465. The Implications Of Temptation
Somewhere I read a man's opinion about temptations and at first I was a bit astonished.
It was in connection with remarks about the weird focus of the christian religion upon the repentant sinner. In christianity, the repentant sinner is valued more than the innocent person, who has never done harm. The repentant sinner seems to be the preferred role model of displayed obedience to the deity, whose restored power is considered as more important than sparing the victims from being harmed.
Somewhere I read a man's opinion about temptations and at first I was a bit astonished.
It was in connection with remarks about the weird focus of the christian religion upon the repentant sinner. In christianity, the repentant sinner is valued more than the innocent person, who has never done harm. The repentant sinner seems to be the preferred role model of displayed obedience to the deity, whose restored power is considered as more important than sparing the victims from being harmed.
Deities seem to be more often than not imagined as somewhat narcissistic. This is not really astonishing considering how their representatives on earth consider themselves as mirroring the deity having allegedly been created to resemble him. Those representatives do not experience enough submission to both the deity and themselves from those, who never do anything bad enough to be forgiven by the deity.
This man stated as a generalized opinion, that he is more impressed, gives more credit and has more respect for those, who resist and conquer temptations than for those, who are free from these temptations. This view focuses on evaluation and judging the real or potential perpetrator only and it not concerned about the potential victims.
While the religions' repentant sinner has conquered his previous weakness of succumbing to temptation, there is a related concept of struggling with temptations, to which also outspoken atheists adhere.
This can only be explained by looking at it from the point of what some men value themselves as their ideal of masculinity, which unfortunately includes competing, fighting and winning. If the winning cannot be over another man, then at least it has to be a hard victory over oneself.
Therefore in a man's perception of treating women, masculinity can be either expressed by luring them into bed or by having a strong temptation to do so, but overcoming this temptation. The reasons to choose between the two options are both reasons according to male judgment, in both varieties the women are objects and targets, whose own wishes do not count. The reasons to resist temptations are often religiously or philosophically motivated or else they are utilitarian for gaining some compensation or not losing further access to a specific woman's body. It is clearly only based upon how men are judging each other, not concern or consideration for women. Sparing the potential victims is not a part of such masculinity.
Here again is a case, where men use religion to value and justify the expression of their own subconscious instinctivity, which is consciously experienced as masculinity. As long as they are respected by other men, their lack of concern about the impact upon women is perceived as excused.
Seen from the point of view of someone, who does not want to be a victim, the evaluation is very different. Because the person, who does not want to be hurt, wishes to feel more safe and less at risk and is not bothered about masculinity.
As an analogy, someone living at the bank of a river tends to feel the more safe and relaxed, the longer there had not been any flood. But as low as the probability of a flood may seem due to the past experience of its absence, the possibility cannot be excluded. The person is still aware of living at an unsafe place, while the person living on a hill above the river can really feel safe, because there is no probability of ever being flooded.
The man, who is susceptible to be tempted to cheat, but who resists temptation, can be experienced as dwindling risk by estimated probability, the longer and the more often he does successfully resist temptation. But the risk remains, because nobody can predict, if in the future he will nevertheless cheat under changed circumstances.
Only the man, who is not tempted to cheat, because he is predominantly attracted to a woman's brain and personality, offers the relaxed safe haven, which the man, who merely controls his temptations, can never offer.
More drastically expressed: A man fighting temptations needs will-power as a crutch for a moral disability. The man without temptations can walk freely.
In entries 206 and 208 I expressed my attraction to psychological androgynity. Masculinity and femininity in thinking, attitude and subconsciously determined behaviors are a result of instinctive difference leading to distinctive gender roles. Taking away the impact of all those detrimental instincts, there can be psychologically androgynous humans, who have no need to fight, compete, exploit or seduce. Instead they are able to be just egalitarian monogamous humans with a brain for shared joys and companionship.
This man stated as a generalized opinion, that he is more impressed, gives more credit and has more respect for those, who resist and conquer temptations than for those, who are free from these temptations. This view focuses on evaluation and judging the real or potential perpetrator only and it not concerned about the potential victims.
While the religions' repentant sinner has conquered his previous weakness of succumbing to temptation, there is a related concept of struggling with temptations, to which also outspoken atheists adhere.
This can only be explained by looking at it from the point of what some men value themselves as their ideal of masculinity, which unfortunately includes competing, fighting and winning. If the winning cannot be over another man, then at least it has to be a hard victory over oneself.
Therefore in a man's perception of treating women, masculinity can be either expressed by luring them into bed or by having a strong temptation to do so, but overcoming this temptation. The reasons to choose between the two options are both reasons according to male judgment, in both varieties the women are objects and targets, whose own wishes do not count. The reasons to resist temptations are often religiously or philosophically motivated or else they are utilitarian for gaining some compensation or not losing further access to a specific woman's body. It is clearly only based upon how men are judging each other, not concern or consideration for women. Sparing the potential victims is not a part of such masculinity.
Here again is a case, where men use religion to value and justify the expression of their own subconscious instinctivity, which is consciously experienced as masculinity. As long as they are respected by other men, their lack of concern about the impact upon women is perceived as excused.
Seen from the point of view of someone, who does not want to be a victim, the evaluation is very different. Because the person, who does not want to be hurt, wishes to feel more safe and less at risk and is not bothered about masculinity.
As an analogy, someone living at the bank of a river tends to feel the more safe and relaxed, the longer there had not been any flood. But as low as the probability of a flood may seem due to the past experience of its absence, the possibility cannot be excluded. The person is still aware of living at an unsafe place, while the person living on a hill above the river can really feel safe, because there is no probability of ever being flooded.
The man, who is susceptible to be tempted to cheat, but who resists temptation, can be experienced as dwindling risk by estimated probability, the longer and the more often he does successfully resist temptation. But the risk remains, because nobody can predict, if in the future he will nevertheless cheat under changed circumstances.
Only the man, who is not tempted to cheat, because he is predominantly attracted to a woman's brain and personality, offers the relaxed safe haven, which the man, who merely controls his temptations, can never offer.
More drastically expressed: A man fighting temptations needs will-power as a crutch for a moral disability. The man without temptations can walk freely.
In entries 206 and 208 I expressed my attraction to psychological androgynity. Masculinity and femininity in thinking, attitude and subconsciously determined behaviors are a result of instinctive difference leading to distinctive gender roles. Taking away the impact of all those detrimental instincts, there can be psychologically androgynous humans, who have no need to fight, compete, exploit or seduce. Instead they are able to be just egalitarian monogamous humans with a brain for shared joys and companionship.
