Our argument against the ultimate interpretation of the "My Body my Choice" doctrine of feminism is in the first place of philosophical nature which than later emanates into the practical realm namely as all of the phenomena as the bodily phenomenon itself being inherently selfless, without its own substance, meaning it is not only selfless but empty too as well as being subjected to the law of impermanence. The question is asked here, therefore, is whether the body (the physical personality) is permanent or impermanent? The answer is to this question is of course that it is impermanent. It is subjected to birth, sickness, aging and death, nothing we can absolutely control. The next question, following the first one, here asked is whether Is this body that we have is not only impermanent but also sorrowful or happy? The answer to this one is that it is sorrowful. And lastly, the question asked here is whether that of what is impermanent, sorrowful and liable to change, could it really be proper to be regarded as ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my mind?’ The answer is that if we want to be happy and not suffer it is better to let go of the delusion that this body is mine or that I am this body and better to admit that I am not this body, it is not me or mine and more often not than yes, my body is not my choice. Fact is that the body can't even be considered as self because by definition the body does not have the characteristics of the self and in the sense that it has no core
Our second argument against the concept of "My Body, My Choice" especially in its ultimate interpretation is tightly related and connected with the belief in a permanent self that would negate the usefulness of the moral life. In fact, the concept of "My Body, My Choice" in its unequivocal ultimate meaning as a part of feminist materialist understanding of the permanent self is basically immoral at its very core. Here we should remember and emphasize that if there were a self it should be autonomous, but as we have seen above no such thing is to be found. Matter as any other human characteristic can't be defined as permanent thus it is not the self. Were matter self, then the body would not be subject to affliction, one should be able to say to it ’Let my body be thus; Let my body be not thus’ and in a social context we must have been able to do the same saying "Let things be thus; Let thing not be thus" yet partially it is impossible and partially plain and simple immoral if we do so. I'll be talking about this dynamic immediately
But as we have said this is not possible; the body is shifting and is ever in change and, therefore, ever accompanied by misery and affliction at least at some degree or extent. It is also subjected to forces, dynamics, phenomena, occurrences and interaction especially on the social collective level that are beyond our ability to control. Accordingly, it cannot be the self. The same is repeated for the other aspects of the personality. The conclusion is, therefore, reached that all these things, whether past, future or presently arisen, in one self or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, are all to be viewed thus: ‘This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not myself.’ In fact, all misery arises from the delusion of a permanent self which lies at the basis of hedonism and egoism thus in all evil. Feminism is but the epitome of this decadence which takes it to extremity. The most effective therapeutic effect against the folly of seeking to gratify longings is the realization that there is no truth in the doctrine of a permanent self
More specifically, the individual consists of what can be described as mentality, cognition or the cognitive psychological structure of human consciousness, and matter that is the body. More usually, he is said to consist of five aggregates (groups, masses, etc.), given as matter (the physical body), feelings (emotions as well as sensations), perceptions (thoughts, concepts, ideations and so on), tendencies (also understood as will, volition, dispositions, character-complexes and many more) and cognition (consciousness, mind, intellect). Body corresponds to matter and the four other aggregates to mentality, mind. While including mind and other element coexist and interact in the external world especially the body and in a wider sense its element coexist and cooperate without any ability to control it on a social level to guarantee the survival of the species. It is not only the obvious mating and reproduction process but also protection and especially the economic cooperation
Based on the Gynocentric principles that are rooted in the Troubadour culture which among its many influence is entrenched and has evolved from the Muslim heritage of philosophical, cultural, religious as well as social and musical heritage of Mosarabic Spain, a new paradigm has grown and has emerged into the form of extreme tightening of sexual criminal law and mores based on the secular sanctification of the female body putting it in a sacral position where women as a whole are worshipped as Goddesses – if not actual than by the concept and ideal which now seems to prevail not only in the religious domain but even in ideology-critical circles. As such, the Western civilization has deviated from its Judeo Christian heritage and now meets over the feminist cause and realm in the Islamic sexual morality especially in that it performs a as aforesaid an extreme form of the sanctification of the female body which may perhaps at the beginning be perceived as flattering to women but turn into disaster especially for them at the end. As such, "Sexual Transgression" will not be seen and handled anymore by punishing the offender by law with due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty but it is now thought as a form of secular blasphemy and in the logic of profanation, the de-sanctification of the saint. When this happens then the law isn't enough or not valid and one practices the same outrage, whether one only touches the material object of worship or completely breaks it by throwing it on the ground. It is distinguished only quantitatively and contextually independent on the severity of the transgression
In this sense, secular jurists humble themselves to be priests of an archaic cultic community, which assimilates the offenses against the society to imagined women's bodies, including sanctions, and to set the exceptions to the prohibition of contact. The expropriation of women by their sanctification into the female sacral position, which is pursued by such sacred protection, which reminds us of the passion of Medieval Knights, is twofold: only the potential victim, the one who's not been hurt, is not only the one that is needed for the confirmation of morality, the mass hysteria and the sanctification itself so that the process can keep going is also, but this victim is also the one that is interested in the subject of sanctification and is used as tool through brain washing, mind control and social engineering while the actual victim of sexual violence lacks completely any kind of public empathy. Hence, it is done with the aim at regaining subjectivity to perpetuate the status of victims and to put it as a sacred in a mix of over-identification and victim-envy in front of the cart of their own campaigns, the outcome is that all of this is done while disregarding the true victims of sexual violence and instead of apologizing to the them. In this situation and based on the empathy with the victims it would have been to be very different. And if victims would feel hurt by the letter it would be a proof that they have already fallen into the clutches of victims' advocates and feminists, from which they must be freed as soon as possible
Additionally, on top of that and from a different perspective or point of view, if my body is my ultimate choice than why going to war to defend my family, why risking our lives by trying to help or rescue others or why working for the benefit of my family and society. Whether we want or not, in the world of forms and relativity, we have all to sell our body (and mind) for work and other things depending on external conditions and circumstances. In other words, again more for men than women, those kind of obligations whether work related or otherwise, it's paid prostitution without sex and sometimes plain and simple unpaid forced prostitution. We are forced to defend our collective, family, state and society. As I said, more often without any choice, being forced to do so, than having this choice, men are forced into military service to sacrifice themselves. It is true especially for men and much less for women. Additionally, whether by law or through the unwillingness of women, men are forced to sacrifice themselves in dangerous jobs too. Again, this is not only unpaid but sometimes forced or better said manipulated prostitution of men without the sexual aspect. The reason that we do all those things is that the other option, namely that of violating the selfless equation of inter-being or interconnectedness of all life, we create suffering both for ourselves and others. The none dual golden rule here is that when I suffer you suffer and when you suffer I suffer. In that sense, in its modern and especially post-modern expression feminism is the epitome and embodiment of evil and immorality that creates this suffering. This is the feminist decadent end game which aims to destroy society and lies also at the very basis of the #metoo campaign
Anyway, the claim here is not to be found within the relative realm. In that sense, being a part of relativity depending on the circumstances and conditions, the concept may hold validity on many levels. It is clear that this applied concept, is valid and is accurate when it comes to true victims of sexual assault and violence. For example, when it comes to the right to choose your partner or even an abortion in the case that it can save the mother's life. However, in the same realm the problem is that most of those rights historically as well as in in modern times do not apply to men who have no reproductive rights, nor rights on their body (whether it is, for example, the right not to be raped by women, pay for their female rapist and thus not even the basic right as women have not to be raped at all. On the other hand, the fact is that even those principles that are valid in this context in the relative sphere are not valid in other concepts. For instance, an abortion might be a legitimate cause when saving the life of the mother yet the same act turns to murder when it is supposed to justify the sexual irresponsibility of a woman who had sex and now wants to abort the baby not to speak that there is a father who might want him. The problem and immorality begins when the relative is projected through sanctification of the female body into the absolute while being no more in harmony with the relative aspect. It is there were problem start. As the saying goes "wisdom says we are nothing; love and compassion say we are everything. Metaphysically said, to ultimately know the truth, we must de-construct the form yet de-construction is only one way of the journey, we must than rebuild it not only with love and compassion but by harmonizing both the relative as well as ultimate forms of wisdom and insight. The feminist manipulation of science, metaphysics, truth and reality lies in that they chose one way and thus rip everything apart into destruction
Back to the very reality of our world, the accusation of staring (stare rape), for example, accidental or just a friendly warm touch as a gesture and expression of genuine warmth and humanity, is emblematic of those who represent an alienated generation for whom the hours of staring at displays is the preferred or sole form of seeing and human communication, while every human interaction, be it a simple touch or god forbid a flirting eye contact, is considered insulting and sexual assault, as long as it exceeds the milliseconds necessary to evaluate the digital portraits of potential sexual partners on Tinder or new friends on Facebook ( and as in regard to their usefulness for their own networking). That is why rights and freedoms are called in to a public that is being routinely destroyed by its armored body apparatuses. What was once a place of seeing and being seen, they have transformed it into their limitless narcissism of their private sphere as well as the collective trail that likes to be a red carpet, but only in terms of the silent admirers. On the way to the café they make themselves with plugs in the or oversized headphones on the ear and smartphone in the hand, from which they only avert the gaze to people who dare to be crowded by them. Then they stomp into the subway or tram, not to read books or talk about them with strangers, but to post alphabetical testimonials on Facebook or to harass passengers with their annoying presence and phone calls. And yet they are stared or stare each other, not by their own kind, but by old people, who in most cases either, as in traffic accidents, must look fascinated, without actually wanting it, or in vain of sympathy for the rest of the stupid bustle and its desire for life
Arrived at the café, they get their notebooks out to continue their home office and to make an open-plan office with like-minded freelancers from a convivial place. Not only do they mix public and private, they occupy the public and leisure of others with their private work like an occupying power and hallucinate any resistance to their desexualizing encroachment as interpersonal, possibly sexual harassment. So why should a generation that does not know at all, what the older folks mean, when they talk about flirting because they neither know nor miss this practice, be susceptible to warning them not to equate them with sexual assaults? And does not the accelerated development again prove, every day, merely that there is absolutely nothing left to learn from these old people, which could be relevant for coping with everyday life and work? That is why the alienating and de-personified of hatred is actually not meant or is the characteristic of the old, white men, but also for women, who are too conservative, meaning that they have too good a memory to make tabula rasa with the past. A critique of ideology that clings to the reconciliation of the individual and society, man and woman, humanity and nature, thus betrays itself if it makes only a single concession to the #metoo mania, full of people with self-hate and contempt
References and Further Reading:
1. The Discourse on the Aggregates (Two Types) | S 22.48/3:47 f
Theme: The aggregates are the limits of our being
Translated by Piya Tan ©2005
2. A study of the 1st aggregate as the 4 elements
by Piya Tan ©200
3. The Truth of Anatta
Dr. G.P. Malalasekera
4. Asexuelle Belästigung
Redaktion Bahamas
Comentarii