this song goes to the heart of something I must tackle
…the concept of LOVE
We all already know about the prevalence of that famous Swedish city behind the syndrome, but I feel that there is more to discuss
Namely – a woman’s subjective feeling of being loved, or loving a man. there seems to be a bit of a shut-down, sometimes, the moment the L-word is trotted out.
I truly & deeply subscribe to the notion that a male simply will not offer anything beyond Transactional Affection. The clever ones will behave benevolently , if they so choose – as they see dividends in the total adoration & offering up of body+soul that flows back from a woman/girl in response ( but only if they remain on top in all material +organizational sense). I personally feel overwhelmed whenever a man does something, anything of normal human value ( in decency +emotion). Super basic things – like kiss a puppy, or a chiropractor treating a patient in an attuned, gentle manner… but only when he does it to somebody else. It always feels realistic when done to me – on the ‘2 in a lifetime’ occasions this has occurred (not sure if it even adds up to that!)
When you’re used to seeing your sadistic guards outside , while you’re pacing your cage – you ‘re stunned when 1’ll extend a flower thru the cage. i wish it was only stunned , in fact. For all those normal-emotive XXers out there & not the restrained, cynical types (which I am ) – this develops into something much, much worse
Which is why I must lay out my own, personal definition of Love. it was inspired by watching a young woman +her sheepdog enjoy each other outside of my window. They ran thru those fancy exercises, where the doggie does Figure-8s thru the mistress’ legs, caught a frisbee// …but then the dog just leapt into the lady’s arms spontaneously & they spent a few moments loving up on each other. My heart melted
Now…, i know full -well that domestic canines ‘re imprisoned creatures, who traded their wolf-freedom for hopefully a longer life +steadier food with humans/ In fact, i’m starting to think that it’s possibly women who domesticated them – as in they chose to follow us to camp -sensing that WE’d be fair to them in return for their loyalty+work. it all went TERRIBLY wrong once our the parasites of our species cut in on the deal/ of course, it did! what don’t they fucking ruin?!
But still – it registers to me as a form of acceptable love, under the circumstances. It flows back & forth on the same channel. Dogs’re programmed to look up to the pack leader & were before we became a team, but they also aren’t stupid – they can sense human emotions better than we can sometimes
& women’re programmed to bond with anything – even inanimate objects. Because we’re awesome that way + we know how to vibe along with life with life, without clobbering it into submission
So here it goes:
love is patient. love is kind. & all that Bible business
but what is NOT
is subjective, or coercively obtained
How how in Dead Sea Hippie’s name!? do I wrangle this concept down into words?>?
Well, to me it is simply a form of strong mutual bonding, of equal value, built-up over time , via a series of binding experiences. & it is not something that can be erased retrospectively. But here’s the Horcrux of it
it must rest on a feeling of safety
Seeing as absolutely ALL male transactional affection is inherently unsafe & women must be lulled into a false feeling of it >this leads me to the following resolution
For as long as I live, I will never , ever, refer to the bonding of males -to-females as LOVE
for this is (not only!) a travesty, (which leads to much betrayal trauma) ; but an inaccuracy which a pedant, like myself – shan’t accept
Just like a woman’s rose-coloured perception of rape doesn’t render it mute as being rape – her perception of love cannot be held subjectively valid in this regard. I cant’ stress the subjective part enough, in fact . for all the believer that I am [in grey areas]- this one MUST be Black +White like a chessboard
Now, back to the mundane
That song is evocative to me : In the year of yonder, *1996*, my mama undertook some aerobics classes to it – to get into shape – for the booty-sale pics – that’d get us here/ highly educational stuff on the reality of the world to a super-smart girl & her super-educated mummy
But this is Very interesting 🧐
That’d be the 70s phenomenon ‘The Thornbirds’
I initially read it in a Russian translation, which must’ve smoothed over the badness – cos I didn’t figure out what on earth Germaine Greer meant by the titular quote
After looking into the original i, indeed, found the the writing flowery&/questioning why on Earth this super hottie doesn’t;t ditch the robe& Run off to Tinseltown.
but the gruesome female realities stayed with me./ I read this @16 (while being a far more clued lassie than i;d have preferred ) it was still unflinchingly graphic in its; description of Maggie being marital-raped 3(!)times in/a row on her wedding night< leaving/ her in so much pain/that she cannot move &must share the bed with her internal batterer. It later goes into why it hurts this much : <the spouse uses 30s condoms . When she later tricks him into baby making <<the ordeal goes down easier.
Bizarro graphic element was the……….tit-f*cking..which the husband Contends with out of his kind heart(lol) to spare her more intercourse horror. Weirdly, in the TV version -they pushed his homosocial nature far enough to almost seem closeted .
Colleen was a strange wench with a strange writing style .It was both incredibly good &Incredibly awful simultaneously. Her talent lay in creating such a vivid fiery atmosphere ,that the soap opera somehow managed to transcend itself. There;s no other author like her .
The reason she belongs on my man-hating blog : is the lady herself +the reason for her choosing this plot. She was rather a character:
A Cambridge neuroscientist in 60s ::she found herself not being paid the family wage the men were -even after Equal PAy came in. she turned to writing to supplement her life as a single female. She chose romance as in inroad allocated to lady authors ,^she chose this story as it reflects her own family history . THere really was a priest,who poached the wealth which shoulda belonged to the family, from a rich old lady. Sexually Ignorant Maggie- was her mother. Dane was her brother. She wrote herself in _as the rebellious Justine. The Maori connection was also there: Colleen is 1/4 Maori
@the heart of it all SHE WISHED TO EXPLORE THE CHARACTER OF A SACRIFICIAL WOMAN ( as she was nothing like that herself).
The miniseries sported an epic fail of a miscast for the Priest. Nowhere near hot enough+ too old+ a softie. + acting range running the gamut from X to Z . . .Book Ralph was a haughty, *knows he’s hot to trot* type of meanie with a cold, ambitious drive, who GETS TO HAVE IT ALL IN THE END. > While the actor looks like he hugs Teddy bears in bed.. &Boy did they flub those nude, semi_nude scenes……….not least of all cause Richie Chamberlain shoulda been sent off for a 40 y.o.Virgin – style depilation!~Meggie expressly finds in the book – that she was revolted by Luke’s body hair &turned on by Ralph’s smoothness. Sporting the pellet of a dead ferret on his chest DOES NOT an EPIC HOTTIE make .~! & how does Meggie not cough up hairballs |gross|
A)contemplate the ins & outs of ways in which a priest could sex discreetly
B)educate Meggie about menARCHE
c)scheme, flirt `then drop his pants in front of the rich lady
d)not be dumb enough to get caught in the midst on hanky-panky, young
E)not put-out for the rich lady, keeping her nice&hungry
……be bright enough to work @not knocking his beloved, errr–groomed object of desire up…after she came this close to dying in childbirth a mere 4 months prior…@which event his Eminence was PRESENT + biting his nails. I mean, Meggie’s thick-as-a-rock spouse [who was ignorant of intercourse anguish not being limited to 1 time] had enough mental presence to use ‘French letters’ (1st time i heard that euphemism of a century)
“Yeah, yeah, you love me. And God more than me. And yourself you love most of all, you stupid, *hard-t0 get* prick!!.
And speaking of pricks,/,why won;t you gimme yours!? you bloody vagina-tease, you”
^paraphrasing a little :-]}D
This lady above was a serf whose owner didn’t go the usual route of straight-up raping his property. Oh no! He was determined to make it all, like…..romantic & shit.
}he went to a whole lotta scandalous trouble in order to marry her.( thus her only route outa serfdom)
Yeah. no such luck. He proceeded to instantly murder her via the creation of a Dood-baby, who inherited his super doper estate
The serf-owning Murderous Impregnator “never recovered from her death and died a few years later, leaving letters for his son explaining his love for Praskovia in the most poignant, emotional terms.”
But, not all is doom& gloom when you follow the rooting to test whether the man’s love is true.
For I HAVE found 1 case where the rooter might’ve actually backed off – to stop risking the rootee‘s life – the case of Elizabeth II’s father. She only has 1 sister. This is because both births were C-sections in 20s ( when they still had a scary level of mortality). It’s quite possible that the famously shy & personally invested in his wife stuttering King, actually……………….never went there again. But who knows,eh? a girl can hold out hope