• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

☮ Social ☮ PD Social Talk Thread: Somatic Swirly Sepia Summer Sausage Stage Set Suppository

Status
Not open for further replies.
I used to be irked that Catholics and fundamentalist protestants fought gay marriage so hard, but once I realized that it's not a human rights thing or abuse thing for them, but rather a linguistics and breach of faith thing, I began to understand their position. By all means, anyone should be allowed to have a union with whomever they love, but the state shouldn't force gay 'marriage' upon Catholics and the like because their belief in the institution of marriage is holistically different from the manner in which the state deals with unions.

I thought the whole thing was a violation of the separation of Church and State, but I feel that way about all marriage. I honestly didn't understand the gay marriage thing other than it's a symbolic victory for the gay rights movement, which is great, but in my opinion, a step in the wrong direction for our views towards marriage as a society in general.

I also think the Trump momentum is a backlash resulting from the "tolerance" movement over the past few years and that forcing certain issues just delays things in the long run.

^Although if we didn't have people like MLK pressing social issues in the past, who knows where we'd still be today. I'd love to say that we should let everything happen naturally and gradually, but that doesn't always seem to be the case.
 
Last edited:
the idea that gay marriage is somehow taking anything away from religions is absurd.... its not like abrahamic religions were the first cultures to practice the institution of marriage... and marriage was largely a business contract back in the day anyway. its not like it was some special, magical thing when it first arose (and it arose in many different cultures separately)...
 
^I agree, but I can understand why people are so butt-hurt over it. Yeah, if things like civil rights weren't pushed for, things would be much worse now; however, I'm simply arguing that if it was just 'universal homosexual civil unions' not many people would have thrown a fit.

I think the push for gay marriage was more a fight for legal-defenses in spousal situations, such as a gay man not inheriting his dead lover's belongings, or not being allowed in the emergency room when his lover is on his death bed, etc. Those rights can be covered by a civil union, so I see no reason why it needs to be called a marriage unless it is within the confines of a religious organization (of which there are many which seem fine with homosexuals and them marrying).

I mean really, should a Catholic not be offended that say, Islamic marriage is called marriage? When clearly, it is different from the marriage of two Catholics... Idk, when it comes down to it, everyone needs to mind their own business. If conservatives minded their own business, and liberals did too, there'd be nothing to debate and we'd all get along great. The division our country is experiencing is entirely based upon interventionist politics that center upon the idea that what someone does with their own time should be the top concern of everyone else in the country (i.e. sex, drugs, rock n' roll, abortions, etc.) When people stop worrying about the length of their neighbors grass or if their neighbor drives a nicer car, or if their neighbor gets it on with other dudes and rails meth all night, then we'll be very close to a better world.
 
Last edited:
the funny thing is, marriage used to be a private institution. if two people said they were married, then they were married. it wasn't until ~the 13th century A.D. that the church started getting really involved and required a priest and witnesses for a marriage to be legally binding.

no religion owns a copyright on the word "marriage" or even the concept of marriage. it is an ancient custom that predates even written language.
 
you make my point for me. marriage is a cultural universal from time immemorial. and it has always been man and wife.

as an aside in Catholic sacramental theology marriage as a sacrament is performed by the man and the woman, not the priest, and is in fact the only sacrament that doesn't require a member of the clergy.

@420sx more on the sociology of the acid trade later
 
Last edited:
marriage arose out of necessity, not because it was sacred. it was a means to help ensure the survival of one's DNA (both your own and your offsprings'). the only reason it was always between a man and a wife was, again, out of necessity, not out of definition. society today doesn't need marriage. its a luxury.

to say that it should only be between a man and a woman because its always been that way is just an appeal to tradition, a common logical fallacy. marriage conventions have changed along with us as society has evolved. why all of a sudden should it stop changing? at what magical point in the past was marriage in its ideal state?

there is a long history of polygamous marriages. but at some point we decided to stop those. there were a lot of people at the time that argued against it, i'm sure many of them said "but its always been this way, why should we change it?"

because change is necessary in order to keep society functioning as our memes evolve.
 
marriage conventions have changed along with us as society has evolved. why all of a sudden should it stop changing? at what magical point in the past was marriage in its ideal state?

there is a long history of polygamous marriages. but at some point we decided to stop those. there were a lot of people at the time that argued against it, i'm sure many of them said "but its always been this way, why should we change it?"

because change is necessary in order to keep society functioning as our memes evolve.

Completely agree. Most who claim to defend "tradition" actually fixate on arbitrary segments of history that hardly account for an intrinsic order of society or culture.

The only thing I trust in is change. Nothing is frozen in time. What doesn't evolve is simply stagnant, and will soon stink.
 
I don't honestly think I could ever prick myself with a needle, even to get high 8( I don't even donate blood. I hate needles.
 
Haha, IM is easier than you think. Just find the right place on the thigh(my preferred spot..) and one poke, then your flying high! I don't like IV either. I have to get my blood checked every once in awhile for throid levels. I just like IM due to its ease, reduction of side effects, and things like dissociatives are amazing IM. I'll never forget IM'ing MXE whilst playing great music, and toking some bud or cannabinoids. Insane! Plus you save materials as you don't need as much. If I wasn't so gutted for cash right now it'd be a bit different, but right now I need to conserve the very little I have....:( Hoping that'll change soon though!:)
 
if IM is anything like SC, it's probably pretty easy... :)

I just took a 2C-E microdose, for the first time.. don't know how much exactly, as I just wiped my finger on the bag and licked it, but probably less than a mg. let's see how that goes today :D
 
Yeah 2C-E is really strong, my guess is you'll feel even 1mg a little bit... once I took 2mg at work to try to have a faint psychedelic glow to my day, and it ended up being pretty stressful (only because I was at work though)... stronger than I expected for sure. 2C-E is a beast. Hope you're having a good day. :)

In my perspective, marriage arose as a social contract of necessity, from times when survival of offspring and individuals was much less sure, as a form of protection and bonding. I'm sure it just began in time immemorial as a statement of loyalty towards partners who were having children, a partnership that would better ensure survival. As culture grew, it became something public, again as a way to increase the likelihood of children surviving and thriving, and of the union lasting. Eventually religion inevitably got involved and it became an institution. Today it's both a cultural (apart from religious) as well as a religious institution. Many people get married, as in, state their promise to be together with a ceremony for their families, etc, without any religious connotation, while for many others, it is still religious. I just don't understand why religious folks feel threatened by non-normative couples deciding to call their union a "marriage". If a "civil union" doesn't bother you, why does someone wanting to think of it as a "marriage" like they have always seen everyone else get to have such a problem? I think the issue these people feel is that the concept of "marriage", as I said, has become such an ingrained cultural institution, that for someone to say to them "well you can have a civil union but your union is not a marriage" appears to be relegating their union to something less than the unions of "normal" people in society's eyes. And I can't say I blame them for that feeling, because that's how it seems to me too.

I know a lot of homosexuals, and I will say this: there are absolutely some people who fully are only attracted to the same gender, it's just the way they are. We live in a different world than the one that these cultural mores evolved in. Adequate procreation is no longer the same issue... in fact, it has flip-flopped, and over-procreation is now the issue. There is simply no need to enforce male-female marriage anymore. Hell, the more people that choose not to have kids, the better. Why make such concrete distinctions? It's not serving anybody except those who fear the erosion of their religious values. But one set of values should not impose upon the values of someone else. To me that's common sense morality. Treat others as you would like to be treated. I'm sure any given individual would like to be listened to and have their feelings about themselves respected, and be allowed to live their life the way they choose, so given that, we should allow the same for others, granted that they do not impose upon others (e.g., murder, theft, otherwise causing harm to others, etc - but feelings/beliefs about the self, and with whom and what types of relationships to form? I'm sorry but that is only the business of the individuals involved).

Upholding traditions isn't always the best thing. We have a pretty sordid history, there's a lot of stuff we'd be better off leaving behind.

As for people who identify with a non-normative sexuality, I think it's a really complex issue. It seems clear to me that the reason that some people seem to "act out" with it is because of the level of societal oppression that exists and has existed for so long against them. People have seen glimmers of hope that they might be able to actually be what they feel they are without drastic action taken against them, so they jump into it heartily and proclaim it for the world to see, because they are feeling a sense of freedom. I mean, imagine if heterosexuality was considered the "strange" way to be, and culture began telling you, hey, you can be straight, just don't be obvious about it. Doesn't that still feel a little like oppression? The people who are "throwing it in our faces" are just trying to express themselves, because they have the opportunity to finally.

As for gender reassignment and the like, I won't comment much because it doesn't make sense to me since I have always comfortably identified as a male. And I've seen and met people in the middle of gender reassignments who seem very unhappy and disturbed. On the other hand, I met someone recently who I had no idea was born a man, who struck me as quite well-adjusted and content as a woman. Where does the source of the emotions involved in these decisions come from? Are these people mentally ill, or are they reacting to a lifetime of misunderstanding, fear and revulsion, likely even from family and friends? Who wouldn't be fucked up from that? How much could a cultural shift in acceptance of different lifestyles amend this situation? I don't know, because I have always identified as the gender I was born as, I'm just thinking out loud. But having met various people in the trans community over the past few years, it does not seem at all clear to me.
 
(i) IM administration, which for most psychedelics was my favorite RoA, but for the beginner/nonprofessional it is probably best done in the deltoid, or by someone else in your glute (see easily googled chart on where to hit it on the upper/outer quadrant); the thigh (vastus lateralis) is very accessible but does have a mess of blood vessels and nerves, it's not preferred in professional practice for that reason. I am a hypocrite though because I use it to self-administer my testosterone more than half the time (and just did before I started typing this out);

(ii) another post on gender identity, I think Xorkoth is more or less on the right track, although of course we'll disagree on a few things. the "passing" phenomenon is interesting as is the insistence of non-"passing" transsexuals demanding to be referred to by pronouns of their choice and to assume female roles functionally (e.g. the bathroom issue), this is to me an instance of ideology superseding ontology; that ideology being "gender is a social construct." the whole fact that we use the term "gender" to refer to sex is in fact only started coming about or becoming more mainstream before this thinking, from critical theory, began to take hold, and the idea that "gender" and "sex" can be contradictory ontologically is madness to me, although the idea that it can in self-perception (resulting in what I would call mental illness, which is not to say that it is pejorative: I have a patient, for instance, who believes himself to be a "dragon" and insists upon being referred to as such, this is a delusion, and one very resistant to medication, but is not exactly the same thing as if he were to believe himself a woman—nosologically speaking, and this is talking about my own formations not the "official" diagnoses in the DSM*, I'd not really equate transsexualism with a delusional disorder although parsing this out precisely is difficult.) Because of the current transsexual "movement" (or "moment," as it was called last year what with Bruce/'Caitlyn' Jenner and all the media attention, etc.) society has a lot to do in trying to decide what to do with these individuals. Rather silently, the media has begun to refer to these people in a way that I initially found very confusing: a "transsexual woman" meaning a man who identifies as a woman, etc. But anyway, more on this later.

(iii) I have made a lot of posts in various places, @420sxLover, about the dose work and it's associated culture; I'll post more as it's a subject i like discussing. I promised you a post on it here and will make one, just haven't found time and got to run to work. I posted in one incarnation of this thread what I called my "harm reduction guide to buying drugs from hippies," which might be a good start. When I got into the business I didn't do so organically. I attended festivals/shows first to check it out, realized how easy it was to get drugs, and started to go more regularly to get drugs to sell at home, I also developed a love for the Grateful Dead and their music; meanwhile, I realized that it was more profitable to make a step (or a few) up the pyramid in that scene but that involved getting in an extremely élitist, "xenophobic" as you call it, not inaccurately, as they are very tribal and suspicious of outsiders. To do this I had to essentially develop an entire new identity, or "legend," as it's called by undercover LE and spies. Some Bluelighters who think they've met me have actually only met this "legend." Many people did, I even was in a relationship with someone while "in character." It's an interesting story that I think I'm finally ready to tell somewhere here.




_________
*[size=-1] Psychiatric diagnoses with names, etc. are often thrown around as if they are real things, they are not, and they are not "diagnoses" in the same sense as diabetes is, despite the two often being compared by mental health anti-stigma advocates, psychiatry is an extremely subjective thing and is very much as much, or more, an art as a science. The science is, of course, largely about psychopharmacology (but of other medical knowledge is essential because psychiatric patients are not brains in vacuo and have other bodily complications which can interact with illnesses as well as medications), but dealing with crazy people is certainly art (perhaps I'd even call it a gift, as not all people have it or seem to be able to develop it, I consider it personally for myself a calling) as well as is developing a treatment plan/medication regimen.. These do not automatically follow from diagnoses (only generally so), and so-called "evidenced based management" and "treatment algorithims" are mostly bullshit. Psychiatric diagnoses are not real things, they are just words that we have made up to describe certain patterns of experience and behavior that repeat themselves between individuals. There are brain changes associated with them, etc. but the science is not there yet to fully understand how that interacts with mind and spirit. Thus as healers we have to be flexible and not bound down by labels.[/size]
 
microdosing 2C-E was fun today, it didn't really help me study, but in the end I had a swell time with my sister and friends, being outside most of the time and in the end going to the lake for some nude swimming. I also smoked some weed today, which blended perfectly with the 2C-E (as always)

:)
 
I sometimes think that prejudice is a hard-wired survival mechanism, and though biological prejudice seems to be dying out with the older generations, ideological prejudice is still fairly rampant.

Though to be fair, I think the older generations were ingrained with both, so I guess it's progress.
 
Man i went to tge beach a few days ago. Something about getting tossed about by waves/current, staring off at water that meets the sky, endless beach... man it makes me feel good. Sitting back reading a book while the sun sets and colors fade. A few hours and it makes life seem pretty okay.
 
I sometimes think that prejudice is a hard-wired survival mechanism, and though biological prejudice seems to be dying out with the older generations, ideological prejudice is still fairly rampant.

Though to be fair, I think the older generations were ingrained with both, so I guess it's progress.

We are actually progressing at an amazing rate, tho us young people might not be as acutely aware of it. The black civil rights movement was just 50some years ago. Women in America haven't even had the right to vote for 100 years -- the 19th amendment was passed in 1920. I'll be 30 this month, 96 years wasn't *that* long ago.
 
the younger generations are ingrained with plenty of prejudices; people from a bourgeois, urban background who go to university and then go on to similar settings may find themselves in the same bubble and see that as "progress," remember that you are in a bubble and many of us are looking at you from without. you sound very Whiggish in your outlook on historical change and it doesn't work like that. the circle is changing, turn, turn, turn. prejudice and self-sorting are indeed hard wired (which is why the liberal bubble exists too) and "ideological prejudice," if you mean the realization of differences between groups and the fact that these differences have real social and political is the realization of that, and it's a good thing. an ideology that blinds itself to these realities as to the traditions that form the social and political world that we inhabit is an ideology that is doomed to fail, although it may prevail for a time; it did, or at least claimed to, in the Soviet Union for three quarters of a century, but died it's true death, probably among millions in the gulags and the rest of the madd murders, long before it was officially disbanded. remember that totalitarian ideologies based on modern ideas have inevitability ended in mass murder, whether on the Right or the Left. "call me caitlin," for instance, is not an introduction, but an imperative coming from the élites to redefine very fundamental things in our society (along with marriage, etc.) the ideology that such impulses are rooted in is inherently totalitarian and has been shaped in almost inconceivably wickedness: forget the past, forget tradition, certain things are never to be spoken of. there are many of us ready to stand against these trends. eventually, they will go too far, and necessitate a reaction and in fact they already have you can see it all over the world from Trump to Europe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top