What does sex tell us about life?

He did not consult us when he invented sex.

Mere Christianity, C.S.Lewis.

I will start with a disclaimer that no. I do not revel or make it a habit to disagree with Lewis, who I truly think is the greatest Christian apologist that ever lived and I am not even a Christian. That should tell you something.

Just for today though, I will disagree with him.

The first phrase on this post is from his book where he discusses how we should be prepared for sex to be odd, repulsive and sometimes downright degenerate. How much of it we want, how we want to it. All of that. He advises us to welcome the oddity because rationale may be truly inadequate to explain the ins and out of the whole thing.

He says God did not consult us when he invented it so we should come prepared to deal with that.

I mean it’s true that God, the Higher Power or whatever you choose to believe didn’t consult us. I mean. he didn’t consult us about anything, but I think in that phrase Lewis was using the phrase more to mean ‘consider’ or maybe I’m just imposing my Freudian slip to his work because I really can’t stop interchanging ‘consider’ with ‘consult’ whenever I say it.

If that was the case though. I disagree.

I think God considered us particularly. So much so that he created a pocket called sexuality for us and us alone. Where our choice interacts with sex and sex interacts with our unconscious needs. Animals can’t have sexuality, in fact I think sex is the wrong word for what animals do. What they do is more or less just reproduction and what does reproduction tell us about them? That they live to die another day and further that cause.

So what does sex tell us about us? About our lives, how much we want it and why we want it at all, especially when it has nothing to do with reproduction. I mean to live to die another day is the obvious reason but that’s only part of it. What about the craving we have for it, the insatiability we have even after years of copulation. What does that tell us about our lives?

I think it tells us there is a great amount of loneliness in the world and it is as if this strange phenomenon of ‘horniness’ is the alert that we have more of it than we can handle at any one moment. By it, I mean loneliness.

In fact for me the physical desire for the act of sex is such a huge metaphor for the loneliness we feel and the true magnitude of it. The need to literally have someone hurtle into your body or you to theirs and I’m not talking about just the physical act even just kissing, it’s quite literal there too. I think in many ways sex is a comfort for the intense loneliness life has to offer us.

And I should say ‘correct sex’ that is just to mean, the kind of sex that fills the void, if only for a time. Any other kind of sex is incomplete in its goal thus more or less null and void, with the side effect of only increasing the hankering for ‘correct sex.’ The insatiability I was talking about earlier

Although, this void filling isn’t just about sex. I think sex is just a complex form of communication and more on the extreme side when you have had as much loneliness as you can take. ‘Horniness’ is not the alarm when the fire breaks out, it is the literal phone call to the firefighters when the heat is unbearable. There are plenty of remedies before we get to that level, not to say that those who do not want sex are not lonely because we all are and the physical desire has its roots in our biology too. But the desire coupled with the heightened intent to act on it usually points to the apex of loneliness.

As such this is why I think children have less inclination to want sex, usually. There is a kind of loneliness reserved only for the matured, when you no longer have your parents within that close reach.

In fact I think sex is the adult equivalent of bonding between babies and their mothers. When we are born we are truly vulnerable and saddled with our new individuality, I think we experience a profuse amount of loneliness. Enter mom. She provides the solace we need to encounter this new world we are now in away from uterine comfort.

When we want sex, we really just need to bond, badly, as the loneliness bites and thanks to our heightened awareness being adults the loneliness can be torturous. Unfortunately at that point bonding with our mothers like we used to, chest to chest, nipple to mouth is much less of an option.

I think this is why a mother dying in childbirth or a closed adoption is usually such a traumatic event. When the one person who could ease your new found loneliness is the one person you will never meet.





Not you or me, us. Society is a person. A complete third.

My idea of a relationship is one plus one equals three.

These are the words of Shan. A sex educator. I heard them on a clip on Youtube which you can find here. A conversation about monogamy versus polyamory, actually a conversation I would really suggest you watch. Anyway, I heard her words and this idea that society lives finally clicked in me.

At minute 18:40 in the video, they pose a question in the group for discussion. The question is, ‘I would feel incomplete without my partner?’ And Shan disagrees, enthusiastically, I assume that’s how she does everything.

She says she doesn’t connect with that. She imagines at the end of a relationship she would feel a number of ways, sad, disadvantaged and I might even add relieved. But what she can’t connect with is the complete loss of self.

You see, to Shan relationships are one plus one equals three. Where two complete people meet and through their interaction, a third springs up. A third complete person.

And it occurred to me. This is what happens whenever people interact, not just relationships. Whatever it is. The office, school, a date, church, every single interaction, there is always an imaginary third that lives.

I think this third is a paradox because in a sense they are at once the most powerful and fleeting person in the interaction. This is why people act so different in groups than they do when alone. It is the third, the presence of the third alone is so potent it changes the behaviour of the individuals.

But then again, when the interaction stops. It is the third that gets the axe. The first axe. So in a way the third is both the strongest and the weakest link. It is this third we are changing when we say society has indeed improved because in a sense the rest of us remain as we were.

I find this an interesting notion especially since we are always talking about changing the world and how that connotes with changing ourselves. And while I do not disagree with that. I think perhaps changing the third is just a tad bit more efficient. The whisper of the third does a lot more than the example of one of us. It’s the difference between using an elevator to lift something to a top floor of a sky scraper as opposed to having someone take the stairs with it in hand, in fact I think the difference is much more drastic than that.

The next question is, ‘So, who is the third?’ The law. Religion. The Internet. Our conscience or what. This I must admit I cannot answer but it would certainly be wonderful if this mystical third could be adequately isolated and truly utilized to ‘change the world,’ as we all so often proclaim.

Till death do us part… really?


As I have been peeling back the onion skin of marriage, love, lust and sex I have fixated on this vow. As old as love itself.

This expectation, avowal and dedication of forever in the context of marriage has always been there, the silent elephant in the marital room. In every civilization. When I think of my African traditional society I see it too. Even creations such as polygamy, wife-inheritance were pillars to support it. To avoid that severance.  Although in our African heritage this concept is not as implicit as the Christian vows that legislate it blatantly into the union.

Watching various wedding shows this is one facet I have seen in almost all of them. Wedding shows from all over the world that is. There is always or mostly an overt gesture of the non-breakable bond of marriage and not just unbreakable but till death do us part.  Air-tight.

In fact this is the whole reason why divorce may just be as bad or maybe to say it more aptly more stigmatized than infidelity. The other part of this forever clause where the eternity is sexual exclusivity.

So my question now is why? Why must death be the only pair of scissors capable of cutting the tied knot?

I don’t think any of the ancient authorities sat together to conspire against all humanity and doom it to this fate. I actually think there is an incredible depth to the insight that inspired this rule to spring up in almost everyone that ever lived. There is something primal that is stroked when the mention of eternity is involved with mortal beings. This is a uniquely human dilemma. To doom itself to that which it is more inadequate to do. I suppose this is not a conundrum to God or immortal beings if indeed they do exist because that wouldn’t be the hardest thing to do after all. To dedicate your short life to something entirely.

And underlying this is the axiom of ‘the one’ which of late has suffered a major battering. In the age of fuckboys and girls, casual sex and sponsorships.

So I reiterate, why?

Perhaps it is because there are some defects that can only be changed with the imminence of death involved. And this is not really easy to simulate in healthy youthful individuals except in marriage. This dichotomy of improvement or death.

I have recently learnt that marriage is where we go to cleanse ourselves of our childhood trauma. And as for entering marriage, that is easy to do, the wiles and promise of sex and love are seductive enough to get us to enter the relationship door. But they are not strong enough to force humans to do the gritty business of cleansing ourselves of the childhood trauma.

So the container needs to be pressurized and sealed shut. Enter marriage. The plug.

Now we can’t escape right. I mean here we are with ‘the one ‘in an airtight container forced to fix ourselves but in an odd twist of events there seems to be an out. Free will. We can still opt out of the repairing and divorce has made it that much easier. Which according to the institution of marriage is obviously the less healthy and probably worst choice of the two but a choice nonetheless.

But the point remains we seem to have created this unique situation for ourselves to help us when we don’t know what help looks like. And many have been healed not completely but for the most part because of this institution that grants death to he who refuses to choose growth.

Now there is a lot of politics with this issue that i will not get into. The right , wrong and pragmatism of it all.I will say though that this is just a theory. And I do find it interesting how we have always accredited this institution to the divine while in fact I think it is precisely the opposite because free will which I think is truly divine is the very thing that either complies or breaks this cage we built to rehabilitate ourselves. How interesting.




What does education cure?


Educate comes from the latin word educare or educe. It means to bring out. As if we ourselves are the libraries and the dictionaries but before education, our wonders and knowledge are sealed off. So this seems education unleashes the sleeping beast within all of us, whoever the beast may be. Which comes as such a surprise to me. This is why.

All my life I have idolized knowledge and education. When I hear the aphorism, knowledge is power, I truly do believe it. But in my head it registers as knowledge is the power to do good. A thought I have only come to criticize recently after combating the paradox of ‘evil education’ what always seemed to be quite antithetical. How can education birth evil or worse yet be the child of evil?

When I heard of the stories of the founding of Uganda and Congo. Stories encased in the Machiavellian princely mentality of how their respective erudite leaders, which counted for a lot in the days of post -independent Africa led their countries to the slaughter. I am indeed, extremely dazed. Not to say that my own Kenya and other African countries are better, in fact this is the tale of many a African nations. Putting hope and the future in the arms of the educated who in turn stab us with their corruption and malevolence. All wrapped up in glossy academic qualification and impeccable experience in leadership. But how can this be? How can education be the root of this evil because place an illiterate ignorant individual in the same position and they would not do half as much damage as that of the educated fellow.

It makes me wonder if education in its essence is rather ambivalent or possibly wholly evil in some instances?

Or worse yet is its power akin to the power of money, dragging the beast from within regardless of whether the beast is evil or beautiful.

I presumed like many others that the process of education is a self-checking mechanism. Enabling only the good to go out. Right?

I mean there must be a reason why we all believe in educating our children and why it’s a millennium development goal. If Education had the same power as money we would feed our children as much money as we do education. It would be in legislature all over that children have a right money the same way they have a right to education. But this is not the case, and I know that isn’t coincidental.

Education is a kind of cure. Education has the power akin to free will. A sword immeasurably potent but also rather dependent on the swordsman. It is the power of choice. Because education can be used to build bombs to kill innocents  or to build some beneficial structure to house the very same innocents from danger.

So it seems education isn’t at all what I thought. Education isn’t the one who breaks out the good inside. It just allows you access to the world inside and hand you the requisite tools to build its entry into the world outside. So I guess education is the cure of whatever we decide we are ailing from and the irony is we can decide that we are ailing from ‘goodness’ and use education to build ourselves bad medicine.

R.E.S.P.E.C.T find out what it means to me…


Jealousy is what you get when respect malfunctions.

For a long time I have wondered what the hype is about respect, these famous term that inspires every generation. What is this internal hype that everyone recognizes because it is marked with excellence.

Everyone that ever lived wanted respect and not necessarily from others but even from themselves. Disrespect had initiated divorce and even started wars, so what is this nagging emotion?

And I want to point out respect is not reverence. Reverence which is also associated with excellence. We regard God, geniuses and saints with reverence. Reverence is for the unattainable excellence, it is for those we a priori regard to be above us.

You will never match the goodness of a saint, the IQ of a genius or the potency of God so we revere them but respect is different. Respect is for our equals, we even respect people we otherwise dislike. Many at times we say, “I don’t even like so and so but I respect what they did.”

Respect is primal and automatic to another person’s good and it’s streamline even with other species. I thought of this in terms of dogs. Dogs respect us, they don’t revere us. They don’t pounce on us and kill us even though they can because they have seen something admirable in us, they’ve seen our loyalty to them, something they can aspire to themselves.

As the meaning of respect unfurled in front of me it struck just how similar it is to its malevolent counterpart, jealousy. Jealousy too is a response to another’s good a good which is perceived to be attainable by us but it goes a step further. It seeks to destroy the excellence.

Jealousy is not passive like respect. Jealousy is the woman who tries to seduce a man just to ruin his marriage. Jealousy is the rapist who recognizes purity and innocence and decides to twist it. Jealousy is the madness that can come from respect because we are only ever jealous of the things we respect.

So what contorts so that respect can morph into jealousy? Is it internal disequilibrium?  Is it trauma associated with the excellence that now glides before you?

What are the ingredients that need to mix with respect to turn into virulent jealousy?

Laughably, it is also interesting to point out that dogs’ respect hardly ever shrivels into jealousy. It never succumbs to the turmoil and instead aspires to it. A rather odd outcome because the dog’s instinct like most other animals is to survive which usually means to kill. In this case however they seem to transcend their instinct something that hardly ever happens in the alpha ‘dog eat dog’ world of animals.

You would think it would be easier for humans but it is in fact humans whose respect occasionally deforms into jealousy. Even though humans don’t have to deal with the persistence of natural instincts to propel it.  How is that?


So, a while ago I can’t remember when exactly, someone I admire quite a bit sent me a viral video. A man in the rural setting, speaking to his friends about how he could beat up his wife to a pulp in an instant and the ignominy of men who allow themselves to be as he put it ‘beaten up by their wives.’ In the midst of heavy laughter amongst them, his wife appears suddenly, very Nollywood-esque and is immediately on him the minute she spots him. Lifting him by the collar and occasionally pummeling him, as she repeatedly asks him about the children, the upkeep of the house and his lolling around  with his friends instead of attending to those matters specifically. Matters which I will point out to you are ‘traditionally female roles,’ so you know there is an inherent denigration there already, especially in the African setting.
The man after thorough scrutiny and assault by her, in full view of his friends is finally escorted away, by her, by the collar might I add, which she has bunched up in fists as she drags him away. And if you’re wondering, no, she is not a giant with brute strength, she is just an average sized-woman and he is just an average-sized man, bigger than her, to further magnify the true absurdity or irony of the situation, I am not sure which. The scene closes to the resounding laughter of his friends and to my eternal shame, mine too. In fact calling what I did laughter is a gross understatement.
The Patriarchy
Now let’s begin at the beginning. Before even feminism, we have the patriarchy and I don’t even mean the obvious intricate infrastructure that over millennia has been built to just destroy women. Whether you’re talking about victim blaming in rape cases, corporate mistreatment of mothers and women alike, domestic violence, gender-roles, honour killings, disgust and objectification of the female form, I mean you name it. That’s not even the issue to me. The real issue to me is the whisper in almost everyone’s head that says, ‘men are better than women’ constantly. This to me is the real culprit and honestly the measure of the beast. Because try as we all may, this whisper still exists in all of us . This whisper that informs us subconsciously.
This is the true enemy of feminism, what feminism is fighting everyday tooth and nail to dismantle and silence. If feminism is Samurai Jack, then patriarchy is Aku, shape-shifting master of darkness, literally. The operative word being shape-shifting. You’ll see why.
This is where the fraud comes in or is it slips in. I think, in recent times there has been a profound misconstruction in the decomposition of patriarchy by feminists and let no one mistake this for a denouncement of my feminism because I am a feminist through and through.
Patriarchy is not men. In fact patriarchy exists outside of men (as ridiculous as that sounds or not actually). And the problem of feminism is that it has assumed men are tantamount to the patriarchy which is the worst possible thing it could have done. And the minute I say that, many if not all feminists will rise up in arms and tell me I’ve got it all wrong. That what I am talking about is radical feminism and not ‘feminism feminism’ and to that I say. The rabbit hole goes deeper than that but then again it always does.
My evidence is the term that many feminists use, even male ones, even the very mild ones, even me. Male privilege. And no I don’t think it doesn’t exist, male privilege is a living breathing organism. I just don’t think it exists in the way we think it exists.
Males aren’t enjoying because of the patriarchy, in fact I’d argue men are the ones suffering the most. And with the patriarchy there is male privilege and the more obscure female privilege that most people don’t want to talk about. And here is where the problem begins. The denial.
Most of us have assumed that men are in their slots of power, up there in the sky, past the corporate ladder, trampling on these poor weak women enjoying when it’s anything but that. I will quote one of my favourite modern philosophers, Alain De Botton, ‘any success must admit to the loss that it sacrificed.’ The opportunity cost is not a concept that ends in the Economics class, it is real. Patriarchy has given men more money, more power and more control and stripped them of even more.
Men can’t cry. Men are nothing without success, they are success objects. Men are barely enjoying raising their kids. Men can’t get any help if abused, hell men can barely report abuse without never hearing the end of ridicule. Men can’t dare experiment sexually. Men can’t be vulnerable. Men are conscripted automatically. Men have no say in what happens to their children if their children’s mothers decide to abort/adopt. Men’s sexual abuse is the most notoriously unreported crime, ever, I think in the history of the world. Men’s suicide which has always been historically high has now really reached maybe the highest point. Men have to man up, daily.
And this is just the tip of the ice-berg, trust me because men won’t tell you. With the patriarchy, the only person who benefits is, the patriarchy. Men are getting a shit deal too. They are victims and the biggest irony of all is that a man is the perfect victim because you can count on him to take it, silently.
So you must understand how terrible it is when feminism pillories men for being the patriarchy while in fact they are right down there with us under the patriarchy’s boot, squirming.
Now the next question is naturally. Then who set up patriarchy if not men? And to that I honestly don’t know but what I do know is, there is no way it could have been men, not in their entirety in any case. For me it’s right up there with the unsolved millennium problems and conjectures. But what I do know is that there are many people, male and female in various ways that benefits from patriarchy just like there are many who actively benefit from racism and as a result have helped maintain its structures all this time.
And hold on because the plot thickens, feminism has even gone further to spread some terrible lies about men. That men are more violent which is supported by scientific studies of how their amygdala is less developed and what not. Forgetting all the while that being violent is a behaviour and thus a choice. Men are not more violent they are just more capable of violence. There is a difference. I have seen women who are violent with a capital V and the studies show that their amygdalas are ‘just fine.’
Then there is the worst lie of them all. For me especially, that men are simple. Not in the classic way we talk about simplicity in terms of parsimony or efficiency of using less and getting more. But when most say men are simple they mean men are idiots, they are pathetic, they have no feelings and emotions, they just want sex and food like wild baboons and its’ heartbreaking to see a man actually believe this. And here’s the shape shifting thing I was talking about earlier, when men are cornered and internalize these messages guess how it come back as, exactly, the patriarchy. They become the rapists, law makers who put taxes on tampons, men who enforce gender roles and the cycle goes on and on.
Now feminism has become the ambassador of the patriarchy.
Checking yourself.

And now here comes the trickiest part. Checking yourself. For me, it began when I watched a documentary on Men’s Rights Activism called ‘The Red Pill’. In fact I encourage every feminist to watch that documentary, the metaphor is apt is all I will say.
For me it all came to a head with the story I started with that at the time I didn’t even realize was damaging. How I was laughing hysterically at a person being assaulted. I mean, I might as well watch a snuff film because clearly that’s what I enjoy if history is any indication. Now imagine it like this, if a man in that situation came to a Help Center that I say worked at what do you think someone like me would do? It is this question or rather the answer that makes it imperative for me to check myself constantly ever since.
Moreover, one other time that really forced me to check the error of my ways was recently when a great friend asked me if I would trust myself to be in an enclosed room with him or if I would be afraid of rape. And again to my eternal shame I said,’ hell no. I don’t trust anybody. I don’t trust men like that’ verbatim.
I will tell you this, at the time I was so indignant, naming all the instances I have heard of men turning on women and entirely forgot about how much I was disrespecting this good human being in front of me who by the way, I know would never do anything like that to me, and I convinced him of his vileness too which is exactly what women fight to diminish. I know he became convinced of his maleficence simply by being because with downcast eyes, wanting to tear his hair off, he answered with a feeble, ‘if that’s how you feel about me, then men have failed women.’ How tragic.
So yes, there is the fraud and its insidious nature.
Checking yourself is hard but it must be done. It is the nature of power to corrupt and now feminism has that power so it is of the utmost importance to ensure this power doesn’t corrupt.

The thing I do know now is that victims aren’t always what we think they are. For more illustration on this check out Malcolm Gladwell’s decomposition of David and Goliath. Brilliant!
Feminism 1.0

For those who do in fact believe me, the feminists most especially must now be wondering. But how did such a malignant behaviour slip into a wonderful movement such as feminism? And it is, very wonderful indeed.
Especially in the last year with the reforms done in the sector of corporate female mistreatment which still has a long way to go but wow, I’m glad I lived to see this.
So, how this cancer got in is actually very simple, it is in the evolution of feminism. I think feminism has changed and as a result these mutations have come up because I don’t think women sat down and decided men needed to be cut down to size just for fun. It is just a consequence of figuring out the path that you get lost.
We have forgotten the feminism of old. The first feminism and no I am not talking about the first wave or the second wave which is really just about white feminism. I am an African woman after all. I mean the feminism of our grandmothers or rather my grandmother. Feminism centered on uplifting women not equalizing them.
I really do believe that this is where feminism went  wrong. This feminism of equality is nonsense and you know what they say, garbage in, garbage out. The feminism of old is about equity not equality.
And I sort of blame the fight for racism a little here that became I suppose too hot for feminists to handle at a point. Feminism is starting to use the incorrect model in its undertakings. To approach the patriarchy how activists for Africans (I mean anyone with black skin who is really just an African wherever they ended up via colonization, diaspora or the worst of all slavery) approach racism. You see the battle against racism is a battle of equality, to prove that we are all humans, black, white, brown or otherwise and that makes sense in that context but not for feminism.The battle for feminism is not a battle of equality, men and women are not equal, neither do they need to be. They are complements which a totally different thing.
The fight for feminism is a battle for equity and honestly it’s a much older fight than even racism which makes it hard to explain how it became subservient to the latter in the first place. Understanding this complementarity aspect is the biggest bone of contention to men and women because somehow we always end up competing which makes absolutely no sense. The point was never to usurp one another, it was always to help one another.
Feminism should not be  about turning men into women which is as absurd as it sounds. It is about increasing women’s engagement with power, in careers, all areas that were previously closed to women but the key pointer is for the women to engage as women and not as women-turn-men. Women are supposed to bring their femininity into boardrooms, courtrooms, office spaces as men take their masculinity there too.
I personally believe in God so I will use that. For non-believers insert what you like but for me, I really do truly believe that God created us with deficiencies to be filled with ‘the other’ purposely. This is why I find the story of creation  quite problematic where man precedes woman, in fact she almost seems an afterthought but I’ll leave that little rabbit-hole for now.
For me feminism is actually a call to humanity. Recognizing that yes, men are bigger than women physically and because might is well, might they can easily torment women forever even at their own torment but they shouldn’t. They should recognize that because of the deficit in might they should fill it up with justice. And the same is true for women, men also have such deficiencies in comparison to women. I’ll give the most obvious one.
Birth. I choose it because most people don’t understand the immense power  of life and death that women possess. Women are literally vessels of life. This is a remarkable power as it is a remarkable sacrifice.

I personally always find it absolutely hilarious when I see especially men discussing the politics of abortion and birth control or babies in general. And I wonder to myself, don’t they know that whatever their clerics, judges and politicians agree on the true judges of whether this life enters this world or not has already been decided? It has always been up to women. We are the owners of that decision.
I could literally kill myself or starve myself and my baby is dead too. Isn’t that abortion? And I don’t need state-funding or special pills to do so. In fact women had been dealing with the business of maternity before government or medicine.
And I use this example because once women have babies inside them, they have all the practical power but now the humanity I was talking about earlier comes into play here. Women can either torment men with this power they have over life and death or accommodate men because the power doesn’t end after birth and we all know this. The loyalty we accord to our mothers is something perverse and this goes a long way to show us the power of matriarchy which I think is often underappreciated.
In fact I have noticed, people who are scarred by their mothers are some of the most severed abused people on the planet, right up there with POWs and hostages of Guantanamo Bay and this is just one area where women trounce men. Part of that elusive female privilege nobody ever wants to talk about.
So what!
Finally after all those tedious things I’ve said we are at the only part I really want you to remember. The so what to all of this, now that we are in this mess.
The first is to move the dial of feminism away from trying to attain equality and instead to attaining equity.
And before I mention the others, I want to mention something I would advise against which is the renunciation of feminism. The title of the article is indeed, ‘the feminist fraud,’ but I would like to think jumping ship makes no sense at this point. The vessel is good and so are the engineers, we just need to tweak the blue prints.
I am not one of those who would say oh let’s just scrape it all and go for human rights. That’s like saying the answer to racism is colour blindness which in actuality is diminishing all the pain of all the Africans who have and continue to suffer under white supremacy.
The truth is, feminism is called feminism for a reason, it is because females have suffered and still continue to suffer. We still live in the same world where the #metoo stories exist, where every other day in South Africa at least one woman is brutally murdered by a man, where Sudanese girls defending themselves from abuse by their illegal husbands are sentenced to death, where there is a teen pregnancy crisis in the Phillipines and where girls in Pakistan are still killed for honour and if they survive they are cajoled by society to forgive also known as exonerating the attempted murder.
We must be careful not to diminish the very real struggles of women because its delicate and it always is when people are in pain.
We only need to add to our repertory, the plight of men which means working hand in hand with Men’s Rights Activists because everyone needs help. And let me be very clear, this is advice is only for real feminists, radical feminists who I personally do not consider feminists who want to build women up on the pyre of men or misogynist groups who have no real issues to discuss other than whingeing about women belonging in the kitchen or their invisible emasculation are fringe groups that will always exist and hopefully will one day be extinguished because what I do know now is that we really are in this together.
Men too should be heard which is something that is regularly overlooked. In fact ignorance is one of the ways men have been abused for a long time. It’s time to embrace them because they do in fact matter. I did hear one really interesting statement from a male activist saying that, ‘In geometry the distance between A and B is the same as the distance between B and A, so if a man must listen to a woman to understand her experience the opposite must also be true.’
As good feminist males decided to listen and reassure women on their journey of feminism it is time for good feminist females to also listen and reassure men on their journey of feminism.
Feminism is for all of us, and has remarkably changed the landscape of the world for women, for the better . Why shouldn’t it do the same for men?

Men proliferate the patriarchy because feminism has abandoned them in the old world with a noose. Men too want laws to respect their reproductive rights and give them paternity leave so they too can bond with their babies, they want laws to protect them from false accusation of sexual assault. They want to be able to be vulnerable without immediately being labelled, ‘gay’ not that I have anything against homosexuality. Men want to be heard and embraced in all their complexity. They want women to love them for them not their money, their jobs or their cars. And I think the most critical one of them all, men want to be allowed to love women correctly without the crippling fear of ostracism as well as each other.
There is one of my all-time favourite lyrics of all time I think  perfectly fits this moment.

I am not the only traveler, who has not repaid his debt.
Lord Huron- The place we met.



It was rather odd how I had never thought to ever examine this very commonplace term that has so dominated my life and will continue to in many ways.
The process of examination and analysis started only after I watched one of my very beloved modern day philosophers Alain De Botton and heard his view on the colloquialism found here  .
He termed it a truly deep category involving a lot of human psychology which was jarring to say the very least. And I suppose not only to me. Not to mean that the term is a shallow one or pejorative in any way I just never thought it had much depth to it, a view which he too discusses.
In my life I have encountered the term to mean something akin to lustful and even in recent times the lust aspect of it has been re-appropriated to mean attractiveness and wholesomeness not simply a curvature of the neck or slinky dress rather a holistic adjective to describe a person. Although even with much re-appropriation ‘sexy’ may still very well mean something rather dirty or obscene. As was in Jhumpa Lahiri’s short story titled ‘sexy’, in that context it was a term used to define a woman so attractive that she leads men into adultery, a sort of siren, and so you can see that the stain on the term may never fully be washed off.
Regardless, I rather liked De Botton’s approach or if I may say so, answer to what the term truly meant, he started by mentioning that indeed on our very surface there really is much insight into who we are, who we really are inside. And it is when this insight aligns with another’s needs do we find them ‘sexy’ and apparently this insight or traits are usually things we do not possess ourselves. Say if we see that another is very patient where we are not that can make them sexier, at least in our eyes.
I found this very well-reasoned but only a little bit specious, mainly because of two points it looks at ‘sexy’ in only one instance. When it is said to another whom we admire for whatever reason.
The solution ironically rather ignores a lot of human psychology at play and other instances of the word in use.
Firstly, we don’t only ever use this term with regards to another. Sometimes we ourselves feel ‘sexy’ and in that case what does the word mean? Does it mean that we have gone a little way in achieving some of the traits we admire in others, does it mean we are satisfied with ourselves? Or is it simply just a thank you to ourselves for maintaining ourselves? What does it mean exactly?
Secondly, the earlier view seems to assert the assumption that has rolled around for many years, probably even centuries. The view that ‘opposites attract’ that we admire those who are not like us. But this isn’t the only cause for admiration now is it? We’ve seen before how we can admire something in another simply because we possess it as well? And in that case what does ‘sexy’ mean? When it is an inclination to a quality we already possess. Do we want an addition to our own quota or is it just admiration for admiration’s sake?
And finally I find myself in horrible disagreement with the view that perception and reality are one and the same. An assumption underlying the view that we find someone ‘sexy’ or ‘they turn us on’ by the deeply coded physical traits we see on them. And my reason for disagreement is simple, just because you see something doesn’t mean it is there and at times it has been placed there just to distract or misconstrue your perception of the true reality, sleight of hand, like a magician. Haven’t we all had the perception of a certain trait on someone only to later learn that it may very well have been a figment of our imagination? We hardly ever perceive reality as it is, in fact we mold the reality as we perceive it that’s why two people can read the same book, watch the same movie even go through the exact same experience and carry out of each two very differing accounts.
What I did agree on though was that ‘sexiness’ is not a totally superficial or shallow category. It has its depth that I will say. But with humans as with any pool there is always the shallow and the deep end, I do believe there is a bit of that term ‘sexy’ that may have a lot to do with just hormones and genitals and no more. But as usual that isn’t the whole story, in the same breath there is a lot about being ‘sexy’ that has to do with deep identification of positives in another and self-actualization. The issue remains I suppose in the determination of what the term means in certain contexts which may well be a question we may never truly answer or one I may not be well suited for.
The unfortunate part of this article is that it seems it has left us with more questions than answers but maybe at times the solution comes to you in the way of a question so I ask. What does the word ‘sexy’ mean to you?

an isostatic life?

At a much simpler time I was introduced to the geographical concept of isostasy , a sort of self-check system that maintains gravitational equilibrium between the lithosphere and asthenosphere basically just the earth’s crust and mantle despite varied horizontal and vertical movements if my memory serves me right that is.

This concept explained much of the peculiar formations on the earth’s surface and as it turns may very well help at the very least enlighten us on the current world situation.

In the wake of the terrific Belgium attacks that devastated many to say the very least, today is the beginning of holi ,a most beloved hindu festival which depending on what Wikipedia origin story you rely on is either about Prahlada’s triumph over his evil aunt or a celebration of Radha and Krishna’s love which in many ways however you slice it is reminiscent of the popular concept of the eventual triumph of evil over good.

Such a beautiful festival filled with color and love falling immediately after the dreary bloody wake of one of the most horrific terror attacks, don’t forget the up and coming Easter weekend, ironically so.

However, if you were to splice these events they appear to be cancelling each other out, don’t they? A sort of isostatic adjustment so as to mitigate any superfluous happiness or tragedy.

Which from an empiricist’s standpoint evokes the question, if neutrality is the universal law because this has happened countless times before, a perfect example that I am versed with being the age of the industrial revolution all while many persons Africans notably languished in abject poverty and slavery.

Why then must we strive for the so called ‘triumph of evil over good’ if it isn’t at all possible?

For as long as the earth’s core is much closer to me in relation to other bodies why should I ever dream of falling upwards(without  external manipulation of course)?