How it starts and ends with morality

[lolly]

A meditator recently told me that morality is only an opinion.

Morality pertains to natures of intent. It seems strange to me that the simple nature of intent isn't mentioned in philosophy. Perhaps it is so obvious that it's overlooked, or perhaps it's so self-evident that there's no point stating the obvious. It is a critical point nonetheless because unless it is matter of intent it has no basis in reality.

I think if you examine this more microscopically, you might find out how this is as real and as subjective as the physical sensations in your body. In fact, the craven and adverse reactivity that impels will is in response to what we feel, and such intent can only be reasoned as an opinion through tendencies of judgment we make about the reality of that feeling.

The meditator who claimed morality is an opinion went on and concluded with some spiel about 'crazy wisdom'. Although we love to imagine crazy wisdom as a lovable enlightened rogue that uses bizarre tactics to wake people up, the fact is, people called 'crazy wisdom' are commonly drunken pervs. They attract perverted trustees around them and they take advantage of the girls and abuse all the kids. When a devotee draws the line and speaks up, they are discredited, ostracized and abandoned while the perps are excused, actually applauded, and further revered as 'crazy masters'.

I'm just pointing out that the stream of logic here is; morality is an opinion, therefore crazy wisdom is a thing.

If on the other hand we could see that the ill-intent that leads to such intoxication, manipulation, grooming and rape arises from strong cravings for pleasurable sensations, we'd understand the dilemma at hand not as an opinion, but as an understanding of the underlying process, the very nature of which is the perpetuation of suffering.

So, is morality just an opinion, or is it something more like a process that can be understood, and thereby enable one to know right from wrong in a more objective way?

[ouroboros]

Jun 3, 2023 5:14:18 GMT -5 lolly said:

A meditator recently told me that morality is only an opinion.

Morality pertains to natures of intent. It seems strange to me that the simple nature of intent isn't mentioned in philosophy. Perhaps it is so obvious that it's overlooked, or perhaps it's so self-evident that there's no point stating the obvious. It is a critical point nonetheless because unless it is matter of intent it has no basis in reality.

I think if you examine this more microscopically, you might find out how this is as real and as subjective as the physical sensations in your body. In fact, the craven and adverse reactivity that impels will is in response to what we feel, and such intent can only be reasoned as an opinion through tendencies of judgment we make about the reality of that feeling.

The meditator who claimed morality is an opinion went on and concluded with some spiel about 'crazy wisdom'. Although we love to imagine crazy wisdom as a lovable enlightened rogue that uses bizarre tactics to wake people up, the fact is, people called 'crazy wisdom' are commonly drunken pervs. They attract perverted trustees around them and they take advantage of the girls and abuse all the kids. When a devotee draws the line and speaks up, they are discredited, ostracized and abandoned while the perps are excused, actually applauded, and further revered as 'crazy masters'.

I'm just pointing out that the stream of logic here is; morality is an opinion, therefore crazy wisdom is a thing.

If on the other hand we could see that the ill-intent that leads to such intoxication, manipulation, grooming and rape arises from strong cravings for pleasurable sensations, we'd understand the dilemma at hand not as an opinion, but as an understanding of the underlying process, the very nature of which is the perpetuation of suffering.

So, is morality just an opinion, or is it something more like a process that can be understood, and thereby enable one to know right from wrong in a more objective way?

Definitely more like the second one for me, I can't get on board with morality as just an opinion. It's perhaps worth beginning by making a distinction between morality and codes of ethics, which are mainly conventional sets of rules/guidelines meant for reference or to steer the unwitting in the 'right' direction. And so which can vary from culture to culture and are open to the imperfections of man.

But I say morality itself is actually something innate to experientiality. That is to say, ultimately ineffable, but yet arises inherent within the structure of experience itself (which isn't to say either have inherent existence). It's neither fully objective nor fully subjective. We can think of it as propelled by intent but that doesn't mean to say that merely because one's intentions are good there will be a positive outcome. I think the adage is that 'some of the greatest harm has been caused by good intentions'. So we could perhaps infer that insight and clarity are also important factors when it comes to 'right action'. That discernment is requisite. Ultimately right and wrong have to be intuited, situationally, and it's not an infallible process. Also, rarely black and white, but mostly shades of grey, because experience at large is intricate/complex.

Just to say a little bit about 'crazy wisdom' and I'm kinda shootin from the hip here when talking about it so it might be a bit untidy. (Not contemplating deeply or referencing any material). But I view it as akin to an altered state [of consciousness]. Kinda where consciousness meets Consciousness. Or the point where monkey mind meets CC. So woo-like in that respect. It's like an unusually direct seeing and expression of quite profound insight, in the moment. So directly and presently. Yet a combination of spontaneous and situational. It happens when you get enough 'out of your own way', so to speak. Which creates the space for a more direct expression to 'flow through you'. It's a bit like an elongated version of those eureka moments in that respect. It has a way of riding roughshod over norms and penetrating and exposing preconceptions, usually quite succinctly. I don't know if any of that resonates. It could be envisaged as a technique, the instigation of which can be honed, but will also happen quite naturally and spontaneously under the right circumstances. Which can be quite exhilarating. It is considered a form of direct transmission so could prove to be a bit unnerving if demonstrated to the uninitiated or those without some measure of purification. It might be considered as intrusive in such instance. I don't know about it being associated with drunks and pervs, but imo it wouldn't be particularly compatible with those states. So those dudes are prolly just charlatans anyway. Or maybe they honed the technique, idk.

[Reefs]

Daodejing, Chapter 38

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.

Therefore the Master concerns himself
with the depths and not the surface,
with the fruit and not the flower.
He has no will of his own.
He dwells in reality,
and lets all illusions go.

(Mitchell translation)

[lolly]

Good idea. A code of ethics is more like organising moral underpinnings into behavioural guidelines.

Sentience - the ability to know what's going on in your own mind - is the essence of knowledge of good and evil. To comprehend the very nature of the underlying urges to move the mind, and understand why emergent thoughts have qualities such as kindheartedness or malice.

To be a real thing, rather than a mere matter of opinion, implies there is an existence of essential good that inspires the mind to move with metta and the undying wish "May all beings be happy". There is an infinite outpouring that leads the eye to see all things with the utmost purity of love, and the purpose of life is to express that outpouring through everything we we do. This is the essence of moral behaviour.

Immorality, on the other hand, is based in delusion and wholly inspired by psychological reactivity that is fabricated by the mind.

The reason I bring up crazy wisdom is mainly because a bloke I talked to has a premise: morality is opinion and; a conclusion: crazy wisdom is a thing. Strangely, the conclusion also validates the premise in this case: he's a master who perpetrates harm, therefore morality is only your opinion. When you know what invalid premises and circular arguments are, it's obviously inane.

The idea of 'crazy wisdom' is cute, and I like the idea of an unconventional larrikin, but my idealistic picture is not true-to-life, and realistically, the concept leads to no good because it not only justify abhorrent behaviour, but celebrates it with another circular fallacy. If the master did NOT commit immorality, there would be no 'crazy'. Hooray for crazy masters ergo Hooray for their atrocity. Thus impropriety is not only justified, but applauded in affirmation of the belief that justifies the harm because everyone saves face.

There's a guy I know of that was said to have crazy wisdom. He attracted students and formed an organisation with a board of trustees. Of course the trustees were degenerates like him. They got intoxicated, manipulated devotees, abused power, raped women and diddled the kids. It's par for the course of crazy wisdom. Without debauchery, where's the crazy, right?

Pema Chodr0n was a high ranking nun there. When women raised crimes with her, Pema admonished them and the community turned their backs and abandoned them. Chodron must have known something was amiss, but she might have been doe eyed and enamoured with crazy wisdom nonsense. I don't think she's nasty, but she was manipulated into complicity for which she later expressed regret. In time, intoxication and sexual misconduct (and fund misappropriation) was so commonplace that grievances couldn't simply be refuted and dismissed. Women formed a group and complied a full report documenting the attrocities (available online), and the whole charade came to light. The Crazy fucker died, fortunately, but the school strong and the 'crazy master' is still revered as 'crazy-wise"' and oft quoted on spiritual forums and in sweet memes on Facebook. Chodron hung on for years until recently when the board appointed a new trustee who was formally stood down because he raped several devotees ("of all ages" as Pema put it). That's when Chodron threw in the towel because the trust are degenerates (her resignation is online).

That's not the first or the only case. There are perverse masters and sects all over the place. A great many people are unnecessarily harmed because they are desperately vulnerable, which makes them gullible enough to be enraptured with the crazy wisdom con. They don't know what a false premise or a circular argument is, they aren't very discerning, they are just plain stupid or; they are also degenerates that see the appeal.

That's not to say ALL crazy wisdom is immoral. Just saying it can be, it usually is, and really, it necessarily defines 'crazy' in the crazy-wisdom context.

[laughter]

Jun 3, 2023 5:14:18 GMT -5 lolly said:

A meditator recently told me that morality is only an opinion.

Morality pertains to natures of intent. It seems strange to me that the simple nature of intent isn't mentioned in philosophy. Perhaps it is so obvious that it's overlooked, or perhaps it's so self-evident that there's no point stating the obvious. It is a critical point nonetheless because unless it is matter of intent it has no basis in reality.

I think if you examine this more microscopically, you might find out how this is as real and as subjective as the physical sensations in your body. In fact, the craven and adverse reactivity that impels will is in response to what we feel, and such intent can only be reasoned as an opinion through tendencies of judgment we make about the reality of that feeling.

The meditator who claimed morality is an opinion went on and concluded with some spiel about 'crazy wisdom'. Although we love to imagine crazy wisdom as a lovable enlightened rogue that uses bizarre tactics to wake people up, the fact is, people called 'crazy wisdom' are commonly drunken pervs. They attract perverted trustees around them and they take advantage of the girls and abuse all the kids. When a devotee draws the line and speaks up, they are discredited, ostracized and abandoned while the perps are excused, actually applauded, and further revered as 'crazy masters'.

I'm just pointing out that the stream of logic here is; morality is an opinion, therefore crazy wisdom is a thing.

If on the other hand we could see that the ill-intent that leads to such intoxication, manipulation, grooming and rape arises from strong cravings for pleasurable sensations, we'd understand the dilemma at hand not as an opinion, but as an understanding of the underlying process, the very nature of which is the perpetuation of suffering.

So, is morality just an opinion, or is it something more like a process that can be understood, and thereby enable one to know right from wrong in a more objective way?

When you contemplate the sweep of history, especially in the context of the relative infinitude of each moment in time, it's no surprise that most of it is overlooked. My first thought in response to your first paragraph is that as I recall generally, but not specifically, the question of intent was a very hot topic of debate among the upper echelons of the Catholic clergy in early medevil Europe, and therein were at least some of the roots of the Reformation. So I did some shallow research and the name that I was thinking of is Aquinas. And of course, you can trace Tommy's influences back thousands of years prior. The article nods to Augustine and, before them, the stoics, and back to Plato. This other article is good context as well. So, a very old question, indeed. Probably as old as complex language and any social groups larger than a clan, which could push it back hundreds of thousands of years into pre-history, which is a fascinating thought in it's own right.

I rezz with your thoughts. Morality, is, of course, an opinion, but for as long as there are people-peeps it will be a set of opinions with heavy consequences on people's lives. You distill the topic here into a simplicity, and I think that's completely necessary to account for the plasticity of the human social landscape. That plasticity has a flip-side, of course, in terms of how the more things change, the more they stay the same. At the core of it I like the Buddhist formulation that I interpret as mapping the Western concept of "evil" to being the relative cause of another's suffering. The depth of evil can then be measured by both the depth and breadth of the suffering caused and the questions of whether the evil person was aware of the damage they were causing as it happened, and whether they set out to deliberately cause that damage (malice).

These questions are all relevant to how society is ordered, and many stanza's of the Tao te Ching address that issue. Seems to me that humanity will ever have the opportunity to refine the application of morality, and that history indicates there will be successes and failures to come, ups and downs, and even periods where society and individuals will thrive with very little application of any system of morality and ethics. And as a matter of balance, I'll point out that not all human desire is either driven or manifests as ill intent. Most human craving is entirely natural.

In the end, there will never be a finalized system of morality that will work once and for all and everyone and forever, and in terms of the existential truth, the question refines to that of free will, and seems to me that it's only of any "use" if strictly directed inward.

[lolly]

Dang, I should have said it starts and ends with Plato!

Thanx for articles. I'll get to them.

The way suffering, morality, samadhi and wisdom are woven together in Buddhism actually goes back to Socrates if you really think about it.

[zazeniac]

I agree. There's a lot of ego masquerading as the absolute. Why I value meditation. Gives me a good, clear look at this ego. Hence, I should not teach. I can see that clearly. But I can parrot this sh$t with the best of them. Almost as good as the chatbot. I could get away with a lot. Teaching is an endeavor of love, true teaching, unlikely to lead to abuse.

[ouroboros]

Jun 3, 2023 22:12:09 GMT -5 lolly said:

Good idea. A code of ethics is more like organising moral underpinnings into behavioural guidelines.

Sentience - the ability to know what's going on in your own mind - is the essence of knowledge of good and evil. To comprehend the very nature of the underlying urges to move the mind, and understand why emergent thoughts have qualities such as kindheartedness or malice.

To be a real thing, rather than a mere matter of opinion, implies there is an existence of essential good that inspires the mind to move with metta and the undying wish "May all beings be happy". There is an infinite outpouring that leads the eye to see all things with the utmost purity of love, and the purpose of life is to express that outpouring through everything we we do. This is the essence of moral behaviour.

Immorality, on the other hand, is based in delusion and wholly inspired by psychological reactivity that is fabricated by the mind.

The reason I bring up crazy wisdom is mainly because a bloke I talked to has a premise: morality is opinion and; a conclusion: crazy wisdom is a thing. Strangely, the conclusion also validates the premise in this case: he's a master who perpetrates harm, therefore morality is only your opinion. When you know what invalid premises and circular arguments are, it's obviously inane.

The idea of 'crazy wisdom' is cute, and I like the idea of an unconventional larrikin, but my idealistic picture is not true-to-life, and realistically, the concept leads to no good because it not only justify abhorrent behaviour, but celebrates it with another circular fallacy. If the master did NOT commit immorality, there would be no 'crazy'. Hooray for crazy masters ergo Hooray for their atrocity. Thus impropriety is not only justified, but applauded in affirmation of the belief that justifies the harm because everyone saves face.

There's a guy I know of that was said to have crazy wisdom. He attracted students and formed an organisation with a board of trustees. Of course the trustees were degenerates like him. They got intoxicated, manipulated devotees, abused power, raped women and diddled the kids. It's par for the course of crazy wisdom. Without debauchery, where's the crazy, right?

Pema Chodr0n was a high ranking nun there. When women raised crimes with her, Pema admonished them and the community turned their backs and abandoned them. Chodron must have known something was amiss, but she might have been doe eyed and enamoured with crazy wisdom nonsense. I don't think she's nasty, but she was manipulated into complicity for which she later expressed regret. In time, intoxication and sexual misconduct (and fund misappropriation) was so commonplace that grievances couldn't simply be refuted and dismissed. Women formed a group and complied a full report documenting the attrocities (available online), and the whole charade came to light. The Crazy fucker died, fortunately, but the school strong and the 'crazy master' is still revered as 'crazy-wise"' and oft quoted on spiritual forums and in sweet memes on Facebook. Chodron hung on for years until recently when the board appointed a new trustee who was formally stood down because he raped several devotees ("of all ages" as Pema put it). That's when Chodron threw in the towel because the trust are degenerates (her resignation is online).

That's not the first or the only case. There are perverse masters and sects all over the place. A great many people are unnecessarily harmed because they are desperately vulnerable, which makes them gullible enough to be enraptured with the crazy wisdom con. They don't know what a false premise or a circular argument is, they aren't very discerning, they are just plain stupid or; they are also degenerates that see the appeal.

That's not to say ALL crazy wisdom is immoral. Just saying it can be, it usually is, and really, it necessarily defines 'crazy' in the crazy-wisdom context.

Ah okay, that gives me a better idea of where you're coming from with all that. I hadn't really made the association between morality and crazy wisdom before.

My position is that morality is a thing prior to opinion (prolly no surprise there ), and that crazy wisdom is also a thing.

Anyway, it sounds like these guys are just misappropriating the notion of crazy wisdom to justify debauchery. The idea that crazy wisdom negates morality is sophistry, and as you say, not even particularly sophisticated.

They evidently haven't applied the technique of crazy wisdom to the notion of morality properly to be reaching those conclusions and acting like that, and under the circumstances, frankly I'd question their ability to do so.

The combination of intent and action is qualitative, and unwholesome action will result in negative effects for all those involved, to varying extents. Albeit those effects are ultimately unquantifiable. 

So I stick with my original diagnosis of charlatans. And I don't wish to sound too cold-hearted, but the truth is that folks may only learn to be less gullible through negative experience. Although I'm not necessarily apportioning blame to the perceived victims and innocents in the scenario. Just pointing out that it can also be viewed as part of a wider and perhaps more impersonal process playing out. Which doesn't negate morality.

[lolly]

Yes. You don't have to be conventional to be wise and good, so 'crazy wisdom' is a thing, but the spiritual-stereotype is ludicrous. Yep, unwholesome action leads to negative events. I just go a step deeper to say the unwholesome intent that impels such action is the site of the problem. It's not so much the regulation of action that defines morality as it is the purification of the mind.

I agree the gullible probably learn something from being misled and taken advantage off, but it isn't necessary and much better off without trust destroying, shame inducing harm. In near enough all cases, if I may state the obvious, abuse of the vulnerable does more harm than good.

In Buddhism there's a concept of 'refuge' which entails a safe, protected place where one can open up without free from harm. Such protections are necessary for the purification process. It would be a stretch to say the abuse perpetrated against children at degenerate ashrams led to any 'ultimate good'. It is far more likely that trust was destroyed and they closed down part of themselves and retreated into shadows; then went on to be somewhat disfunctional life because they ceased to operate as a whole person. At some stage, they'll discover a refuge where the environment is conducive to healing and the community is trustworthy because it doesn't want anything from them and their underlying wish is for that person's happiness. Then purification is possible purification and the shrouded parts might come back out into the light of conscious awareness.

For this reason I can't accept that degenerates who operate under the guise of crazy wisdom do any good. Rather, they cause a lot of harm that may or may not be resolved later on.

[lolly]

The Aquinas articles are interesting as he brings up the issue of cause, which is a big Buddhist thing, too, including there being a cause which itself is not caused. The Buddhist version doesn't solve infinite regress by concluding: uncaused cause, therefore God or anything. It's just that kamma is generated by volition which is incited by desire and aversion, which is isn't actually caused by circumstances. Thus the cessation of aversion/desire is possible, but it means the end of volition (will) - which means the cessation of kamma and thereby 'rebirth'.

Rebirth refers to that which is reconstructed and/or perpetuated from moment to moment in the manner implied above, which gives rise to the illusion of a continuous, enduring self (Aquinas assumes self is real and created by God, rather than a reaction-perpetuated illusion). Hence, the path to liberation is basically the cessation of desire/aversion, or IOW, equanimity.

This implies moral fiber only in terms of the cessation of ill-will, which as mentioned above, originates with psychological reactivity, particularly toward one's own sensations. When the mind reacts, it, in turn, manifests sensations, to which one reacts, manifest, react, manifest, react as a causal cycle which is essentially miserable. Breaking the cycle is therefore possible at the site of reaction (which isn't actually caused) - which is also the site at which matter becomes mind and mind becomes matter.

Since there is something beyond mind and matter that wasn't caused and nor does it cause or exert will, it remains only as it is - and I will call this the infinite outpouring of love. It is the source of metta, the very nature of which is blissful loving kindness. Metta, or kindness, therefore, is not a force of will, but it still renders in our lives kindheartedness, generosity and the other things we'd categorise as well-intended. This is why generosity is free of desire - without expectation of anything in return - and the wish, 'may you be happy,' doesn't elicit the impulsion to do anything about it.

It's easy to see in this context that desire is what I want, and how, through inciting volition, it entails the (re)fabrication of self-reference: me, my, mine and I, and thus gives rise to an impression of a continuous enduring self. Since this reactive function is also illicits ill-will and causes suffering, it is essentially immoral.

[ouroboros]

Jun 4, 2023 19:39:53 GMT -5 lolly said:

Yes. You don't have to be conventional to be wise and good, so 'crazy wisdom' is a thing, but the spiritual-stereotype is ludicrous. Yep, unwholesome action leads to negative events. I just go a step deeper to say the unwholesome intent that impels such action is the site of the problem. It's not so much the regulation of action that defines morality as it is the purification of the mind.

I agree the gullible probably learn something from being misled and taken advantage off, but it isn't necessary and much better off without trust destroying, shame inducing harm. In near enough all cases, if I may state the obvious, abuse of the vulnerable does more harm than good.

In Buddhism there's a concept of 'refuge' which entails a safe, protected place where one can open up without free from harm. Such protections are necessary for the purification process. It would be a stretch to say the abuse perpetrated against children at degenerate ashrams led to any 'ultimate good'. It is far more likely that trust was destroyed and they closed down part of themselves and retreated into shadows; then went on to be somewhat disfunctional life because they ceased to operate as a whole person. At some stage, they'll discover a refuge where the environment is conducive to healing and the community is trustworthy because it doesn't want anything from them and their underlying wish is for that person's happiness. Then purification is possible purification and the shrouded parts might come back out into the light of conscious awareness.

For this reason I can't accept that degenerates who operate under the guise of crazy wisdom do any good. Rather, they cause a lot of harm that may or may not be resolved later on.

Yes. To be clear I didn't really mean to imply that degenerates do good as such. I realised it was open to that sort of connotation, and also understand you are merely clarifying and are right to do so. Tbh, It's especially difficult to express what I did mean to imply with that last part of my previous post.

But just for an example, if you consider the situation, as a whole. So from a 'biggest picture' perspective. Something I tend to paint as akin to multiple lives and kammic patterning playing out in a undulating or boomerang fashion. Then that "later resolution" to which you refer, might be envisaged to take the form of a type of role reversal, over lifetimes. Okay, not a very good example. Another way of putting it is that in terms of vibration, birds of a feather flock together. Again, not a great example. Coz all that kinda implies that the kiddies must have been abusers in pervious lives or whatever. Which actually may have been the case, idk, but not necessarily.

More broadly, what I'm trying to point to is a considerably more expansive and unfathomably complex, yet subtle and vague, base level of patterning playing out where conditions like passive gullibility and gross mall-intent kinda intertwine. A gazillion subtle winds which combine symphonically, upon which these perceived events arise. Spanning what is in effect, multiple lifetimes, which as patterns or conditions themselves arise and dissolve, but not fully, as long as the propelling force kamma is still in play.

Again, none of this is to excuse the acts of abusers, who will reap what they sow. Nor is it to say that the perceived victims somehow deserve it. Rather it is just to say the situation as a whole is prolly infinitely more complex than it might seem at first glance, and to begin to tackle that.

Otoh, these events do not happen in isolation, and mightn't 'begin' where we might think on first glance. Otoh, the process of intent/action happens in the moment and actions have consequences. The point of power is in the present as some say. Which allows for change or the breaking of patterns. Incremental transmutation of patterning (including purification). Of course, some will take an entirely deterministic view of the whole shebang. But I'm not one of those.

[lolly]

I've seen too much now cuz I'm getting old. There's all sorts of deception, degeneracy and nonsense in the clown world. What really turned me away was males competing against females in elite sports. It is so ludicrous I thought there's no reality anymore, they've all gone mad, and I retreated because I'm too old to GAF and I don't want any part of it.

I went back to my love of digging because moving the body all day at a steady pace is the ultimate reality. Now I'm just digging, compacting, leveling sand, laying pavers, making retainers, landscaping, planting, mulching, moving rocks, removing trees etc, and I'm really pleased there is so much to do. Usually I'd hire a bobcat and just rip and level, but because of what it is, I'm doing everything with hand tools. Hand tools are rhythmic and peaceful and you can move them with a bit of finesse and get into a groove. It's the finer details of how you move that makes everything flow like it should.

Then I feel happy in reality without second thoughts while I know there is a world 'out there' which has lost the plot! I still hear it far off, and it sounds to me like the loons have taken over the cuckoo's nest.

[ouroboros]

Can't argue with any of that.

Fwiw, men in women's sports is prolly an unresolvable issue, being a case of inclusion versus fairness. The pendulum will swing. In the past maybe in favour of fairness, and currently in favour of inclusion.

[lolly]

Jun 5, 2023 8:06:00 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

Can't argue with any of that.

Fwiw, men in women's sports is prolly an unresolvable issue, being a case of inclusion versus fairness. The pendulum will swing. In the past maybe in favour of fairness, and currently in favour of inclusion.

It's all a pretense of virtue and we know the males are invading the female space not only without consent, but against the females' expressed wishes. The argument, however, takes on a different perspective, that the female has to have justification for her boundaries, while those who pretend virtue work to coerce the female to submit by making threats and wholly deceptive means. The girl said no, and no means no.

[sharon]

Jun 5, 2023 8:06:00 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

Can't argue with any of that.

Fwiw, men in women's sports is prolly an unresolvable issue, being a case of inclusion versus fairness. The pendulum will swing. In the past maybe in favour of fairness, and currently in favour of inclusion.