any n-type morphology, where not all members of the species possess simultaneously all features required for reproduction.

Let’s say in humans there are five such features or stages (this is not a rigorous scheme):

(a) fractional reduction of the genetic code (ie meiosis)

(b) recombination of code with variation (ie syngamy or fertilisation)

(c) prenatal development of offspring (ie pregnancy)

(d) birth of offspring

(e) nurture during early infant stages (particularly breast feeding)

In other words, sex-type is merely a combinatorial function upon the stages needed for reproduction. This can be seen as a generalisation of the trad F & M physiological scheme in humans, whereby F =(def) ovaries + XX chromosomal type + production of ova; and M =(def) testes + XY + production of sperm.

I emphasis the derivative nature of physiological sex-type, to make plain that scientific research in pursuit of the true essence of such sex-types, let alone psycho-social constructs such as gender identity and gender role, is essentially a metaphysical red-herring. At the risk of sounding paradoxical, there are no essential or natural types, merely scientific definitions currently agreed upon by convention.

As you say, the essence, so to speak, of sexual reproduction is not the X/Y sex-determination system, nor so-called primary and secondary sexual characteristics, but the two stage system of diplophase and haplophase, with meiosis and syngamy as linkages from one to the other (eg Kondrashov 1988).

Now, we lucky XX chromosomal types (assuming standard morphology rather than natal intersex or trans surgery) can do all five steps, but we require the supply of the other fraction of the genetic code at (b), traditionally obtained by f*cking some good looking XY person, though syringes and teaspoons are serviceable 😉

I return to the deeper question above, which we may now reframe as follows:

– what is the evolutionary explanation as to why there are no examples of non-self-fertile “true simultaneous hermaphrodite” higher mammals?

There might be some increased costs in all persons carrying the complete physiology for reproduction, but whatever these costs might be, they seem (i) trivial, and lost in the noise of natural variation within a species, and (ii) outweighed by not having to search for members of a different sex-type in order to get fertilised. We would still have all the evolutionary joys of frequency of genetic recombination and mate choice.

Plus we retain the hypothesis that reproduction mechanisms that provide for DNA repair and complementation have a distinct advantage.

Regards and ♥, andrea the Complete Sex and Gender Rebel, who wishes people would stop classifying themselves as women or men.

PS: I remark with the relish of my Feminazi side that since we happy XX people can now technologically extract the other haploid half of the code from each other and do IVF, XY is redundant. How beautiful the world will be, when the further step is taken and bio-chemistry and/or genetic modification leads to no more XY people 😉 .


In short, a great question to which I can only respond, I don’t know.

Read Full Post »

The fact that so many people clap at the implicit argument at 0:40 shows how ingrained is the perverse morality of “blame the victim” within the Islamic Ideology.

In a jurisdiction based on liberty, one is free to wear (i) shame culture clothes like Black Bin Liners, or (ii) clothes suited to independent adults in charge of their erotic personality, such as sexy shorts or skirts.

If someone is cheeky to me, I have the b*llls to say STFU. I do not shuffle around in a shroud of death.

I prefer wearing shorts in hot weather. In fact, I would prefer to walk naked in the sunshine, except for some stunning jewellery, and another beautiful XX person holding my hand, as we discuss what to buy and who to make love with in the evening. Maybe we would just be a pair of scissor sisters 😉

A central problem in the Islamic Ideology is the neurotic assumption that erotic relations are inherently predatory, and should not occupy the public realm. This provides an excuse or pretext for saying:

(a) we XX people should always be supervised in our romantic and erotic lives

(b) we should dress in such a way as not to provoke other people into behaving wrongly

(c) XY people are somehow inherently disposed to behave like drooling school kids or become rapists.

It should be a central feature of the public realm in a world of grown-ups that we frequently engage in playful, respectful but thrilling erotic interchange: from glances, to flirting, to kisses, to the most flagrant making-out. That is because humans are inherently social and erotic creatures, much like our closest genetic cousins, the Bonobo monkeys. They are female-centred, have strong XX bonds, are relatively peaceful and quite egalitarian.

Further, there is a close correlation between playfulness, an erotic-positive culture, a lack of interpersonal violence, and the degree of inventiveness and creativity in societies. May I politely suggest that one reason contemporary strict Islamic societies (Saudi, Afghanistan) are so uninventive and so violent is because of the repression of the erotic.

Give it some thought, my dear sister humans,

Regards and ♥ andrea

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »