Asexuality Awareness Week

Some facts about asexuality for Asexuality Awareness Week:

One: 

There is no mental/emotional (psychological) arousal or attraction to other individuals.

Two: 

Asexuality is not a hatred of sex. A fear or hatred of sex is erotophobia. Any person of any sexuality can have erotophobia.

Three: 

Physical arousal is still possible. This is because the body will react to physical stimuli even if there was no desire for said stimuli. For example, when the digestive system receives the physical stimuli of food, it will still digest said food whether or not this food was desired. Likewise, if genatalia receives physical stimuli, it will respond.

Four: 

Asexuals do have sex. An asexual may be in a loving relationship and part of showing that is with sex. Also, an asexual may desire to have a child with said partner. Also Fact Five.

Five: 

Asexuals can enjoy sex. Just because you have no desire for something doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy it: you may not have a desire for chocolate but if you had some you will still enjoy it. Sex (along with being fed, watered and sheltered) is a basic human function, a basic human desire necessary for a contented life. The ‘normal’ individual is driven to satisfy/fulfil all these desires, though there are many reasons why people may not feel the desire (eating disorders, hydrophobia, becoming an ascetic for religious/spiritual reasons and living without shelter). When one of these desires is met, the body will be satisfied/fulfilled. There are degrees to desire: if you haven’t drank for an hour, the glass of water will be nice, joyful and pleasurable, but if you are dehydrated, this water will feel great and be satisfying. The desire for sex works in much the same. Sexually-orientated people don’t have ‘not turned-on’ and ‘turned-on’ settings for their sexual desire: there are still degrees, many points in between these two extremes. An asexual can receive joy/pleasure from sex, but it won’t be a feeling close to satisfaction.

Six: 

Asexuality is on the Sexuality Spectrum. Why? Semisexuality, that’s why! Semisexuality is the area of the spectrum between asexuality and sexuality, in ‘grey-sexuality’, for sexuality is not black and white. But if there is term, a definition is required to as to help align individuals with what fits them best. Semisexuality is when an individual who otherwise identifies as asexual (there are of course hetero/homo/bi/pan/whatever varieties of semisexuality) may occasionally feel psychological arousal (if to the opposite gender, then semiheterosexuality etc) and/or have a low sex drive, sometimes so low that it’s not strong enough to be acted upon. Depending on how much sexual arousal/drive an individual has will help them inform their decision on whether to label themselves as semisexual (when the sexual desires/fulfilment are, even though uncommon, of significance) or asexual (if the asexual tendencies far outweigh sexual desire).

OTHER:

This is a reformulation of the above, used to explain asexuality to a particular audience.

It literally means 'not sexual', though, as with anything in human nature, this isn't a black or white issue yet people make it such.

The differentiation between two concepts, arousal and desire, is required. Desire is an individual's sex drive which varies in degrees depending on many factors, including mood, romantic inclination, and taboo-breaking.

Desires are drives for the four fundamental factors of fulfillment, those things that provide a satisfied and contented life: food, water, shelter and sex. The majority of people will feel the force of all these desires, though there are examples of people who lack these drives, who aren't driven to satisfy or fulfill these. Specific eating disorders, hydrophobia, or becoming a religious ascetic without shelter are all examples. Asexuality is the same: absence of sexual desire.

Arousal is the physical manifestation of sexual stimulation, whether the stimuli is psychological (emotional/mental) or physical. An asexual lacks psychological arousal though they do have physical arousal. The body reacts to physical stimuli whether it was desired or not: your body digests food even if this food wasn't desired. It's exactly the same with genitals.

There are two more misconceptions, both of which can be quite offensive because they imply that we don't know ourselves. One: people will say, "Maybe if you had decent sex..." Nope, that has nothing to do with it. Two: it's just erotophobia. It's not a fear of sex at all. Just because you don't want to do your housework doesn't mean that you're scared of it. Anyone of any sexual inclination can fear sex.

Another important thing to keep in mind is that an asexual can enjoy, and feel pleasure from, sex. It just won't be felt as satisfying for an asexual because there can be no fulfillment of a desire as without the desire there cannot be satisfaction.

Not only is it enjoyable, but sex provides benefits for a couple regardless of their sexual inclinations. It brings the couple closer together, initiates a sense of trust, allows them to have children.

Of course, it's important to remember about semisexuality. This is when someone who otherwise identifies as an asexual has a sex drive, albeit slow and rare, and/or has the occasional feeling of psychological arousal. It's too often to be asexual but definitely too infrequent to be sexual. If these feelings are extremely rare (like only once from the onset of puberty), the individual may still identify as an asexual.

Reviews: Divergent, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Frozen, and Lucy

***SPOILERS***

‘Divergent’ was a very interesting film. It had a good plot and good characters. There were criticisms of having society so rigidly divided into five factions (minus the factionless). Though, if you investigate any culture, there has always been a division of class, and different classes have always done different jobs. In England, for example, there were the peasants and the nobility/priests. Also, India had four classes: priests, governors/worriers, merchants, and servants. This is definitely an oversimplification, but it makes the point very clear.
‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’ made for a great watch. It was interesting to see how the apes’ society had developed and how human society had fell. I only had one issue with the film which was the same issue I had with the last film: the apes standing upright. People, as always, equate intelligence with standing upright because humans are intelligent and they are the only animal to stand upright. This conclusion doesn’t logically follow. However, this has been a key paradigm in all human societies since forever, so it’s not a surprise that people make intelligent being upright, too.

‘Frozen’. Yes, I joined the bandwagon late, but I’ve never been on to conform to the popular interests of the time. The film first caught my interest when I was in the kitchen with some friends and they were playing the film. The ice and snow and the magic instantly appealed to my love of fantasy and solid ice.

I watched it from just before ‘Let It Go’ came on. Idina Menzel’s voice is really spectacular.  I took to the song, because I instantly thought of it in regards to surviving depression, particularly ‘I’ll rise like the break of dawn […] Here I stand in the light of day’. (It was interesting when researching the song afterwards that people had interpreted it as coming out as homosexual!) Another song caught my attention: ‘For the First Time in Forever Reprise’. Songs in which two people are singing different words in a different time frame always appeal to me.

And, of course, an interpretation of true love being sisterly love. It was liberating to have the message that true love doesn’t come in one form. Maleficent had the theme of motherly love. Hopefully Disney will explore true love as the love portrayed between friends at some point!

‘Lucy’ was fascinating. Having Morgan Freeman in it made it brilliant.

The concept of the film was based on the theory that humans only use 10% of their brain and hypothesising what would happen if humans could access control of the rest of their brain. If accepting this theory, then the hypothesises in the film were definitely logical (and perhaps plausible). For this, the surrounding plot, the need for Lucy to try and retain some semblance of humanity and fantastic actors, this film was great.

However, this theory of 10% is not plausible. If a person gets brain damaged in any area of the brain, there will be a corresponding ability that will be effected. Language, memory, perception, emotions, anything, can be effected. If only 10% of the brain was used, then how would each area of the brain be able to control something?

Hellenic Etymologies and ‘-us’ Plurals

I shall look at platypus, octopus, cactus, hippopotamus and pegasus.

The etymologies of the first four.

Platypus is from ‘platipis’, rooted in ‘platus’ (flat) and ‘pous’ (foot). Octopus is from ‘oktopous’, meaning ‘eight foot’. Cactus comes from ‘kaktos’, the name for a prickly plant on Sicily, now known as cardoon.

            Hippopotamus is from ‘hippotamos’ meaning ‘river horse’ and ‘hippos ho potamois’ meaning ‘horse of the river’. Both are rooted in ‘hippos’ for horse and potamos for river/running water.

Pegasus has are more lengthy etymology.

Let’s consider the creature first. It is the name for a horse with wings, though nowadays it is being used as the species name for winged horses in general. Horses were creatures of the water, hence in the realm of Poseidon, who is also Pegasus’ sire. It also had wings, meaning it was also a creature of the sky, meaning that it also belonged in the realm of Zeus. Indeed, Zeus used Pegasus to carry his lightning bolts.

It could be from ‘pege’, meaning ‘fountain/spring/well’; it could be from ‘pegos’, meaning ‘strong’. Another possibility is from the Luwain ‘pihassas’, meaning lighting’, as from their weather deity Pihassassi. As the Greeks were a maritime people, this meant that they would have had contact with many other cultures, including the Luwain, even if it were only indirectly through another culture. It is likely that all of these influenced the development of ‘pegasus’ as a word.

With any combination, linguistic reductionism would have had to occurred. Linguistic reductionism is when a word is gradually reduced when spoken, because speech is for communication, and the faster one’s idea is passed on, the easier it is to communicate. Keeping linguistic reductionism in mind, the three possible combinations of two words all seem highly plausible: ‘pegepegos’, ‘pegospihassass’ and ‘pegepihassas’.

As with words ending in ‘-us’, people think that the ‘proper plural’ should be ‘-i’. However, this is only if the words has come from Latin. If a word is from Greek, the plural for ‘-us’ is ‘-odes’. The above five are from Ancient Greek.

Now, this causes all sorts of drama. Does one follow the rules from the language that the word originates from, or the rules of the language that it travelled through to us? Or, as with most words that come from a foreign language, should they eventually adopt the plural rules of the host language?

This, of course, is following the Prescriptive view of spoken language, giving it rules for use and ‘correct’ punctuation. Language is always developing, otherwise how would there be thousands of different languages? If language didn’t change, we’d all be speaking the same language. If change in language ‘shouldn’t be done’, then we should go back to the primordial language(s) of humanity… From what we have available, this would be impossible to do.

            I’m not saying we shouldn’t have rules at all. Obviously spoken language does have rules, but the majority aren’t imposed from sources other than the language’s evolution. Written language definitely should have rules because it is used in a formal capacity, and with anything formal, there are rules and regulations to go with it.

            Now, as plurals are originate in spoken rather than written language, plurals don’t follow one set ‘should’ rule. This would mean that the five above words could end in the Greek plural ‘-odes’, the Latin plural ‘-i’ and the English ‘-es’. Really, what’s wrong with that?

Word	Greek ‘-odes’	Latin ‘-i’	English ‘-es’
Platypus	Platypodes	Platypi	Platypuses
Octopus	Octopodes	Octopi	Octopuses
Cactus	Cactodes	Cacti	Cactuses
Hippopotamus	Hippopotamodes	Hippopotami	Hippopotamuses
Pegasus	Pegasodes	Pegasi	Pegasuses

Typology of Tears and some Etymologies

Tears

The three types of tears are classified on how and why they are produced.

Reflex Tears: the eyes' response to an irritant, such as dust or an eyelash.

Basal Tears: the tiny tears constantly released to keep the cornea lubricated.

Psychic Tears: these tears are triggered when the individual is experiencing extreme emotions like sorrow, joy and anger. (Basically, this is why people cry when they're sad.)

Etymologies

The etymologies are of ‘zodiac’, ‘sphinx’ and ‘etymology’.

Zodiac: a literal interpretation is ‘circle of little animals’. It derives from the Greek ‘zodiakos’, which was formed from ‘kyklos’ (meaning cycle/circle) and ‘zodiaion’, the diminutive form of ‘zoion’ (animal).

Sphinx: there is debate among scholars as to whether ‘sphinx’ is from the Greek or Egyptian language. If it was from Greek, it would be from ‘sphing’ (to squeeze); if from Egyptian, it would be a corruption of ‘shesepankh’ (living image). A ram-headed sphinx is called an Eriosphinge, and a hawk-headed sphinx is a Hieracophinge. Tails can be ended in a snake head. Male sphinxes can be known as androphinxes.

Etymology: it is derived from the Greek ‘etymologia’, meaning the study of the true sense of the word. This is from ‘etymon’, the neuter term for ‘etymos’ (real/actual) that is related to ‘eteos’ (true).

The Ontological Argument for the Non-Existence of God

The Ontological Argument for the existence of God is one that produces intellectual enjoyment. The basis is that God exists because He is the greatest conceivable being. There is a particular counter-argument that I enjoy, and this was developed by Douglas Gasking at Melbourne University. He follows through the same logic as the actual argument for the existence of God to conclude that God doesn’t exist.

o   The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.

o   The Creator would have to be the greatest conceivable being. [So far, it is formulated like the actual Ontological Argument]

o   The greater the disability the Creator, the greater the achievement.

o   The most formidable disability is non-existence. [Disability in its most literal sense, as in not having the ability to perform something]

o   This would be a Creator who created the world whilst not existing.

o   This shows that there can be conceived a being greater than an existing God.

o   Thus, a God that doesn’t exist is the greatest possible being.

o   Therefore, God does not exist.

Fire Ice and the Contradiction of OCD

Fire Ice is the colloquial term for methane hydrate. This is when ice crystals lock within them methane gas. This is formed by a combination of low temperature and high pressure. Thus, by lowering pressure or raising the temperature, a lot of methane is consequently released. This massive amount of methane is a potential source of power. Luckily, Fire Ice is very plentiful, though it can be hard to get.

So, the contradiction of OCD.

A quick reminded: OCD is Obsessive Compulsive Disorder which is situated under the umbrella term Affective Mood Disorder. This disorder is when something causes a great shift in the emotions, typically heightened levels of anxiety, and well-being of the individual sufferer. With an OCD sufferer, this thing that causes this shift is obsessed about constantly, and the sufferer is compelled to fix it. Whether this is by solving the issue or utilising some coping mechanism, they are still compelled to solve it. The most-cited example of OCD is that of cleanliness: an individual will obsess about the hygiene of their home, and they compulsively feel the need to get it clean.

            My OCD is all about control. I need control over my environment and myself. Among various other bits and pieces, everything must be tidy, organised and clean, which means it is very easy for me to reduce my anxieties. I find it quite amusing that my OCD is about control. I am obsessed with control, and I am compelled to be in control, yet I have very limited control over my obsessions or my compulsions. It’s just one big contradiction.

So, the logic is that I have a higher level of control if I can successfully resist the compulsions. I have more control if I resist the compulsion. I do little things. Notices on my pin board are left at wonky angles; carpets and chairs don’t align with the lines and angles of the room. The longer one can go without having to do something about it, the better. I have to resist my obsessions/compulsions to appease my obsessions/compulsions: contradiction.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunurious et Emoticons

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunurious

This is an adjective and it is pronounced: ‘ee-logo-fyu-sio-hypo-poku-nu-ri-uss’.

When I first came across it, it meant ‘dubious very good’, as in the object it was describing was ‘good’, though it was ambiguous whether it was so good as to be declared ‘very good’. To apply this to an independent clause, ‘The cheesecake was eellogofusciouhipoppokunurious,’ meaning ‘she was uncertain whether the cheesecake was good or very good’ which shows that even though it is a very long word, it is shorter than the explanation.

However, later definitions of eellogofusciouhipoppokunurious render it decidedly as either ‘good’ or ‘very good’, with both camps strongly disagreeing. This is quite humorous, because it is indeed dubious to the wider community whether or not eellogofusciouhipoppokunurious is good or very good!

Emoticons

Some people are opposed to their use in ‘correct written language’.

Firstly, they are used in electronic mode only, and electronic mode is the spontaneous nature of spoken mode in the medium of written mode. Electronic mode is like a transcript, almost, with emoticons acting as descriptions of their face or general emotions. So electronic mode shouldn’t be judged by the same rules as written language.

Secondly, as emoticons demonstrate emotion, and because punctuation also shows emotion in written mode, I shall argue for the ‘properness’ of emoticons by suggesting that emoticons are punctuation. For example, ‘?’ and ‘!’ show curiosity and excitement respectively, so one of the roles of punctuation is already emotion-depicted.

Also, emoticons are already used like punctuation: ‘oh dear :’( ’. One might object that the sadness was already shown with the ‘oh dear’, but in language, everything is reflective. In French, for example, everything in the sentence becomes negative. When reading a question, one can tell it is a question because of the use of words such as ‘who’, ‘where’ and ‘how’. It is an established part of all languages to use several devices to establish the emotion of the sentence.

Emoticons function like punctuation and are commonly used as punctuation; thus, I conclude that emoticons are punctuations. Further, as punctuation makes for correct language, and emoticons are punctuation, emoticons are correct in language.

Animals

I love all life, but my favourite Kingdom is definitely the animal one. It does make me feel bad, deciding to have a favourite, because it's all so special. Anyone can touch any life form and know, if the person is an evolutionist, that, at some distant point, your ancestors were siblings, and, before that, the same being.

Ever heard of a Walking Leg Sausage or a Walking Cactus? Well, neither are what they say they are. The first is a millipede and the second is an extinct animal that was thought to be a cactus when it was discovered. I encountered them both on the same day on a news website. Very curious.

By far, my favourite animals are giraffes, peafowls, spider monkeys and red foxes.
   I’ve no idea where my love for giraffes came from, even though they have been my favourite animals for my entire life, though it is most evident that they are. Pictures, models, going to zoos specifically with giraffes… For two Christmases in a row, I got a sponsorship pack from Born Free. I was very happy to sponsor a giraffe family, and they were Baringos which was ever so delightful. There are several subspecies of giraffe. My favourite are the Baringos, named after an impressive lake in their vicinity, though Baringos are better known as Rothschild’s Giraffes. There have been several genetic studies into the Baringos, and their genetic pattern is so distinct from all other giraffe subspecies that they could legitimately be declared their own species. This would mean that the Giraffidae family would have three species: the giraffe, the Baringo, and the okapi.
   Blue/Indian peafowls were originally the only ones that I knew existed. They are very beautiful, and from a young age I was correcting people with the ‘tail’. The long, beautiful feathers are the train, and the tail is short and supports the train. In my early teens, I discovered the Congo peafowl which are coloured darkly, with the male bein black and the female brown. Then I discovered the green/Javen peafowl. My goodness. Stunning. Unlike the other two species, the male and female are very similarly coloured, though the female still lacks the elegant train. The male also has iridescent feathers that appear scale-like on its neck.
   Spider monkeys are a residue from my childhood likes. I loved the idea of having a tail, and long, flexible tails were the most delightful, because that way they would be multipurpose. Naturally, New World monkeys were desirable. Spider monkeys were selected because of a sweet antidote: when I was a baby, I had black spikey hair, and when we went to a zoo, the spider monkeys had just given birth, and these babies likewise had spikey black hair.
   People often pull faces when I say red foxes are one of my favourite animals. Their intelligent, flexible to fit in best with their environment, resourceful, and I think beautiful. Their proportions are pleasing. In Japan, they are very important, especially in relation to Inari, the chief kami that is represented by the fox. Their social structure is very interesting as well. The pups may stay with the parents to assist with the next litter. Group sizes swell and fall in relation to the availability of food.

My favourite place for animals is Marwell (http://www.marwell.org.uk/default.asp?css=1).
   All the animals had reams and reams of space to move, which was absolutely wonderful to see. It had giraffes and okapis, which pleased me greatly. When we got to the snow leopard, it was sitting all nice and proud on a rock. After a while, she went into the cave and paraded out her three cubs. It was a magical moment, truly. As expected, there was a chorus of ‘ahh’ and even some amazed giggling.
   The meerkats weren’t overfed, which was a great shock. Every captive meerkat I’ve seen has been overweight. The problem is that meerkats are desert creatures, which means that they aren’t use to having large amounts of food regularly. Animal keepers in general seem not to take into account the consequences of an animal’s habitat, which means that quite a lot of animals are overfed. Thankfully, Marwell doesn’t overfeed its animals.

More on Yazidism

Scholars claim that the Yazidis were the followers of the sixth caliph, Yazid, though Yazdids reject this. Indeed, being from the Persian word ‘ized’, angel, seems much more likely, especially as Yazidis worship seven angels. These angels are worshipped via sanjaq, seven bronze, iron or copper figures in the form of peacocks.

Literature of the religion is mostly banned. With this, it has been a lot easier for the practices and beliefs of the various villages, which are very isolated from each other, to vary greatly. Indeed, as in my previous Yazidi post which stated that Malak Taus was praised for His explanation for not bowing to Adam, other Yazidis believe that Malak Taus cried in penance for not bowing to Adam and collected the tears for seven thousand years. These tears were used to extinguish the fires of Hell. This variability also explains why all aspects of Lalish Temple have several interpretations.

Other important beliefs are as followed. Baptism and circumcision are performed; there is adherence to a caste system in same villages. Blue cannot be worn. Words associated with the Devil cannot be spoken. Villages have shrines dedicated to a saint, and often this saint wil also be a Sufi saint. A worshipper may bow in the direction of sunrise or kiss where the morning light meets the ground.  

Metempsychosis, the transmigration of the soul, is very important. This reincarnation allows the soul to gradually become more purified.