The Schizotypal Personality

In the Schizotypal, THE OVERALL DESIGN POSSESSES AN ECCENTRIC & INDECIPHERABLE LOGIC, BY WHICH THE BIZARRE IS MADE NORMAL & THE NORMAL MADE BIZZARE.

Three more personality disorders remaining. Today we look at the Schizotypal as opposed to the Schizoid personality disorder. A sad sad structural defectt this Schizotypal personality disorder is.

Others see them as ECCENTRIC, DIFFERENT, WEIRD, ODD, OR STRANGE. Excessively anxious around others, they keep themselves separated and isolated, even from those they have known for long periods of time. Some seem absorbed in stimulation that derives from their own internal world and may have difficulty expressing their thoughts and feelings coherently. When engaged interpersonally, they may seem distracted or unable to focus or even ramble from subject to subject.

Emotions may have a constricted range or be completely inappropriate to objective events. They may have odd beliefs unsubstantiated by science; for example, they can communicate telepathically or somehow read the future. Some have perceptions that are equally odd; for example, they may think about LONG DEAD RELATIVES, then suddenly get the feeling that these spirits are hovering in the room near them. Often, they are EXTRAORDINARILY SUSPICIOUS of the motives of others. Such individuals are called SCHIZOTYPAL PERSONALITIES, or SCHIZOTYPALS for the sake of
convenience in this blog.

The schizotypal personality lies on a continuum with schizophrenia. As such, both schizotypals and schizophrenics are often referred to as schizotypes. The continuum that links the two disorders is called schizotypy. Schizotypal symptoms that suggest a surplus or exaggeration of normal functioning, such as delusions, hallucinations, and ideas of reference,are usually referred to as positive symptoms, and those that refer to interpersonal and motivational deficits are often referred to as negative symptoms.

Consider the case of 'Pete'. He experiences what are called ideas of references, meaning that he believes that other persons are referring to him or that he is somehow at the center of interpersonal events. He “knows” that the people are talking
about him, simply because they keep looking at him and trying to hide it, as least from his perspective. Pete’s referential ideas are probably related to the social anxiety. He is uncomfortable around everyone, even though it appears he has no cause to be. THE MORE UNCOMFORTABLE HE FEELS, THE MORE VIGILANT HE BECOMES & THE MORE LIKELY HE IS TO CONSTRUE EVENTS SO THAT THEY REVOLVE AROUND HIM.

Although YOU ask HIM, for example, simple biographical questions, the style and content of his responses are strange. He cannot connect with the purpose of the interview or the intent of the interviewer and is puzzled by basic questions, as if he and the interviewer were not sharing the same consensual social reality.Seemingly unambiguous inquiries lead to disconnected and somewhat tangential responses, as if the main purpose of the question WERE LOST THEN RECOVERED, THEN LOST AGAIN.

Whereas meaning and emotion are tightly coupled in the speech of most people, they are only loosely coordinated for Pete. Sometimes, they are completely inappropriate to objective events, as if in-terpersonal interactions were being interpreted through frames of reference that are either wrongly applied or somehow emphasize trivial aspects of the interaction at the expense of those that are important or central.

HE has unusual perceptual experiences reminiscent of schizophrenia. When he states, as an example, that the true purpose of an interview has been “told to him,” he is not speaking metaphorically. Instead, he is asserting that he has privileged access to information outside the realm of normal human experience. He also has unusual perceptual experiences that resemble hallucinations. When he says that he has GLIMPSED THE FUTURE, he literally believes that he has somehow looked ahead in time. When he claims that he can see what is happening in other places and what might happen should he go there, he is SPEAKING PERCEPTUALLY, not INFERENTIALLY.

Interestingly, HIS revelations and extrasensory information seem to serve a protective function, making him suspicious but also making it possible to keep himself safe. When HE becomes socially anxious and construes events so that they somehow point to him, he at least has a means of guarding himself. That’s why they have become a basis for action in the course of his everyday life. And because HIS fears are mostly fictions anyway, his countermeasures always seem to work, thus reinforcing superstitious beliefs and exotic cognitive modes.

HE exhibits behaviors that seem odd or peculiar. His next-door neighbor reports that he has been known to TWIST HIS BODY UP IN KNOTS and have conversations with himself. Likewise, Given his social anxiety and the unusual cognitive methods through which he protects himself, it is not surprising that PETE has no close friends. Instead, he is pretty much on his own, PURSUING A MINIMALIST EXISTENCE AT THE MARGINS OF SOCIETY.

AMONG the SCHIZOTYPALS, temporary periods dominated by bizarre behavior, irrational impulses, and semidelusional thoughts are common. Such individuals may drift in and out of contact with consensual social reality, as if caught up in a momentary dream. Unable to grasp the illusory character of these inner stimuli, they may be driven to engage in erratic and hostile actions or embark on wild and chaotic sprees they may only vaguely recall later. Every so often, their intrapsychic world erupts and
overwhelms them, blurring their awareness and releasing bizarre impulses, thoughts,
and actions. Most have a checkered and erratic history of relationships, school,
and work performance, as with PETE.

Personality can be likened to an office building. The workers have their own jobs, and the building complements their activities. Internal traffic is not shunted down convoluted pathways, for example, or turned out into the street. All workers and visitors find their destination easily, without wasted effort or frustration. The entire structure, in fact, just naturally encourages efficient functioning. Each person naturally integrates with the others so that, ideally, the entire complex functions as a single harmonious whole.

In the schizotypal, borderline, and paranoid personalities, however, structural defects prevent the whole from operating smoothly. For the PARANOID, the building is too rigid and constrictive, so much so that anyone who enters must conform to its specific, predetermined rules or be ejected. In the BODERLINE, the building is structured so loosely that its insides hardly seem separated into rooms. Instead, contents spill from one compartment to the next, so the entire structure seems labile and vulnerable to splitting or
heaving unpredictably.

A hand, for example, is made to write, grasp, and manipulate. That’s what it does. Structurally, however, a hand is formed of bone, muscle, nerve, and tendon; without these, no hand can function. In the same way, structural domains of personality support its functional aspects, thus forming the architecture of the mind. Cognitive schemata, for example, provide structural support for the expression of cognitive styles. SELF-IMAGE provides yet another structural component to personality, one that influences interpersonal ways of relating, as well as the operation of defense mechanisms, which support and protect self-esteem.

Thus, compulsives see themselves as conscientious and conform scrupulously to external standards to make absolutely sure this image is confirmed; minor errors are magnified into major mistakes,leading to self-condemnation. As this example shows, structural elements of personality are so deeply imprinted that they actively transform the nature of objective events. No matter how successful the compulsive may be at fending off error, a deep fear that something has slipped by remains. Every interpersonal interaction takes place under a black, solemn cloud.

The Schizoid Personality

Although the schizoid construct is somewhat nebulous, many readers may nevertheless
recognize some aspect of themselves in the schizoid pattern. Everyone knows someone
who is an extreme introvert, for example. We all want to be left alone from time to time, if only to quiet our own thoughts or think things through, to unwind from a long day of boring business meetings, or simply let down that façade of friendliness that is required by burdensome visits from friends and relatives. We love them, but sooner or later, enough is enough.

In contrast, individuals with schizoid traits feel this way about their social interactions MOST OF THE TIME. What is interpersonal is intrinsically unrewarding to them; thus, they often turn toward objects and abstractions or toward isolative hobbies such as stamp or rock collecting, mechanical gadgetry, or even mathematics or computer science.

Imagine, as you are walking to class, you spot an individual sitting on the campus lawn lawn, back against a tree, textbook opened and inverted on his lap, gazing distantly to the sky.You instantly recognize him from your classes, where rambunctious classmates often harangue and berate him, yet to no avail, as though he was emotionally detached and indifferent, appearing almost numb. He is also the one who seems so apathetic when the professor praises him for his academic performances.

Nearing him, you glance his way with a nod and smile, acknowledging his presence and inviting a response. He reciprocates the nod and resumes his reading. As a friendly gesture, you invite him to join you at lunch. He declines, which is reminiscent of the many other offers he has rejected, saying, “I much prefer being by myself.” Though in keeping with his past behavior, it puzzles you as to whether he is merely fearful of rejection or truly enjoys a life of solitude.

Pondering this query, you realize you have never seen him with nor has he sought out
friends. Could it be that he truly enjoys a life of solitude and lacks the need for inter-personal relationships? The answer is YES. As we see, you have just encountered a SCHIZOID PERSONALITY. Typically distant and viewed as introverted, these individuals keep to themselves. With the exception of minimal familial relations, schizoid personalities, or SCHIZOIDS, feel NO NEED FOR RELATIONSHIPS, whether platonic or sexual. This is notably unlike the painfully shy avoidant, who desperately desires intimacy and acceptance but fears shame, humili-
ation, and embarrassment.

Because schizoids choose to be by themselves, they go through life with markedly reduced interpersonal stress, as they are immune to the demands that others might put on them. Neither responding to praise nor criticism, the social dynamics typically held to most of us as important are merely incidental to schizoids. They almost seem incapable of experiencing emotional extremes of pleasure—as they rarely become excited about anything and anger as they hardly ever become HEATED OR IRATE. Their emotional experience and expression may be so flattened that they seem detached from the world and even themselves. Perpetually untroubled and indifferent, they work SILENTLY & UNOBTRUSIVELY at their jobs and rarely get noticed by anyone, even by those with whom they have some ROUTINE CONTACT.

Left to their own doing, they would probably blend into the background indefinitely.
Take the case of 'LEONARD', as an example. HE finds it difficult to be friendly to others, to smile, to make small talk, or to follow the niceties of casual social encounters. In fact, the need for closeness is a NOTION CONFUSING TO HIM; the concept is simply beyond anything his life experience might incur. Rather than having a gregarious lifestyle, Leonard prefers to spend time alone watching TV or working on his model airplanes (Whatever).
It is not that he is hostile, but simply that he is INDIFFERENT. When others smile at him or try to develop a conversation, he probably senses that they want a response of some kind, but he either does not know what to say in return or just does not feellike saying much of anything.

For this reason, people automatically conclude that Leonard is unlike most and view him as deliberately aloof and condescending, perhaps even too arrogant to speak. In reality, he is merely detached and without proclivity to engage others. Detachment from human relationships is a central theme of all schizoid personalities. For Leonard, it extends even to his association with his family. When he changes his residence, for example, Leonard has been known to DELAY NOTIFYING HIS FAMILY FOR MONTHS. Once he does, however, they continue to stay in touch with him, despite his lack of reciprocity. He just doesn’t find such relationships rewarding, and he may even find them aversive, overstimulating, and confusing.

For that same reason, he avoids making friends. Leonard finds that he neither wants nor needs social affiliation. Friends contribute seemingly nothing to his quality of life. When others try to strike up a conversation with him in the library, he may reply only briefly, perhaps BORDERING RUDENESS, thus bringing the interaction to a conclusion or otherwise exposing his indifference. In fact, he appears to be much more comfortable in the world of inanimate objects.

Because he receives so little reinforcement from the social world, he has little
incentive to change his behavior in any way. Accordingly, he does not truly grasp why
his job performance is perceived as unusual and why others are dissatisfied with it, and he finds no reason to change based on the assessment of his supervisor. He is INDIFFERENT TO BOTH PRAISE & CRITICISM. If terminated, he is not likely to feel
angry or disturbed. Instead, he will simply go through the motions of getting another
job that supports his existence in a BASIC WAY.

Why is Leonard so detached?

To those unfamiliar with the schizoid personality, he might be characterized as an extreme introvert. To the trained professional, however,
Leonard’s clinical interview exposes distinct signs of the personality disorder. The
similarity between introverts and schizoids extends only to their asocial nature, as introverts are able to experience and express emotion. On the other hand, schizoids are most recognized for FLATTENED AFFECTIVITY. Leonard has no fear, annoyance, anxiety, or curiosity—just an UNWAVERING ABSENCE OF FEELING.

HIS life typically lacks fascination, immersion, intimacy, and perhaps even joy. It is also without transcendental or peak experiences because they require the ability to fuse with something more ultimate than self. To most, humans are commonly regarded
as innately expressive, emotional, and social creatures. As such, persons like Leonard,who lack these typically human characteristics, may be perceived as robotic and somewhat mechanical.

Is Obama surrounded with "Self-hating Jews"

IN his TV appearances and global tours, President Obama has spoken to Africans-like me, Arabs, Muslims, Iranians, Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans and Russians. His words have stirred emotions and been well received everywhere. But he hasn’t bothered to speak directly to Israelis.

The effect? Months into his presidency, Israelis find themselves increasingly suspicious of Mr. Obama. All they see is American pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to freeze settlements, a request that’s been interpreted here as political arm-twisting meant to please the Arab street at Israel’s expense — or simply to express the president’s dislike for Mr. Netanyahu.

This would seem counterproductive, given the importance president Obama has placed on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If Israel is part of the problem, it’s also part of the solution. Yet so far, neither the president nor any senior official of his administration has given a speech or an interview aimed at an Israeli audience, beyond brief statements made at diplomatic photo ops.

The Arabs got the Cairo speech; Israelis in Israel got silence.

The policy of ignoring Israel might carry a price. Though President Obama has succeeded in prodding PM. Netanyahu to accept the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, he has failed to induce Israel to impose a freeze on settlements. In fact, he has failed even to stir debate about the merits of one: no Israeli political figure has stood up, to my recollection, to PM. Netanyahu and begged him to support Prtesident Obama; not even the Israeli left, desperate for a new agenda, has adopted President Obama as its ICON.

As a result, PM. Netanyahu enjoys a virtual domestic consensus over his rejection of the settlement freeze. Moreover, he has succeeded in portraying President Obama as a shaky ally. In PM. Netanyahu’s narrative, the president has fallen under the influence of top aides — in this case RAHM EMANUEL and DAVID AXELROD — whom the PM has called “SELF-HATING JEWS.” Meanwhile, PM. Netanyahu is the defender of national glory in face of unfair pressure, someone who sticks to the first commandment of Israeli culture: thou shalt never be the freier (that is, the dupe).

So far, Israelis have embraced PM. Netanyahu’s message.

What went wrong? Several explanations come to mind.
First, in the 16 rosy years of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Israelis became spoiled by unfettered presidential attention. Memories of State Department “Arabists” leading American policy in the Middle East were erased. The White House coordinated its policy with Jerusalem, and stayed out of the way when Israel embarked on controversial military offensives in Lebanon and Gaza. This approach infuriated America’s Arab and European allies, which blamed Washington for one-sidedness — something they were willing to forgive of Bill Clinton but not of George W. Bush.

President Obama came to office determined to repair America’s broken alliances in Europe and the Middle East. One way to do this — to prove that he was the opposite of his predecessor — was to place some distance between Israel and himself.

Second, Mr. Obama’s quest for diplomacy has appeared to Israelis as dangerous American naïveté. The president offered a hand to the Iranians, and got nothing, merely giving them more time to advance their nuclear program. In Israeli eyes, he was humiliated by North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests. And he failed to move Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel. Conclusion: Mr. Obama is a softie, eager to please his listeners and avoid confrontation with anyone who is not PM. Netanyahu.

Third, Mr. Obama seems to have confused American Jews with Israelis. Israelis in Israel are close emotionally and politically to those in the diaspora, but they are different. They (in Israeli) mostly speak Hebrew and not English, they live in the Middle East and have separate historical narratives. President Obama’s stop at Buchenwald and his strong rejection of Holocaust denial, immediately after his Cairo speech, appealed to American Jews but fell flat in Israel.

In Israel jews are taught that Zionist determination and struggle — not guilt over the Holocaust — brought Jews a homeland. President Obama’s speech, which linked Israel’s existence to the Jewish tragedy, infuriated many Israelis who sensed its closeness to the narrative of enemies like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

Fourth, as far as most Israelis are concerned, President Obama has made a mistake in focusing on a settlement freeze. For starters, mainstream Israelis rarely have anything to do with the settlements; many have no idea where they are, even when they’re a half-hour’s drive from Tel Aviv.

More important: in the past decade, repeated peace negotiations and diplomatic statements have indicated that larger, closer-to-home settlements (the “settlement blocs”) will remain in Israeli hands under any two-state solution. Why, then, insist on a total freeze everywhere? And why deny with such force — as the administration did — the existence of previous understandings between the United States and Israel over limited settlement construction? There is simply too much evidence proving that such an understanding existed. To Israelis, the claim undermined Mr. Obama’s credibility — and strengthened Mr. Netanyahu’s position.

Perhaps there are good reasons behind Mr. Obama’s Middle East policy. Perhaps the settlement freeze is in Israel’s best interest. Perhaps the president is truly committed to Israel’s long-term security and well-being. Perhaps his popularity in the Arab street is the missing ingredient of peacemaking.

But until the president talks to Israelis in Israel, they won’t know.

The Narcissistic Personality

Although it has appeared across the globe and throughout history among the royal and
the wealthy, the narcissistic personality seems to have gained prominence only in the
late twentieth century. Narcissism may manifest differently in different cultures BUT importantly, narcissism may be associated with higher levels of Abraham Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs.

Most individuals in disadvantaged nations must navigate the slings and arrows of disease and famine; they are too preoccupied with basic safety and survival needs and cannot afford the luxury of a passive existence where the riches of the world are, in their eyes, owed to them. However, as basic survival needs become satisfied, the quest for self-actualization moves into the foreground, at times along with pathologies related to more extreme forms of that quest, including the NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER. Indeed, the risk is likely to be much lower in a collectivist society. Many Western societies, such as the United States, UK stress individualism
and self-gratification at the expense of community (for imperative reasons).

Moreover, this disorder seems more prevalent in professions that are unusually respected, including law-my proffession law, medicine, and science, or those that boast celebrity status, such as entertainment, sports, and politics. Narcissists are more likely to be male than female, perhaps because males are widely considered more exploiting and entitled.

ANATOMY OF THE NARCISSITIC PERSONALITY
We have all met people who constantly present themselves as superior, often with an inviolable arrogance. They seem to reflect on themselves in an exaggerated manner, getting lost in their self-generated fantasies of godlike power, infinite riches, mastermind intelligence, or unparalleled celebrity. They not only perceive themselves themselves as better than others but also hold others in contempt for being inferior, if not just for being average. They are self-proclaimed shining stars, and we are expected to WATCH AND ADMIRE.

For them, the rest of us are simply worker bees, worthy only of taking and carrying out their every direction but not worthy of ever having an original thought, much less a life independent of their plans and desires. To balance out our indebtedness to them for the honor of their association, we must anticipate their every need and excuse them from any mundane duty, while working tirelessly toward the realization of their glory. Other people in their lives frequently come to feel as though they are possessions of such individuals, existing to be used and exploited without SHAME.

Their egocentricity makes them indifferent to the rights and welfare of others and, sometimes, indifferent to the laws of society as well. To justify their actions, they rationalize ad nauseam, presenting convenient reasons that excuse their inconsiderateness and superior attitude, thus placing themselves in the best possible light. When pressed or confronted, they are likely to become even more haughty, dismissive, and, in some instances, enraged.

Such individuals demonstrate the NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY PATTERN. For the people who must interact with them, they are among the most difficult of the personality
disorders.
Consider the case of our self-proclaimed genius, lets call him 'Gerald'. HE identifies himself with EINSTEIN, VAN GOGH and SALK, individuals who “had suffered nobly for being ahead of their time, just like me.” Undoubtedly, Gerald’s grandiosity is what fuels many of his behaviors. HE shows such self-importance as to persevere in spite of what he sees as others’ ignorance. His grandiosity feeds a fantasy life where unbridled brilliance and success are realized. He mentions, for example, that he sees himself as president of a new company that will put his ideas into action and he can only imagine that success is just a matter of time. More than likely, HE needs these fantasies,which support and protect a superior image of the self against intrusions from an above-average but much less stellar reality.

Undoubtedly, his need for superiority has evolved in connection with the worship he receives from his mother/father, who insists that he will do something important, implying that he will become famous by somehow contributing to human history.Though HE is obviously intelligent, his perception is still distorted to magnify his apti-
tude. His estimation of his own abilities and his expectations that others should bow to his every whim speak to a considerable discrepancy between reality and his own aggrandized self-image. He believes that he is special, and he is pleased that he is being treated by a psychiatrist, for only someone with a medical degree would have a chance of understanding his situation.

Moreover, he feels so special that he is entitled to invent new ways of doing things that disrupt organizational patterns, without worrying about their effects on the lives of others. Instead of offering sympathy, HE expects that his subordinates should simply recognize and automatically effect the wisdom of his intellectual mandate.

If there are costs of extra time and effort to their own lives, these are inconsequential and not worth worrying about, at least from HIS perspective. Given such a sense of entitlement, HE can only exploit those around him and shamelessly does so repeatedly. HE has also created the perfect way of dealing with the displeasure of those he makes miserable: He sees them simply as jealous. Again, it is not HE who has the problem. As HE sees it, everyone recognizes HIS outstanding abilities and realizes that HE is on his predetermined road to success and riches. Therefore, they inevitably recognize their own unworthiness and, out of spite, put obstacles in HIS way. Compared to HIM, they are just aspirants who can only want for something better but never achieve what they desire, as HE is destined to do.

The Obsessive-Compulsive Personality

Are there people in your life who seem just a little too efficient, well-ordered, and organized? You may have noticed these virtuous workers dutifully putting in long hours, attempting to ensure that their performance measures up to their self-imposed standard of flawlessness. They try to do everything they do perfectly to avoid the slightest mistake or flaw that would induce mountains of guilt and cause them to regard their performance as marred, if not ruined.

Don’t be surprised if you recognize aspects of yourself in the descriptions, above and below, of the compulsive personality. This pattern, in particular, is prevalent in societies, where traits such as efficiency, punctuality, a willingness to work hard, and orientation to detail are valued as necessary prerequisites to social and financial well-being. Self-discipline and organization are personality features encouraged by many modern societies. It is almost a prerequisite, for example, to possess at least a few compulsive traits when seeking an advanced graduate degree. How else could you be diligent and motivated enough to do all the reading and write all the papers necessary to get through school? Many professors have strong compulsive traits, as well.

Rigidly devoted to productivity, they rarely take time out for themselves or their families. Instead, they are known for arriving early and staying late and
persevering until the job is not only done, but done to perfection. They set high, often unrealistic standards for themselves and expect the same from others, especially those who work under them. Anyone who takes too much free time is branded a “slacker” and gets no respect. In contrast, they are routinely appeasing to those in authority, seeking opportunities to prove themselves as selflessly committed to the “greater cause.”

In their private lives, they are often rigidly dogmatic in matters of morality, ethics, and values. Everything is by the book; nothing is on the sly. What they believe they hold as absolute truth, so much so that others see them as exceptionally stubborn. Such individuals exemplify the OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE PERSONALITY PATTERN; for convenience, they are referred to simply as compulsives in this BLOG. They seek to assuage their anxiety about any number of factors by plunging themselves ever deeper into detail.

We might speculate, for example, that SHE probably has her bra and pants color-coded and systematized, which can be sorted in advance so that everything matches, thus saving time in the morning. SHE can detail everything to which her stomach is sensitive. When SHE goes in for a checkup, the doctor need not be concerned that the patient will omit some small piece of crucial information. The Doctor may, however, run into the opposite problem, which may be the greater of two evils. HER responses are comprehensive to a fault. If allowed, SHE will undoubtedly indulgein a lengthy treatise about HER dietary habits, outlining specific foods and quantities, and
sharing any relevant research SHE has already done on the subject, leaving the doctor in the awkward position of having to either agree or risk losing any rapport with his patient.

SHE thrives in the details, but SHE tends to overwhelm others with it because SHE expects them to value it just as much as SHE does. In fact, SHE becomes condescending when they don’t.
In HER work life, HER devotion to detail supports HER perfectionism. SHE prides herself on her ability to get work done and get it done perfectly. We can imagine that her desk is cleaned off at the end of each day, with every pencil sharpened so that tomorrow starts smoothly. Indeed, SHE is probably proud that SHE has parlayed this character trait into occupational success. In HER view,the rapid promotion to a middle-management position validates the superiority of HER approach to life and justifies HER contempt for the “average worker,” whom SHE no doubt considers “sloppy” or “neglectful.”

SHE will always be tapped whenever there’s paperwork to do and details to control, but SHE isn’t likely to be the person that the board of directors looks to develop some imaginative new product or to construct broad corporate strategy.

SHE constantly appears to be restrained and defended, as if SHE were anticipating
some impending catastrophe. For example, SHE fears that SHE will make a mistake and
that HER superiors will secretly take note of it, recording it somewhere in the dreaded database created specifically for HER failings. SHE can already imagine them
saying in a stern voice, “JUNE, that’s your second mistake this year. We’re watching
you.” SHE carries this condemning voice around inside HER, and it ensures that SHE
labors perpetually under the same kind of threat that SHE inflicts on those under HER.

If you lived down the block from HER and her family, you would probably know her as a morally sound, upstanding citizen of your community. As you got to know her better however, you would begin to see more and more of her rigidity in matters of values, ethics, and morality. HER and the family always make it to church and always make it there in a timely manner, with the kids neatly dressed. For HER, God is just the top-level manager in the hierarchy, the ultimate superior whom SHE must please, but SHE does not feel this at a conscious level. SHE does have rebellious tendencies, but SHE cannot afford to be aware of them. Instead, SHE buries them so deep that not even HER can see them; then SHE does just the opposite so that SHE can be absolutely
comfortable with herself.

SHE is dogmatic in her beliefs, a quality SHE and others sometimes mistake for passion. SHE overconforms to armor herself against impropriety. HER religion and morality are entirely by the book, but SHE is not known to be a forgiving person despite HER religion’s teachings to the contrary. Instead, SHE tends to be self-
righteous, and SHE is not above using the rules to bring a little sorrow to someone who doesn’t know how to follow orders or doesn’t have the kind of serious attitude that SHE respects; this includes the people who work for HER.

HER dogmatism, in fact, extends beyond matters of morality and religion to just
about everything in HER life, and this is expressed in his considerable stubbornness. In fact, SHE can’t afford to change HER mind about anything because
that would imply that SHE was wrong, and SHE must be on HER guard against mistakes. To HER, people who change their minds are wishy-washy. They lack the courage of their
convictions. So, SHE stands pat and argues HER points, stringently committed to HER
point of view, regardless of genuine convictions.

Auto-Erotism:{Spontaneous Manifestation of the Sexual Impulse}

"Without a certain overheating of the sexual system," said NIETZSCHE, "we could not have a Raphael."

I do not know that any apology is needful for the use of this term "auto-erotism"but i strongly recommend you read on for what you can learn. As marriage-rate declines, and as illicit sexual relationships continue to be openly discouraged, it is inevitable that auto-erotic phenomena of one kind or another, not only among women but also among men, should increase among us both in amount and intensity. It is necessary to investigate this subject.

Among animals in isolation, and sometimes in freedom, it is well known that various forms of spontaneous solitary sexual excitement occur. Horses when leading a lazy life may be observed flapping the penis until some degree of emission takes place. Bulls and goats produce emissions by using their forelegs as a stimulus, bringing up their hind quarters. Goats sometimes take the penis into the mouth and produce actual orgasm, thus practicing auto-fellatio. Among ferrets, if the bitch, when in heat, cannot obtain a dog she pines and becomes ill. If a smooth pebble is introduced into the hutch, she will masturbate upon it, thus preserving her normal health for one season. But if this artificial substitute is given to her a second season, she will not, as formerly, be content with it. Sheep masturbate; as also do camels, pressing themselves down against convenient objects; and ELEPHANTS compress the penis between the hind legs to obtain emissions.

HYENAS have been seen practicing mutual masturbation by licking each other's genitals. Mammary masturbation is found in certain female and even male animals, like the dog and the cat. Apes are much given to masturbation, even in freedom, according to the evidence of GOOD OBSERVERS; for while no female apes are celibates, many of the males are obliged to lead a life of celibacy. Male monkeys use the hand in masturbation, to rub and shake the penis.

Masturbation is found among the people of every race. Among Hottentots, among the young women at all events, masturbation is so common that it is regarded as a custom of the country; no secret is made of it, and in the stories and legends of the race it is treated as one of the most ordinary facts of life. It is so also among the Basutos. When the Spaniards first arrived at Vizcaya, in the Philippines, they found that masturbation was universal, and that it was customary for the women to use an artificial penis and other abnormal methods of sexual gratification.

The banana (in ancient times) seems to have beeen widely used for masturbation by women owing, I think, to its size and shape. The mythology of Hawaii tells of goddesses who were impregnated by bananas they had placed beneath their garments. And in a poem in the Arabian Nights, we read:

"O bananas, of soft and smooth skins, which dilate the eyes of young girls ... you, alone among fruits are endowed with a pitying heart, O consolers of widows and divorced women."

Brooding on sexual images, which the theologians termed delectatio morosa, may lead to spontaneous orgasm in either sex, even in perfectly normal persons. "Psychic coitus," is a condition in which the simple act of imagination alone, in the presence of the desired object, suffices to produce orgasm. In some public conveyance, theatre, or elsewhere, the man sees a desirable woman and by concentrating his attention on her person and imagining all the stages of intimacy he quickly succeeds in producing orgasm.

Concerning erotic dreams,the diagnostic value of sexual dreams, as an indication of the sexual nature of the subject when awake, cannot be overemphasized. Sexual dreams tend to reproduce, and even to accentuate, those characteristics which make the strongest sexual appeal to the subject when awake. At the same time, this general statement has to be qualified, more especially as regards inverted dreams. A young man, however normal, who is not familiar with the feminine body when awake, is not likely to see it when asleep.

We owe to Restif de la Bretonne what is perhaps the earliest precise description of a woman masturbating. In 1755 he knew a dark young woman, plain but well-made, and of warm temperament, educated in a convent. She was observed one day, when gazing from her window at a young man in whom she was tenderly interested, to become much excited. "Her movements became agitated; I approached her, and really believe that she was uttering affectionate expressions; she had become red. Then she sighed deeply, and became motionless, stretching out her legs, which she stiffened, as if she felt pain." It is further hinted that her hands took part in this manœuvre.

Pictorial representations of a woman masturbating also occur in eighteenth century engravings. Thus, in France, Baudouin's "Le Midi" represents an elegant young lady in a rococo garden-bower; she has been reading a book she has now just dropped, together with her sunshade; she leans languorously back, and her hand begins to find its way through her placket-hole.

SOME PEOPLE say that It is especially an undesirable tendency of masturbation, that it deadens the need for affection, and merely eludes, instead of satisfying, the sexual impulse. "Masturbation," they say, "though a manifestation of sexual activity, is not a sexual act in the higher, or even in the real fundamental sense. For sex implies duality, a characteristic to which masturbation can plainly lay no claim. The physical, moral, and mental reciprocity which gives stability and beauty to a normal sexual intimacy, are as foreign to the masturbator as to the celibate. In a sense, therefore, masturbation, they say, is as complete a negative of the sexual life as chastity itself. It is, therefore, an evasion of, not an answer to, the sexual problem; and it will ever remain so, no matter how surely we may be convinced of its physical harmlessness."
BE THE JUDGE!

The Avoidant Personality

Perhaps you have noticed someone at a party who shows up early and stays late but spends most of the time anchored to a corner of the room, hoping someone else will approach him or her to make conversation. If you are that person who approaches, you will likely notice the person’s immediate discomfort upon your initiating even the most pleasant, innocuous, non-threatening conversation. You might wonder what keeps people this socially “wrapped up” and defended and how such individuals perceive themselves and the world they share with you.

You might correctly perceive that they are filled with chasms of self-doubt, they intensely fear any sort of humiliation, and they would not dare knowingly (or even unwittingly) expose themselves to other people or a competitive and cut-throat world for which they feel they are no match. You may have seen individuals in your associatoions who seem to earnestly desire participation in discussions, but they say little to nothing and seem awkwardly self-conscious on those very rare occasions when they speak a few words.

These individuals demonstrate the AVOIDANT PERSONALITY PATTERN. They may have just
one or two trusted friends, perhaps a spouse or partner, or even a sole family member.Few others, if any, would be able to pass their strict tests of uncritical support and acceptance to gain access to their more PRIVATE CIRCLE OF EXISTENCE. Does this mean that such a person is content with this very secretive, isolated way of life? Quite the contrary.

Their pain wrought from loneliness and seclusion hurts them to the core of their existence, but rather than allow themselves to be vulnerable to the “inevitable” social humiliation that would follow from their perceived incompetence and awkwardness being put on naked display, they take their silent, lonely pain and make themselves nearly invisible—out of the trajectory of others’ “harsh but deserved” criticisms.

Because of their way of exaggerating potential for embarrassment, they do more to themselves than forego social enhancement. They resist any life change that may bring them more openly into the public eye, including occupational promotions and other life rewards. While they may deeply wish for love, genuine intimacy, and greater life enjoyment or satisfaction, their souls are seen as so disgraced that they must withdraw into a private world of shame, where they can at least be alone with their inadequacies (perceiveed or not).

Avoidants are in a constant state of threat and alarm when they must interact with others. They are hypersensitive to negative evaluation, doubt that they have anything to offer others, and thus find it terrifying to interact with anyone they do not already know.
Hypersensitive to a marked degree, she (hypothetical) panics on having to interact, as she quickly feels that the critical eyes of everyone are on her. Her self-consciousness convinces her that others are taking great pains to notice her;this possibility is recycled unremittingly in her mind, her anxiety snowballs, and she feels forced to flee. Whereas some personalities, such as the narcissist or histrionic, may find the spotlight irresistible, avoidants dread it and must take flight for the relative safety of obscurity.

Life is left with very little joy, but at least it holds no pain.Similar themes permeate many, if not all, aspects of the avoidant person’s life.Fears of evaluation will likely cause avoidants to restrict their occupational activities. Their job suffers under imagined nightmares that their performance will somehow be defective or inadequate. Depending on the severity, they may simply quit or may remain stuck in positions with no challenge, where adequacy is easy.

There is only one way that she may ever involve herself with others: She must be ab-
solutely certain that she will be liked. This is, however, extremely difficult to accomplish. She has an abiding faith in her own defectiveness, in her ability to
bring shame on herself simply by existing. Whereas most of us are insecure about some
thing, her insecurities constitute her perceived reality. Accordingly, the notion that someone might like her and might accept her for who and what she is, is virtually unthinkable.
To develop a friendship, she needs repeated overtures of nurturance and assurance. Moreover, she needs consistency. Let some small criticism slip just once, and like a frightened turtle, she recoils in terror, withdrawing to the sanctity of her shell,shutting out the world. Because the shell is so thick, few people ever gain the trust of an avoidant person.

Even when SHE does overcome her hypersensitivity long enough to let someone in,her belief in her own imagined inadequacies has another unfortunate consequence:she is afraid to be herself. To grow, relationships must balance between SELF-CONSCIOUS COMMITMENT & SPONTANEITY. But SHE can’t afford to be herself because SHE is hyper-aware of the faults and imperfections all humans carry and the price of authenticity is too high. Were SHE in a relationship, SHE would find it extremely difficult to reveal her true self, to share a secret, or even to tell her partner about her real likes and dislikes. Any of these could poison the thin illusion of genuine companionship that her insecurities afford and leave her with nothing.

So SHE sacrifices the potential of a romance for a steady trickle of togetherness, which is at least more certain. There are no flings of infatuation, weekends away, or
sweep-you-off-your-feet dreams-come-true for HER. No one would ever like her that
much, or so she believes; if someone did like her, it would only be because she had the wisdom never to show her true self.

Avoidant personalities fear criticism and rejection, but they also live in fear of simply disappointing others. That is, rejection doesn’t need to be actually voiced to summon up the fears of people like HER. Just the idea that someone might privately judge them as having failed or fallen short is enough to make avoidants want to disengage. Worse is the possibility that someone might take a stern attitude toward them, presuming to judge them from a position of authority, where the verdicts are more powerful and absolute in their condemnation.
It is of little wonder, then, that avoidants are inhibited in interpersonal situations.

The philosopher Hegel said, “To be is to be perceived.” For HER and others like her, however, the existential truth is just the reverse. The only way to be is not to be perceived, at least if you want to be safe and salvage a marginal quality of life. Accordingly, whereas some personalities, such as the narcissist and histrionic,surge forward in social situations, seizing the limelight and demanding admiration, avoidants inhibit themselves and withdraw to a niche where they can at least be alone and, therefore, feel some comfortable. AVOIDANTS SHOULD ALWAYS BE AWARE OF OTHERS, BUT OTHERS SHOULD NEVER BE AWARE OF THE AVOIDANT.

As with many personality disorders, positive change and improvement of life circumstances is very difficult for the avoidant person. Personal growth requires a measure of risk. To expand our horizons, we must push the boundaries. Or, as the old adage goes, experience is the best teacher. Avoidant personalities, however, refuse to take risks that might leave them open to public view. They can be highly creative in the privacy of their apartment or become SUPERHEROES in their own fantasy life, but in the real world, it’s best not to attempt anything that might bring attention to themselves.

Vision in beauty and art: The Psychology of Sex IV

The idea of beauty is not an unmixed idea; it is intimately united with the idea of carnal pleasure. Stendhal defined beauty as 'a promise of happiness.' Indeed. Beauty is a Woman. In Arabian poetry you meet such descriptions of the Woman:

"Her lips are colored agate and coral; her tongue secretes eloquence; her saliva is more desirable than the juice of grapes. But her bosom, blessed be the Creator, is a living seduction. It bears twin breasts of the purest ivory, rounded, and that may be held within the five fingers of one hand. Her belly has dimples full of shade and gives origin to her finely modeled and elastic waist. At the thought of her flanks I shudder, for thence depends a mass so weighty that it obliges its owner to sit down when she has risen and to rise when she lies. Such are her flanks, and from them descend, like white marble, her glorious thighs, solid and straight, united above beneath their crown. Then come the legs and the slender feet, so small that I am astounded they can bear so great a weight."

Beauty is so sexual that the only uncontested works of art are those that simply show the human body in its nudity. By its perseverance in remaining purely sexual GREEK STATUARY has placed itself forever above all discussion. It is beautiful because it is a beautiful human body, such a one as every man or every woman would desire to unite with in the perpetuation of the race.
That which inclines to love seems beautiful; that which seems beautiful inclines to love. This intimate union of art and of love is, indeed, the only explanation of art. Without this genital echo ART would never have been born and never have been perpetuated.

If anyone were desirous to produce a being with a great susceptibility to beauty, he could not invent an instrument better designed for that object than sex. Individuals that need not unite for the birth and rearing of each generation might retain a savage independence. For them it would not be necessary that any vision should fascinate, or that any languor should soften, the prying cruelty of the eye.

Sex endows the individual with a dumb and powerful instinct, which carries his body and soul continually toward another; makes it one of the dearest enjoyments of his life to select and pursue a companion, and joins to possession the keenest pleasure, to rivalry the fiercest rage, and to solitude an eternal melancholy. What more could be needed to suffuse the world with the deepest meaning and beauty. We find that Woman is the most lovely object to Man, and Man, if female modesty would confess it, the most interesting object to Woman.

Aesthetic values are changed under the influence of sexual emotion. Thus from the lover's point of view many things are beautiful which are unbeautiful from the point of view of him who is not a lover, and the greater the degree to which the lover is swayed by his passion the greater the extent to which his normal aesthetic standard is liable to be modified.

Beauty as incarnated in the feminine body has to some extent become the symbol of love even for women. Under the influence of sexual excitement a woman regards her body as made for man's gratification, and it is this complex emotion which forms the initial stage, at least, of her own pleasure. Her body is the symbol for her partner, and indirectly for her, through his admiration of it, of their mutual joy and satisfaction.

The poet and story-teller who seeks to describe an ideally lovely and desirable woman always insists mainly, and often exclusively, on those characters which appeal to the eye. The maiden whose loveliness inspires the most impassioned expressions in Arabic poetry is celebrated for the following fours:
"Four things in a woman should be black—the hair of the head, the eyebrows, the eyelashes, and the dark part of the eyes; four white—the complexion of the skin, the white of the eyes, the teeth, and the legs; four red—the tongue, the lips, the middle of the cheeks, and the gums; four round—the head, the neck, the forearms, and the ankles; four long—the back, the fingers, the arms, and the legs; four wide—the forehead, the eyes, the bosom, and the hips; four fine—the eyebrows, the nose, the lips, and the fingers; four thick—the lower part of the back, the thighs, the calves of the legs, and the knees; four small—the ears, the breasts, the hands, and the feet."
Let me finish this way; beauty, to a large extent, is an objective matter. The things that to man are most beautiful are those that are intimately associated with, or dependent upon, the sexual process and the sexual instinct. The beautiful woman, Geoffrey Chaucer said, is one "With buttokes brode and brestës rounde and hye";that is to say, the woman obviously best fitted to bear children and to suckle them.

The Antisocial Personality

In the antisocial personality, badness and madness seem to shade together. Sometimes,
antisocials’ crimes are so incomprehensible and morally repugnant that the act alone
makes us doubt their SANITY. For example, the normal person has no way of identifying
with one Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed, had sex with, and ate the bodies of many of his victims,or with one Herman Mudgett, whose evil adventures ended when he was hung just before the end of the nineteenth century.

Mudgett, a graduate of the University of Michigan’s Medical College and a practicing pharmacist in Chicago, excelled at insurance fraud and the seduction of young women, at least 27 of whom were killed after signing papers that made Mudgett the recipient of their insurance and savings. Drugged with chloroform after a night of prenuptial sex, each would awaken trapped in the elevator shaft of an elaborate three-story office building, specially designed by Mudgett to conceal his nefarious activities. This building, outfitted with trap doors, soundproof rooms, peepholes, enormous furnaces, and vats of acid to dissolve human remains was dubbed his “Castle.” Savoring the terror of the trapped girls, he would pump in poison gas and then haul their lifeless bodies onto the dissecting table for the removal of parts that held for him a special fascination.

Fortunately these extreme examples. In fact, not all antisocials are criminals and not all criminals are antisocials. In fact,only a minor subset of the antisocial pattern comes into conflict with the law. Indeed, individuals with normal-range antisocial traits are often rewarded by our competitive society, where the ability to act tough and bend the rules is admired as necessary for success and survival in a DOG-EAT-DOG world. Between the extremes of normal adjustment and the most brutal abuse of human life lie many SHADES OF GRAY. Some antisocials jealously guard their autonomy, striking preemptively at anyone who might restrict or condemn their behavior.
An antisocial has the reputation of being “difficult to get along with.” She works hard at creating a formidable and aggressive image thus identifying her to the world as someone to be taken seriously—someone you’d better keep your distance from. Her posture, clothes, attitude, and remarks cultivate that image. She wants to impress the listener with her callousness and self-sufficiency. Not surprisingly, they have a police record(at times). Ask her why, and she’ll tell you, “I DON'T TAKE ANYBODY'S SHIT,” without ever breaking eye contact.

HER history includes a conspicuous absence of prosocial role models. She lacks a Conscience. She sneers at religious faith and instead puts forward her own moral principle: “Do unto others before they do unto you.” With no obvious prosocial impulses and no internal moral restraints on action, SHE is free to do whatever she wants, whenever she wants. The only barrier to her actions is society itself, and
the only constraints she respects are those that society can enforce through its police presence and the threat of punishment or those that others can enforce through their own threats of harm or revenge. SHE is chronically deceitful. SHE is unable to maintain steady employment, preferring to obtain money by racking up huge debts in other people’s names with no intention of honoring the obligations.

Although she would qualify for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, the
terms psychopath and sociopath also compete for CLINICAL CURRENCY in describing in-
dividuals who flagrantly and pervasively violate the rights of others. PSYCHOPATHS re believed to possess some constitutional disposition to the syndrome. SOCIOPATHS are biologically normal but develop antisocial characteristics through incompetent or hostile socialization, mainly defective parenting.

Whereas the noxious behaviors of the antisocial are often obvious, Psychopaths often cloak themselves in the trappings of normality, but nevertheless damage or destroy lives without remorse, shame, or conscience. Most are pathological liars adept at sizing up situations and feigning sincerity, thus allowing them to literally flourish undetected behind a “mask of sanity.” Such individuals possess a deep-seated inability to understand the emotional dimension of language, particularly those aspects connected with feelings of attachment and empathy.

The total portrait suggests an individual beset with multiple short marriages, juvenile delinquency, a versatile criminal past, a parasitic lifestyle, sexual promiscuity, narcissism as evidenced by traits such as egocentricity, grandiosity, intolerance of boredom, lack of empathy, manipulativeness, inability to feel remorse, complete lack of internal behavioral controls.

Many readers of this blog will be surprised that some of their best and most admired qualities express characteristics associated with the antisocial personality, though certainly in A MUTED FORM.

The Dependent Personality

Dependent personalities are caring to a fault, allowing others’well-being to come first no matter what the cost may be to themselves or their identity. Ever helping and giving, they are committed to their personal relationships, especially to their spouses and the institution of marriage. Essentially, they live their lives through others and for others, to whom they offer warmth, tenderness, and consideration.

We will use a fictitious "she" and "Pete" for illustration. Read on. You will hopefully have a wealth of understanding of the human personality.

When people they care for are happy, they (dependent personalities) are happy. Not surprisingly, they tend to assume the more passive role in their relationships, deferring to the opinions and desires of those they love, whose pleasure and fulfillment they then enjoy vicariously. They prefer harmony in their relationships and tend to be apologetic even when others should take the greater part of responsibility for a disagreement.

Many characteristics associated with the dependent personality are prized and ad-
mired in our culture. These include the quality of being happy when loved ones are
happy and making personal sacrifices for the good of others, including volunteering to perform many selfless acts.

On the surface, they are warm and affectionate, but underneath, they see themselves as HELPLESS and FEAR DOING ANYTHING ON THEIR OWN. They need to be taken care of and seek competent instrumental surrogates who reward submission by facing down the problems of the world in their place. Many are incapable of MAKING EVEN ROUTINE DECISIONS WITHOUT FIRST SEEKING ADVICE. By putting their lives in the control
of others, they suffocate their partners with their clinginess and in turn leave themselves vulnerable to ABANDONMENT. To protect against this possibility, dependents quickly submit to their partners’wishes or become so pleasing no one would possibly want to leave them.

Often, they arrange their lives so that they can avoid acquiring competencies that
might allow them to stand on their own. When a relationship does finally dissolve, their self-esteem is devastated. Deprived of support or attachment, they withdraw into themselves and become increasingly tense and despondent. They find it almost impossible to take the initiative on their own behalf or to provide direction to their lives or careers. Instead, they bond themselves to those they perceive as confident or in control and constantly solicit advice and reassurance before committing to almost anything.

In effect, they piggyback themselves on the talents, abilities, and fortitude
of others, often even in trivial matters, such as what to have for lunch or what clothes to buy. Her life has always taken whatever direction others might give it, so that her life is their creation, not her own. Although she is all grown up, psychologically, she remains a child in many ways. In her private moments, her immaturity scares her. Independence is anathema to her. Instead, in her mind, she must always be pleasing and never disagree with those on whom she depends. Conflict is not only inconsistent with her self-image but also risks her continued protection, either explicitly by evoking others’ anger or implicitly by establishing a separate identity to be respected, a dangerous precedent for any dependent.
It seems a better strategy for the dependent to play it safe and submit to the opinions and desires of others. As she herself says, she finds it difficult to assert herself in the marriage because “Pete might become angry with me.”

She has plenty of energy; she simply lacks direction. She cannot commit to a decision without first knowing that others approve of it. She lacks confidence to set
her life on a course of her own making and then follow through. On the surface, she
might agree to attend college, but she becomes suspicious when other people push such an agenda too hard. If she were to be successful, others might demand that she do even more. They may even demand that she assume a measure of control over her own life, a trend that frightens her. “What happens after I attend college?” she wonders. “What else will they expect? Why does Pete really want me to attend college? Is he setting me up to leave me?” She believes that the less she initiates on her own, the better chance she has of holding on to people.
In fact, her goal is to maintain things as they have always been, a kind of timeless
childhood in which she is passive and pleasant and is ensured protection and a comfortable attachment to others.

We cannot say exactly what the future holds for her. We do know, however, that Pete feels suffocated, and we can infer that he has begun to see their relationship as something She needs more than she wants. Pete thinks that She should have more of an identity of her own. He may even doubt that she honestly loves him or is MATURE ENOUGH TO KNOW WHAT LOVE MEANS.

IN SUMMATION, this personality is characterized by A pervasive and excessive need to be taken care of that leads to submissive and clinging behavior and fears of separation, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts,
as indicated by five (or more) of the following:(1) has difficulty making everyday decisions without an excessive amount of advice and reassurance from others.(2)Needs others to assume responsibility for most major areas of his or her life.(3) has difficulty expressing disagreement with others because of fear of loss of support or approval. Note: Do not include realistic fears of retribution.(4) has difficulty initiating projects or doing things on his or her own (because of a lack of self confidence in judgment or abilities rather than a lack of motivation or energy).(5) goes to excessive lengths to obtain nurturance and support from others, to the point of volunteering to do things that are unpleasant.(6) feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone because of exaggerated fears of being unable to care for himself or herself.(7) URGENTLY SEEKS ANOTHER RELATIONSHIP as a source of care and support when a close relationship ends.(8) is unrealistically preoccupied with fears of being left to take care of himself or herself.

Modesty in the woman kind

Sex lies at the root of life, and we can never learn to reverence life until we know how to understand sex. It has been observed that birds of prey hide themselves to drink, because, being obliged to plunge their heads in the water, they are at that moment defenceless. To a timid and tender woman there ought to be no greater torture than to allow herself in the presence of a man something which she thinks she ought to blush at. For a woman above the vulgar level there is everything to gain by very reserved manners.

The sexual impulse in women is fettered by an inhibition which has to be conquered. A thin veil of reticence, shyness, and anxiety is constantly cast anew over a woman's love, and her wooer, in every act of courtship, has the enjoyment of conquering afresh an oft-won woman.

While the young virgin is more shy than the young man of the same age, the experienced married woman is usually less so than her husband, and in a woman who is a mother the shy reticences of virginal modesty would be rightly felt to be ridiculous. She has put off a sexual livery that has no longer any important part to play in life, and would, indeed, be inconvenient and harmful, just as a bird loses its sexual plumage when the pairing season is over.

Primitive woman, proud of her womanhood, for a long time defended her nakedness which ancient art has always represented. And in the actual life of the young girl to-day there surely must be a moment when she feels the pride of her sex, the intuition of her moral superiority, and cannot understand why she must hide its cause. At this moment she scarcely knows if nakedness should or should not affright her. A sort of confused atavistic memory recalls to her a period before clothing was known.

Judging from my own inquiry, few women care to look upon male nakedness, and some women, though not wanting in esthetic feeling, find no beauty in man's form. Some are positively repelled by the sight of nakedness, even that of a husband or lover. On the contrary, most men delight in gazing upon the uncovered figure of women. It seems that only highly-cultivated and imaginative women enjoy the spectacle of a finely-shaped nude man (especially after attending art classes, and drawing from the nude).
Stories are told of brides who sob and tremble with fright on the wedding-night, the hysteria being sometimes alarming. Ignorance of the nature of the sexual connection is often the cause of exaggerated alarm.

When a young woman is surprised in a state of nakedness by a person of the opposite, or even of the same, sex, it is her instinct to conceal the primary centers of sexual function and attractiveness, in the first place, the pubes, in the second place the breasts. The exact attitude and the particular gestures of the hands in achieving the desired end vary with the individual, and with the circumstances. The hand may not be used at all as a veil, and, indeed, the instinct of modesty itself may inhibit the use of the hand for the protection of modesty (to turn the back towards the beholder is often the chief impulse of blushing modesty, even when clothed).
The sexual modesty of the woman is rooted in the sexual periodicity of the female, and is an involuntary expression of the organic fact that the TIME FOR LOVE IS NOT NOW. But this expression itself becomes so habitual that it even intrudes at those moments when it has ceased to be in place. We may see this in the female dog, who, when in heat, herself runs after the male, and again turns to flee, perhaps only submitting with much persuasion to his embrace.

The sexual modesty of the female is thus an inevitable by-product of the naturally aggressive attitude of the male in sexual relationships, and the naturally defensive attitude of the female, this again being founded on the fact that, while the sexual function in the female is periodic, and during most of life a function to be guarded from the opposite sex, in the male it rarely or never needs to be SO GUARDED.

The Histrionic Personality

This is the first of a long series in which we will be looking at The biological, psychodynamic, interpersonal, and cognitive perspectives of humans starting with the HISTRIONIC PERSONALITY. I hope it will be helpful to you in knowing yourself trully well and your friends too.

At some point in your academic career, you may have encountered a classmate or two who invariably claimed the center of attention. Typically dramatic and often seductive, these individuals made every attempt to impress the teacher and classmates with witty remarks and suggestive behaviors.

Perchance you may have noticed that their interaction with other classmates involved a frequent interrupting or reframing of discussions to sustain themselves as the focus. Anything falling short of others’ admiration or reverence toward themselves would inevitably invoke feelings of resentment and depression. Yet, these negative moods would have been fleeting as their relentless striving for approval prompted a more suitable affect. In addition, you would have noted to your-self how easily influenced they were, especially as you witnessed their opinions and behaviors conform on a whim to suit whomever they sought to interact with.

Once in conversation, they communicated with flamboyant headlines at the expense of substantive details. This bold pattern of expression was usually perpetuated by their physical appearance, whether it was their hairstyle, make-up, clothing, or a memorable combination of the sort. In the end, you would have felt these people were the “LIFE OF THE PARTY.”
The pattern displayed by these individuals is that of the HISTRIONIC PERSONALITY. To him/her attention bestows narcotizing effects as it is something they “can’t do without”. Bolstering his/her sense of worth, he/she (I'll use her henceforth) can readily interact with others whose attention she’s captured. Without it, she feels SUBPAR and SCRAMBLES to redirect all interests back to her. Over the years, she has developed ingenious ways of doing so with a sensitivity to the qualities and behaviors that others might find interesting and attractive.

Her strategies are seductive or sexually provocative; her repertoire of behaviors contributes to her success. Her tendency to hyperemotionalize overshadows her rationale as she exhibits an ever-changing stream of consciousness and its respective, uncensored emotional expressions. Her emotional life has the trappings of depth and seems vividly alive but, on deeper inspection, lacks authenticity. Always a little exaggerated and theatrical, her emotional shifts are sometimes so rapid and overplayed that an observer may wonder whether her feelings are genuine or else wonder about the underlying conflicts and insecurities her never-ending kaleidoscope of affect conceals.

On reflection, she seems too concerned with her own universe. She talks freely but, for the most part, she tends to avoid serious matters, causing her words to lack detail and substance. She uses her physical appearance to direct attention toward
herself.
On any day ripe with social opportunity, She probably tries to look flashier, sex-
ier, and more colorful than everyone else, for these are the qualities that she believes will win friends and influence people. Though She is right some of the time, her INTERPERSONAL POSTULATE COMES AT A SUBSTANTIAL COST. She tends to confuse attraction and intimacy, apparently because SHE HAS AS LITTLE INSIGHT INTO OTHERS AS SHE HAS INTO HERSELF.

She openly will state, “Most guys just want me for my body,” yet she also says, “I think I find it easy to get to know others, and that’s why I get so bored with people so fast.”This boredom results from her innate DISINTEREST IN DETAIL & PREFERENCE FOR HEADLINES. As in life, headlines are fleeting and so, too, is the shelf life of her interpersonal relationships. In fact, she becomes bored because she has little substance of her own through which to connect with others. SHE knows many people, but she doesn’t know anyone deeply, and that likely includes not knowing herself. In this sense, her cascade of exaggerated emotions serves as a distraction from the emptiness of her experience.

in summary these are the elements of Histrionic Personality Disorder. A pervasive pattern of excessive emotionality and attention seeking, beginning by early adulthood
and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: (1) is uncomfortable in situations in which he or she is not the center of attention (2) interaction with others is often characterized by inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior (3) displays rapidly shifting and
shallow expression of emotions(4) consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to self (5) has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and
lacking in detail (6) shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated expression of emotion (7) is suggestible, i.e., easily influenced by others or
circumstances (8) considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are.

Rise of anti-Semitism in Russia and Poland

Russian Tzardom began persecution of Jews when it received, by way of bequest, the vast Jewish population of disintegrated Poland. The rise of Russian Judaeophobia, the Russian technical term for Jew-hatred, was paralleled by the appearance of German anti-Semitism in which it found a congenial companion.

The social and cultural anti-Semitism of the West did not undermine the modern foundations of Jewish civil equality. But Russian Judaeophobia, more governmental than social, being fully in accord with the entire régime of absolutism, produced a system aiming not only at the disfranchisement, but also at the direct physical annihilation of the Jewish people. Hitler had his fore runners.

The characterization of merchants, artisans, mill-owners, and ferry-holders as "leeches" could only spring from a conception which looked upon the Jews as transient foreigners, who, by pursuing any line of endeavor, could only do so at the expense of the natives and thus abused the hospitality offered to them. This inimical view of the Jewish people was retained by Nicholas when he became the master of Russian-Jewish destinies. He regarded the Jews as an "injurious element," which had no place in a Slavonic Greek-Orthodox monarchy, and which therefore ought to be combated. As a result of these considerations, a singular scheme was gradually maturing in the mind of the Tzar: to detach the JEWS FROM JUDAISM by impressing them into a military service of a wholly exceptional character.

lETS GO TO POLAND. The "Poles of the Mosaic Persuasion," as these Jewish assimilationists styled themselves, had long been begging for admission into Polish society by 1850, though rudely repulsed by it. During the insurrection of 1861-1863, when they were graciously received as useful allies, they were indefatigable in parading their Polish patriotism. The fact that the Jews had a history was their misfortune in Europe, for their history inevitably presupposed an isolated life severed from that of the other nations. After the insurrection, the Polonization of the Jewish population assumed menacing proportions. The upper layer of Polish Jewry consisted exclusively of "Poles of the Mosaic Persuasion" who rejected all
elements of Jewish culture, while the broad masses rejected fanatically even the most
indispensable elements of European civilization.

I will end this post with Judah Leib Gordon (1830-1892), the most important poet of the era he lived(the Jewish new era), who composed biblical epics and moralistic fables and was the champion of enlightenment and a trenchant critic of old-fashioned Jewish life. He composed his "Marseillaise of Enlightenment". In it he sang of the sun shedding its rays over the "Land of Eden," where the neck of the enslaved was freed from the yoke and where the modern Jew was welcomed with a brotherly embrace. The poet calls upon his people to join the ranks of their fellow-countrymen, the
hosts of cultured Russian citizens who speak the language of the land, and offers his Jewish contemporaries the brief formula: "Be a man on the street and a Jew in the house," i.e., be a Russian in public and a Jew in private life.

He defined his function in the work of Jewish regeneration at that time to be that of exposing the inner ills of the people, of fighting rabbinical orthodoxy and the tyranny of ceremonialism.

In "contemporary epics" he vents his wrath against petrified Rabbinism. He portrays the misery of a Jewish woman who is condemned to enter married life at the bidding
of the marriage-broker, without love and without happiness. The tragedy is that this woman remained unhappy the rest of her life because the Hebrew bill of divorce
which she had obtained from her husband was declared void on account of
a trifling error in spelling!!!. He lashes furiously the orthodox spiders, the official leaders of the community, who catch the young pioneers of enlightenment in the meshes of Kabal authority, backed by police force. Climbing higher upon the ladder of history, the poet registers his protest against the predominance of the spiritual over the worldly element in the whole evolution of Judaism. He assails the prophet Jeremiah who in beleaguered Jerusalem preaches submission to the Babylonians and strict obedience to the Law: the prophet, dressed up in the garb of a contemporary orthodox rabbi, was to be exhibited as a terrifying
incarnation of the soulless formula "Law above Life."

The Nobility of That Problem

"Vice has no friend like the prejudice which claims to be virtue."
Of all the problems which the alert and curious mind of modern man is considering, none occupies him more than that of the relations of the sexes. This is natural. It touches us all and we have made rather a mess of it!

We resent being the sport of circumstance and perhaps we are beginning to understand that this instinct of sex which has been so great a cause of suffering and shame and has been treated as a subject fit only for furtive whispers or silly jokes, is in fact one of the greatest powers in human nature.

Today it is the normal exercise of a normal instinct by normal people that interests us: and it is of this that I try to write and speak.

The curiosities of depravity are for the Physician and the Psychologist to discuss and cure. ORDINARY MEN & WOMEN WANT FIRST TO KNOW HOW TO LIVE ORDINARY HUMAN LIVES ON A HIGHER LEVEL & AFTER A NOBLER PATTERN THAN BEFORE. They want, I think, and I want, to grow up, but to grow rightly, beautifully, humanely.

The sex-problem is the problem of SOMETHING NOBLE, NOT SOMETHING BASE. It is not a "DISAGREEABLE DUTY" to know our own natures and understand our own instincts: it is a joy. The sex-instinct is not "the Fall of Man.

If Christendom has been staggered at the austerity of Christ's morality not less has it been shocked at the quality of His mercy. His gentleness to the sensual sinner has been compared, with amazement, to the sternness of His attitude to the sins of the spirit. Not the profligate or the harlot but the Pharisee and the scribe were those who provoked His sternest rebukes. And perhaps the most characteristic of all His dealings with such matters was that incident of the WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY, when He at once reaffirmed the need of absolute chastity for men--demand undreamed of by the woman's accusers--and put aside the right to condemn which in all that
assembly He alone could claim--"Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more."

Women, difficult as some people find it to believe, ALSO want the satisfaction of every human need. THE IDEA THAT EXISTENCE IS ENOUGH FOR THEM-THAT THEY DO NOT SUFFER IF THEIR SEX INSTINCTS ARE REPRESSED OR STARVED-is a convenient but most cruel
illusion.

I hear this often: "I find it hard to reconcile sex with the purity of Providence." Such speakers never could understand why God arranged for sex anyway. Why something else might not have been done. Why children might not have come in some other fashion.

Look at the harm sex has involved. Most of the deviltry of history that was not done for money was done for sex. And even the deviltry that was done and is done for money had, and has sex back of it. Take sex out of man and you have something worth while, they say. God must have been short of expedients when God, in creating male and female sex, conceived sex. It certainly looks as if the Divine fell down this time. As if infinity was at the end of its tether. As if the adept creator for once was caught napping, or for once botched a job.

So we such comments. And heaven knows what else. Too much sex some places. Too little sex other places. Some people swearing on and some swearing off. THE PROSTITUTE GIVING AWAY THAT WHICH WAS MEANT TO BE KEPT. THE VIRGIN KEEPING THAT WHICH WAS MEANT TO BE GIVEN AWAY. A force contending with a force. Drawing in opposite directions when they should be pulling together. Through it all, motherhood misunderstood. And fatherhood misunderstood. The body cheapened to the soul. And the soul cheapened to the body.

We breed youngsters in fatal ignorance. They are always asking questions. But we don't answer their questions. Nobody who could answer answers them. But they don't go unanswered. They get answered. And they get answered WRONG INSTEAD OF RIGHT. They get answered, SMUTCHED INSTEAD OF WASHED. They get answered blasphemously instead of reverently. They get answered so that the body is suspected instead of being trusted.

A boy who knows nothing asks a boy who knows nothing. A girl who knows nothing asks a girl who knows nothing. From nothing nothing comes. Men who have been such boys know nothing. Women who have been such girls know nothing. EX NIHIL NIHILO FIT.

Pro-Creation

The command "Be fruitful and multiply," God's command to the ancient Hebrews was, in my view, a command supposed to have been uttered when there were only eight persons in the world.
If the time should ever again occur when the inhabitants of the world could be counted on one's fingers, such an injunction would again be reasonable.
But to-day humanity has spawned itself over the world in hundreds and even thousands.

Luther (the other one of the 16th Century) was accustomed to say that God's way of making man was very foolish (of course he was terribly wrong), and that if God had deigned to take him into His counsel he would have strongly advised Him to make the whole human race, as He made Adam, "OUT OF EARTH." And certainly if applied to the manner in which procreation in Luther's day, as still for the most part in our own, was usually carried out there was SOME sound common sense in the 'Reformer's' remarks. It was, however, unjust to place the responsibility on God.

It is men and women who breed the people that make the world good or bad. More on this in up-coming issues.

The Woman

This old Oriental legend about creation of woman is so exquisitely charming that it deserves to be reproduced on this blog first.

At the beginning of time, Twashtri—the Vulcan of Hindu mythology—created the world. But when he wished to create a WOMAN, he found that he had employed all his materials in the creation of man. There did not remain one solid element. Then Twashtri, perplexed, fell into a profound meditation from which he aroused himself and proceeded as follows:

He took the ROUNDNESS of the moon, the UNDULATIONS of the serpent, the ENTWINEMENT of clinging plants, the trembling of the grass, the slenderness of the rose-vine and the velvet of the flower, the lightness of the leaf and the GLANCE of the fawn, the GAIETY of the sun's rays and tears of the mist, the inconstancy of the wind and the timidity of the hare, the vanity of the peacock and the SOFTNESS of the down on the throat of the swallow, the hardness of the diamond, the SWEET FLAVOR of honey and the cruelty of the tiger, the WARMTH of fire, the chill of snow, the chatter of the jay and the cooing of the turtle dove.

He combined all these and formed a WOMAN. Then he made a present of her to man. Eight days later the man came to Twashtri, and said: "My Lord, the creature you gave me poisons my existence. She chatters without rest, she takes all my time, she laments for nothing at all, and is always ill; take her back;" and Twashtri took the woman back.
But eight days later the man came again to the god and said: "My Lord, my life is very solitary since I returned this creature. I remember she danced before me, singing. I recall how she glanced at me from the corner of her eye, how she played with me, clung to me. Give her back to me," and Twashtri returned the woman to him. Three days only passed and Twashtri saw the man coming to him again. "My Lord," said he, "I do not understand exactly how it is, but I am sure that the woman causes me more annoyance than pleasure. I beg you to relieve me of her."

But Twashtri cried: "Go your way and do the best you can." And the man cried: "I cannot live with her!" "Neither can you live without her!" replied Twashtri.

And the man went away sorrowful, murmuring: "Woe is me, I can neither live with nor without her."

The same elusiveness, the same mocking mystery, meet us throughout when we seek to investigate the manifestations of the sexual impulse in women.

Mandeville said of women that "their passions are not so easily raised nor so suddenly fixed upon any particular object; but when this passion is once rooted in women it is much stronger and more durable than in men, and rather increases than diminishes by enjoying the person of the beloved."
Schopenhauer said that a man's love decreases with enjoyment, and a woman's.

Women, i think, tend to show an increase of sexual ardor after sexual relationships have been set up increases. The threshold of excess is passed very much sooner by the man than by the woman. Alacrity, rather than languor marks a woman after coitus.

This great diffusion of the sexual impulse and emotions in women is as visible on the psychic as on the physical side. A woman can find sexual satisfaction in a great number of ways that do not include the sexual act proper, and in a great number of ways that apparently are not physical at all, simply because their physical basis is diffused or is to be found in one of the outlying sexual zones.

I think I will stop there.

Doctrine of Economic Determinism

Let's turn to economics today, after all, 'the bread and butter question is the most important question in life'. I hope this will not be a boring read. And I will keep it short.

All the rest of the life of an individual is affected and dominated by the way he earns his/her bread and butter. The political, legal, ethical and even religious institutions of men/women have their roots in the economic soil, and any reform that does not go clear to the roots and affect the economic structure of society must necessarily be abortive. Any thing that does go to the roots and does modify the economic structure, the bread and butter side of life, will inevitably modify every other branch and department of human life, political, ethical, legal and religious. This makes the social question, the legal question, the religious question an economic question.

Engels said: "In every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained the political and intellectual history of that epoch."

Put simply another way; laws, customs, education, public opinion and morals are controlled and shaped by economic conditions, or, in other words, by the dominant ruling class which the economic system of any given period forces to the front.
The ruling ideas of each age have been the ideas of its ruling class, whether that class was the patricians of ancient Rome, the feudal barons of the middle ages, or the capitalists of modern times. The economic structure of society largely controls and shapes all social institutions, and also religious and philosophical ideas.

Marx himself said that the mode of production obtaining in material life determines, generally speaking, the social, political and intellectual processes of life. This is as far as i wish to go with this not so lively topic.

Marvelous Instinct

Medieval ascetic writers regarded woman as "a temple built over a sewer,"! They thought that sexual impulse (male and female) was dependent on the need of evacuation thus, for example, they studied a male frog and noted that during coitus it will undergo the most horrible mutilations, even decapitation, and yet resolutely continue the act of intercourse, which lasts from four to ten days, sitting on the back of the female and firmly clasping her with his forelegs.

They were wrong.
The chief parts in the drama of sex, alike on its psychic as on its physical sides, are played by two protagonists, The Hormones, or The internal secretions of the reproductive organs. In humans, preliminaries themselves constitute a partial satisfaction to the sexual impulse.

But first let me say this: The part played by the female in courtship is usually in some respects, a more difficult and complex part. Except when the male fails to play his part properly, she is usually comparatively passive; in the proper playing of her part she has to appear to shun the male, to flee from his approaches—even actually to repel them. The true nature of the passivity of the female is revealed by the ease with which it is thrown off, more especially when the male refuses to accept his cue. Or, if we prefer to accept the analogy of a game, we may say that in the play of courtship the first move belongs to the male, but that, if he fails to play, it is then the female's (some females) turn to play.

Sexual instinct is an instinct of reproduction. But that is not all, otherwise we might as well say that the impulse by which young animals seize food is "an instinct of nutrition. A woman may not want a lover, but may yet want a child. A desire for reproduction, as soon as that desire becomes instinctive, necessarily takes on the form of the sexual impulse, for there is no other instinctive mechanism by which it can possibly express itself, by which a woman can have her own child except through intercourse.
A high degree of excitement of the nervous system is necessary to procreation. Such a stage is necessary before any markedly passionate discharge of motor energy. The primary object of COURTSHIP is to produce sexual excitement. COURTSHIP, I repeat, is the strong and steady bending of the bow that the arrow may find its mark in a biological end of survival of healthy specie.

Judgments of men concerning women are very rarely matters of cold scientific observation They are colored both by their own sexual emotions and by their own moral attitude toward the sexual impulse. The ascetic, for example, who is unsuccessfully warring with his own carnal impulses may see nothing in women but incarnations of sexual impulse; The ascetic who has subdued his own carnal impulses may see no elements of sex in women at all. Actually, Statements about the sexual impulses of women often tell us less about women than about the persons who make them (ha!).

"Turn to history," wrote Brierre de Boismont, "and on every page you will be able to recognize the predominance of erotic ideas in women." It is the same today, (today being 1862), he adds, and he attributes it to the fact that men are more easily able to gratify their sexual impulses. Methinks that the sexual coldness of women is in fact only apparent, either due to the concealment of glowing sexuality beneath the veil of outward reticence prescribed by conventional morality, or else to the husband who has not succeeded in arousing erotic sensations which are complicated and with difficulty awakened. The sexual sensibility of women is certainly different from that of men, but in strength it is at least as great.

I venture to state that it is often the failure of the man to produce sexual excitement in the woman which leads to voluntary repression of sexual sensation on her part. Sexual excitement, not brought to its natural climax, the reaction leaves the woman in a very disagreeable condition, and repeated occurrences of that kind may even lead to general nervous disturbances. Some of such unfortunate women learn to suppress their sexual sensation so as to avoid all these disagreeable experiences. Such a state of affairs is not only unfortunate, because it deprives the female partner of her natural rights, but it is also to be deplored because it practically brings down such a married woman to the level of the prostitute.

Let me finish this way: To the man coitus must be in some slight degree pleasurable or it cannot take place at all. To the woman the same act which, under some circumstances, in the desire it arouses and the satisfaction it imparts, will cause the whole universe to shrivel into nothingness, under other circumstances will be a source of anguish, physical and mental.

JUST A THOUGHT; It is too often forgotten by those who write on these subjects that the man who seduces a woman has usually himself in the first place been "seduced" by a woman.

THE MASTERSINGERS OF NUREMBERG

The Mastersingers of Nuremberg is an opera, a great opera, in three acts, written and composed by Richard Wagner. It was, unfortunately, Hitler's most beloved and he was, sadly, loved by Hitler as the greatest composer. He influenced Hitler's anti-semitism. It was in Nuremberg where Hitler laid down his dark scheme. And it was in Nuremberg where the Trials of the Nazi captured would be held( symbolically to bring a close to the war from the place of its planning.
The story IN the Mastersingers of Nuremberg takes place in Nuremberg during the middle of the 16th century. At the time, Nuremberg was an Imperial Free City, and one of the centers of the Renaissance in Northern Europe. The story revolves around the real-life guild of Meistersinger (Master Singers), an association of amateur poets and musicians, mostly from the middle class and often master craftsmen in their main professions. The Mastersingers developed a craftsmanlike approach to music-making, with an intricate system of rules for composing and performing songs. The work draws much of its charm from its faithful depiction of the Nuremberg of the era and the traditions of the Mastersinger guild.
RICHARD WAGNER THE MAN(The 'most German of Men')

HE WAS a controversial man. His operas, writings, his politics, beliefs and unorthodox lifestyle made him a controversial figure during his lifetime. In September 1876 Karl Marx complained in a letter to his daughter Jenny: "Wherever one goes these days one is pestered with the question: what do you think of Wagner?"

Under a pseudonym, He published "Das Judenthum in der Musik" in 1850 (originally translated as "Judaism in Music", by which name it is still known, but better rendered as "Jewishness in Music.") The essay attacks Jewish contemporaries (and rivals) Felix Mendelssohn, and accused Jews of being a harmful and alien element in German culture. Wagner stated the German people were repelled by their alien appearance and behavior: "with all our speaking and writing in favour of the Jews' emancipation, we always felt instinctively repelled by any actual, operative contact with them." He argued that because Jews had no connection to the German spirit, Jewish musicians were only capable of producing shallow and artificial music. They therefore composed music to achieve popularity and, thereby, financial success, as opposed to creating genuine works of art.

Adolf Hitler was an admirer of Wagner's music and anti-Jewish sentiments and saw in Wagner's operas an embodiment of his own vision of the German nation. There continues to be debate about the extent to which Wagner's views might have influenced Nazi thinking. As with the works of Nietzsche, the Nazis used those parts of Wagner's thought that were useful for propaganda and ignored or suppressed the rest.
His work is banned in Israel, Understandably so.

The Marvel that is the Female Character

I publish this postbut here I do it again, albeit with modifications and with a rider that I'm not married thus cannot be and desires not be perceived as having answers to marriage's existential problems.

Balzac has compared the average husband to an Orang-utan and says of woman that:

“Woman is a delicious instrument of pleasure, but it is necessary to know its quivering strings, study the pose of it, its timid keyboard, the changing and capricious fingering. How many Orangs—men, I mean, marry without knowing what a woman is!... Nearly all men marry in the most profound ignorance of women and of love”

Sigmund Freud pointed out (wrong as he was on many issues) that the bridal night is practically often a rape, and that it sometimes leads to hysteria, which is not cured until satisfying sexual relationships are established. There is a psychic importance of the manner in which the act of defloration is accomplished.

This first moment in which the man's individuality attains its full rights often decides the whole of life. The unskilled, over-excited husband (let me use the word ‘Man’ ) can then implant the seed of feminine insensibility, and by continued awkwardness and coarseness develop it into permanent repulsion. The man who takes possession of his rights with reckless brutal masculine force merely causes his wife (the woman) anxiety and pain, and with every repetition of the act increases her repulsion.

A large proportion of cold-natured women represent a sacrifice by men, due either to unconscious awkwardness, or, occasionally, to conscious brutality towards the tender plant which should have been cherished with peculiar art and love, but has been robbed of the splendour of its development.

All her life long, a wistful and trembling woman will preserve the recollection of a brutal wedding night (any night, its irrelevant which night it is), and, often enough, it remains a perpetual source of inhibition every time that the man seeks anew to gratify his desires without adapting himself to his wife's desires for love".

THE condition of women among the ancient Patriarchs, appears to have been but extremely indifferent. When Abraham entertained the angels, sent to denounce the destruction of Sodom, he seems to have treated his wife as a menial servant: “Make ready quickly,” said he to her, “three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes on the hearth.”

Wrote Diderot long ago; “I have seen an honest woman shudder with horror at her husband/Man's approach, I have seen her plunge in the bath and feel herself never sufficiently washed from the stain of duty.”

Women, when their fine natural instincts have not been hopelessly perverted by the pruderies and prejudices which at times is instilled into them’ understand the art of love more readily than men. Even when little more than children they can often completely take the cue that is given to them. Much more than is the case with men, at all events the art of love is with them.

The knowledge of women cannot replace, the ignorance of men, but, on the contrary, merely serves to reveal it. For in the art of love the man must take the initiative.

It is he who must first unseal the mystery of the intimacies and audacities which the woman's heart may hold. The risk of meeting with even the shadow of contempt or disgust is too serious to allow a woman, even a wife, to reveal the secrets of love to a man who has not shown himself to be an initiate.
Numberless are the jovial and contented men who have never suspected, and will never know, that their women carry about with them, sometimes with silent resentment, the ache, the feeling that there are delicious privacies and privileges which she has never been asked to take, or forced to accept.

The case of such men is all the harder because, for the most part, all that they have done is the result of the morality that has been preached to them. They have been taught from boyhood to be strenuous and manly and clean-minded, to seek by all means to put out of their minds the thought of women or the longing for sensuous indulgence.

They have been told on all sides that only in marriage is it right or even safe to approach women. They have acquired the notion that sexual indulgence and all that appertains to it is something low and degrading, at the worst a mere natural necessity, at the best a duty to be accomplished in a direct, honorable and straight-forward manner.

No one seems to have told them that love is an art, and that to gain real possession of a woman's soul and body is a task that requires the whole of a man's best skill and insight.

It may well be that when a man LEARNS HIS LESSON TOO LATE he is inclined to turn FEROCIOUSLY on the society that by its conspiracy of pseudo-morality has done its best to ruin his life, and that of his wife. In some of these cases husband or wife or both are finally attracted to A THIRD PERSON, and a divorce enables them to start afresh with BETTER EXPERIENCE UNDER HAPPIER AUSPICES.

THE Woman, in closing (And because I would hate to say it again), is dowered with a set of organs peculiar to herself, whose complexity, delicacy, sympathies, and force are among the MARVELS OF CREATION.

If properly nurtured and cared for, they are a source of strength and power to her. If neglected and mismanaged, they retaliate upon their possessor mercilessly in mind and body. GOD was not in error, when, after Eve's creation, he looked upon his work, and pronounced it good.