The Sacred Feminine - An artistic sensitivity that is respectful of the woman

My feeling of awe and instinctive respect (this is not intellectualized or taught) to the Sacred Feminine is profound. I do not idealizes this in excess, because the angelic woman can also be the tigress. Moreover, the comparison with cats is very good to talk about the healthy attitude we can have in a couple (interim or final). However, I always felt that, in spite of its imperfections (which are also the lot of all humanity), the woman has at the bottom of Her the sparks of the living Perfection. The Woman-Mother. The Woman-Earth Gaia who carries us and feeds us in life. The Woman, a magnificent specimen of Art from a very Pretty Form of Life. It was a short week that I was looking for a way to say this, in one way or another here, yet another way to reveal a little of me (this is not the most interesting), leaving especially to understand how I conceptualize (respectfully) Women.
Of course I'm here to enjoy and to consume, if possible, the wetlook material. With pretty models. But as a picture is worth 10000 words, and more still a video, I'd like to leave you thoughtful, Ladies, on this beautiful video that comes back to France (publicity of perfume, but this is not the perfume that is important). This clip symbolizes visually ideally all the Magical Potential of the Natural and Feline that there are, according to me, in the Women. Living deep inside...




Watch and then tell me more.

I would be interested to discuss this with future models that could work with me.

-

Today, on December the 3rd, here comes a little controversy With Wamajama. But it is interesting and allows to explain more things... :

Wamajama :

I'm bringing back an older post here that I missed somehow because I find it interesting to discuss in more depth]

Distilling Beholder's 'New Age Gaia gobbledy-gook'....I get the impression that he is trying to find a 'spiritual' rationalization for finding (wam) eroticized images of women appealing...I note the emphasis/over-use of "respect"...this conflict (which is how I see it) is or seems to be quite common (with men especially); many are taught to "respect" and honor women and also hold them up as "objects" of respect and honor AND "natural" beauty (where "natural" can include eroticizing the feminine...?)...therein lies much of the conflict (beauty = desire)...it seems that this is an attempt to cover over the conflict with 'high-minded' rhetoric ('woman-mother') and thus give ourselves permission to enjoy the erotic imagery (and the thoughts we dare not speak, along with it).

With Beholder, the eroticism (depicted here) is wetlook (nude)...so, that's a pretty easy conflict to overcome (we are all born wet)...I imagine the conflict to be greater if one finds "trashing" the feminine (with pies and gunge) to be appealing...

By calling women 'goddesses' are we giving ourselves permission to view images of them getting thrown into the mud (literally and figuratively)? in other words, the goddess label is a form of compensation (?)

I also think that the conflict (between what we are taught to think and what we actually think or find sexy) may be mis-identified or misplaced...the enjoyment in seeing someone we deem attractive (of either sex) getting wet or messy is universal (depending upon context, which gives us "permission" to enjoy the scene)...but in the context of fetishism, it is more akin to saliromania or salirophilia...it is not about "hating" the feminine or masculine...but more a societal "check" on fem/masculine beauty and vanity (which modern society constantly exploits for profit while making most of us feel much less attractive).

So, it's ok to enjoy seeing wam images of (whatever sex/gender) without fear that you are 'dis-respecting" or 'dishonoring' them by doing so ultimately, one must reflect upon one's own consciousness to determine one's true feelings). It is the hallmark of human intelligence that we are able to hold two "conflicting" thought in our minds simultaneously with this causing a complete breakdown of one's mental state.

My reply : (Beholder) :

Wow ! I read with interest what you have written but I can say that for what concerns myself, what you have said doesn't apply. I don't say that some of your arguments are not true in some cases for example of dissociation, psychopathology, high disorders of personality. Moreover you can't generalize your point of view even if it is true. There is always one or more exceptions, and as an example scientists know this very well.
Let's come back to me, as it's what I have written that is messed and denatured.
1) I am absolutely not part of new age, even if I was interested by this long, long years ago. I am out of this at least since year 2K (2000). 2) As I have said at the beginning, my feeling of awe and instinctive respect (this is not intellectualized or taught) to the Sacred Feminine is profound. It is so deep that it bypass at all any intellectual shaping, believe me. (In the past I was an intellectual, I have been writer, and I can tell you that intellect is in many cases a TRAP. 3) It is absolutely awful for me to consider even one second that a woman could be an object. 4) You ask the question where "natural" can include eroticizing the feminine... ? It is clever to ask on this point. In one hand, if we are not on a natural spiritual path, yes, this can eventually, absolutely, be right. In that case I have my own limits, it is written on my profile, "an eroticism that is kept within healthy limits". So there are ugly things you are suggesting that I would absolutely not admit. You can be sure about that. 5) There is no conflict inside. Beauty is Beauty for itself in its own "Essence". Beauty is an energetic concept that will last long after a human body will have disappeared. We are not on the same level.
(And when I say this it is not judgmental, it doesn't mean that my level is better than your, it means that when you are in Italia you don't speak german and vice-versa.) You theorize things to try to understand them, that's ok, that's you're right to try to understand this way. But that's a kind of mismatch because I am not on the same level. I consider myself as a mind jailed in a body. To accept this I transcend it through spiritual and artistic deep aspects... How could I say this to let you understand ?
Hmmm... It's like if you are making a comparison with eroticism and pornography. 6) I don't like the second one (porn). And eroticism is absolutely not an obsession for me. I am beholding, I am not a tormented dog. It's even a bit humiliating to conduct such conclusions : condemn while you're only exposing your theory. "Give respect to the people and they slander you. Made fear, and you will be respected." You have paid me well, thank you ! 7) Were have you seen that nude interests me ? Wetlook concerns people wearing wet clothes; if you refer to the advert "Aura", it is seen on millions TV with any public, it is more artistic than something else. If you are visiting a museum with greek statue that are nude, will you accept that I could say about you, what you say about me ? It's totally wrong ! 8) Don't apply to others things that you wouldn't like to be labelled with. 9) I absolutely don't like trashing any woman, you haven't read my profile and some other explanation I have given to explain some little things about me being there. I don't like girls in the mud, it doesn't talk to me, may be to you, not to me. 10) So, no conflict or mis-identified or mis-placed. All this is way too too much theorical and you are missing the holy spark that naturally lives in Nature in beings WHEN THEY ARE RESPECTFUL toward Nature. When can see nowadays that is not the case and it explains at all why collectively we are heading toward a kind of black hole. Here you are trying to make become universal you theory, when I have said at the beginning that NATURAL TRUTH is not intellectualized or taught but felt, lived, deep inside, in the inner part of ourselves. You are mismatching it at all. I don't like messiness, I am not into messy but only wetlook, that seems pure to me. You haven't read my profile to understand me before writing your theories. Society is what it is, and I am not ok with it. I deeply prefer to be in natural landscapes, nature, mountains, forests, lakes. Society is not fancy to me. I absolutely not enjoy the wam, only some wetlook.
11) Then your conclusion is "awesome" : "we are able to hold two "conflicting" thought in our minds simultaneously with this causing a complete breakdown of one's mental state."
And here I can tell you that you are making a big mistake, because like I have said, not by casualty, collectively we are heading toward a kind of black hole, precisely because of what you have written here. But when you talk about conflict, things not yet chosen, I can tell you that for what concerns me, the choice has been done long long ago, and what is not acceptable will not been chosen by me.
This is the great dividing line of some beings with others, and do not see here any similitude with the religious or anything else, if not simply the fact that those who manage to return in complete agreement with Nature, themselves, Others and the Cosmos, will be ok, and those who won't succeed, will fall into the black hole of which I spoke. I do not speak of hell or other. I say that there will be a separation of the destination, nothing else.

-

This Monday, Nein comes with interesting and respectful thoughts :

"The vibe I get from these sorts of sentiments, is not that women are being reduced to objects, exactly, but rather, they're being flattened out as people -- treated as shadow-people, pixellated gif versions of themselves.

A better analogy would be to think of this sort of spiritual mindset as an attempt to treat women as exotic pets (hence, the references to "nature" and "naturalizing" in the OP, and the tiger-pouncy business of the sweaty lady in the video). In some light, this is understandable. It's an odd fact that a lot of people find it very hard to sympathize with humans and very easy to sympathize with animals. So the animalization of people can be one mental strategy that people might use for getting around this roadblock to empathy.

Even so, what some folks might not realize is that, even when done with maximum respect, animalization is still putting up a wall. The fact is (I think), the kind of respect we give to animals is nothing like the kind of respect we owe to other people."

Here my reply to him :

Thank you so much Nein, you understood me so well ! You very true reply is unexpected but shows in a wonderful way what I have tried to explain to Wamajama : the intellect wall, frontier and barrier. Animals don't use their mental to cut relationships with humans or other animals. They sense relations in many ways, they feel, they are intuitive and also in direct link with Life and Beings. Animals most of time don't lie. Experience with them is at a direct level.

The key is here, indeed, Nein : "one mental strategy that people might use for getting around this roadblock to empathy" : but with a little mistake at the same time : I choose animals because they don't block relationships with their mental.

Then you say one more time something really true too : "the kind of respect we give to animals is nothing like the kind of respect we owe to other people." And I add : and vice-versa. And with this reciprocity again we unite, so then at this level of life quality we can enter in all the Magical Potential of the Natural and Cosmos. And the broken link is repaired. And then we are complete. Animals have this Magic human kind has lost... Art and Beauty give us some taste of it, but not the path toward it.
You have it deep in your heart, or you have not it, and you're lost, then aggressive, sarcastic, hurting others and lost yourself without even knowing about it, treasures of life and many other things... "L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux (et le mental). On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur." It means : "The essential is invisible to the eye (and the mind). You can only see well with the heart." .........

-

So Nein replied :

Well, I'm glad I got your view right, at least. I tried to represent it charitably. It's basically a "return to Eden" view. I can see where it comes from.

Unfortunately, I think there are some pretty obvious problems with thinking of women as exotic pets. To such an extent that that previous sentence is one that I could not write without actually laughing out loud.

So maybe that means we should leave ourselves open to find something beautiful in humanity and our uniquely human traits: e.g., language, comedy, morality, the sublime.

Anyway. Just my view, FWIW. Offered just for the sake of something to chew on.

-

So I explained some more :

You said, "Unfortunately, I think there are some pretty obvious problems with thinking of women as exotic pets. To such an extent that that previous sentence is one that I could not write without actually laughing out loud." ...and that's true that presented this way, you only can laugh. But it changes if you choose to focus on some aspects of the personality of an Animal to mark what you want to be understood.
And you add :
"So maybe that means we should leave ourselves open to find something beautiful in humanity and our uniquely human traits: e.g., language, comedy, morality, the sublime."
And it is interesting because it shows that the most par of mankind believes that Animals don't have language, ability to create art (comedy etc...), morality and way to the Sublime. And sadly this is a common mistake. Animals are able to understand our language at all, as an example some Asian dogs are able to understand more than 700 words, and the same for trained dogs for disabled people, blind, etc. Trained monkeys have been able to speak the language of deaf people with more than 12000 words meant with hands gesture or symbols, having an interview were one was able to say, as an example : "I like to set the temperature at 20 Celsius before taking a pen with strawberry taste before drawing birds leaving in the sunset" [eatable pen for babies]. And the drawing was a sky with birds flying etc, like a 12 years old child ! Then the monkey added : "Now take your Jeep and let's go to the city to buy some bananas I would like to eat." He was touching to pocket of his Vet where they were the keys of the Jeep, holding one of his hands. Another example was this monkey piloting a little lunar orbiter in a brilliant ways; operations were of an honest level ! Other examples are Animals rescuing other beings of other species and we have so many examples of that on Youtube.
In 2014 I have been very ill 2 days and my 2 cays were on my bed without eating or drinking or going out. They stayed near me to help me to go through this hard time. It's something I will not forget. I have lost 3 cats from disease and I had contacts after their deaths with them, at moments when I was absolutely not thinking about them because doing very urgent and important things. (It shows that it wasn't some imagination.) The contact, even short, was as intense as unexpected...
Two years ago I had a project to write a book with several veterinarians and communicators (with pets). The project had failed but my name is in the preface of one of the vets who has released his own book. Ancients civilizations (such as native Americans) had wonderful FULL contact with Nature. We have lost all this, sadly... With our pretended "humanity" we are destroying everything that is not "us". It's madness at all.