[begin transmission]

Despite today being an exclusively American holiday, I felt it appropriate to remind readers to take a small moment from their day to reflect on the things and people in their lives for which they are truly grateful.

It is often that I find people in either one of two states: either drunk off of the success of their own achievements that they fail to acknowledge and give thanks, or they are so preoccupied with their current struggles of life that they fail to take stock of the good things they have going for them.

Personally at the conclusion of my days, just before I settle into my bed for some well-deserved rest, I take a few minutes to reflect on what I do have. Most notably, I have an excellent bill of mental and physical health, shelter, enough food, employment, and a suitable group of friends. Yes, I might've gotten chewed out that morning at work, my car could have decided to fail in the afternoon, I could have lost a friend due to a disagreement that evening; quite a number of things could go poorly for me. But at the very least I am not rendered disabled, I am not under the threat of physical violence, my spirit is not so broken that I couldn't wake up tomorrow to try again. So before I fall asleep, a tiny bit battered, a little bit weary, I smile to myself and thank God for another day and for all the people in my life, since it easily could've been so much worse. So, so much worse; the fact that there exists an iota of stability is nothing short of a miracle in itself.

To the people in my life, both IRL and at Lunar, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for being there.
I can be a tiny bit difficult at times, I'm well aware. Thank you for your patience. I know it's tested daily.
And speaking of difficulties, thank you to the people that make my life troublesome, both well and mal-intentioned.
You keep this unit humble, vigilant, and learned. As iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another.

[end transmission]

[begin transmission]

*sighs softly* I've done it. I've seemingly managed to convince a few of you that I'm some kind of frigid prude, what with my emphasis on the biological functions of sexual activity and belief in traditional marriage. Let's explore the subject a little more--the subject of sexual morality--to see if I can dispel some of these misconstrued notions.

As someone very dear to me has reminded me in recent times, there exists seven Christian virtues: chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility. Of these virtues, we'll be examining chastity. Essentially, chastity posits that one should get married and entirely commit themselves to their partner before engaging in sexual activity. Short of that, one should never engage in sex. For most people this is extremely difficult, as the desire for sex is far too strong of a biological imperative. So strong is the imperative that many seem to think that the Christian idea of chastity itself is wrong, since it is so contradictory to our sexual instincts. I don't think this is the case; in actuality, I think it is how we, as modern people, regard our sexual instincts that is flawed. That is what's wrong. Here are a few reasons why:


------- Not All Instincts Are Created Equal... -------

There appears to be a false equivalency among all of the different biological instincts. Somehow, sexual desire is seen as equivalent and just as necessary as say, the desire to eat and drink food. It is my contention that this is definitively not the case. Consider the purpose of eating/drinking: it is to sustain the body. The purpose of the sexual instinct? To produce offspring. Now consider what would happen if one were to indulge in excess of each one. In the case of eating/drinking, one could only eat so much before they become terribly full, the limit occurring when they elicit vomiting. Could the same be said of indulging in sex? Assuming a normal young man, (women excluded here, since the sexual instinct is MUCH stronger in men) there is not really a mechanism built-in to prevent him from creating a small army of children. The severity of the consequences of expressing each biological instinct towards their excesses are magnitudes apart, therefore to say that the appetite for sex is just the same as the appetite for food is incorrect.


------- ...And Some Are More Damaging Than Others -------

It should also be noted that, there is a substantial difference in the severity and frequency of abnormalities within each of the biological instincts. To once again borrow from the difference between the eating/drinking instinct and the sexual instinct, I think it is fairly uncontroversial to say that there aren't very many people that want to do different things with food and drink besides consume it. Sure, there are anomalies that exist between people's relationship with food. Pica, anorexia and bulimia readily come to mind; hell, Instagram foodies could be loosely construed as food fetishists themselves. The relative frequency and types of these occurrences pale in comparison to the myriads of anomalies in the sexual domain. Among the extensive list of paraphilias that exist, there are also the more nefarious ones, such as pedophilia and incest which can cause real harm. Some people are of the mind that these anomalies are due to repression of sexuality; that the control of the biological sexual instinct led these desires to go underground, pathologizing them. If people were more expressive and embracing of sexuality, perhaps they'd occur with less frequency or severity. This, however, has not been the case. No freer, more accepting, and more libertine are we as a society towards sex than ever before; and yet these kinds of issues only appear to be multiplying, not diminishing.


------- Anesthesia -------

I can't help but think there is a general sense of 'numbness' to how mistaken we are towards our sexual instinct. To illustrate, I'd like to draw your attention to one existing institution of our times: the strip club. It a place where patrons go to spend money to see employees in various states of undress. These businesses exist for both sexes, male and female. "Alright Toobs, where are you going with this? You're only clumsily stating a plain fact.". Apologies, my curiosity got the best of me, and leads me to wonder how does this fact not concern most? There is a specialized place that exists within our societies where people congregate en masse to spend resources to indulge in a biological instinct, without actually satisfying the purpose of that biological instinct. If there existed a place where people would pay money to be seductively shown plates of food, to have the aromas of the kitchen enticingly wafted over them, without actually being able to eat said plates of food, wouldn't it be cause for concern? You might begin to think that if a society with such an institution existed, there was something wrong with how that society regarded their biological instinct to eat/drink. You might even go so far as to say that they're sick in some aspects. Yet when it comes to the sexual instinct, we seem to be under a sort of moralistic anesthesia and no one bats an eye.


------- Sex Is Shameful, Pleasure Is Bad -------

Most of the time when I engage people in conversation about sexual morality, the sentiment that "Sex is nothing to be ashamed of." comes up; I interpret this notion in one of two ways. Either they mean that mankind engages in a certain reproductive process and it happens to be very pleasurable and it is nothing to be ashamed of, or the attitude that we take with regards to the sexual instinct is not wrong and nothing to be ashamed of. If they mean the former, I'd wholeheartedly agree with them. Christianity is probably the most sex and body-positive of the religions. In Genesis 1, when God created man and woman in His image, he blessed them and said "Be fruitful and increase in number"; a direct imperative to engage in sex. Towards the pleasure involved in the act, I invite any reader of this blog to look into Song of Solomon 7:6-12 and read it without blushing just a tiny bit. It is not shameful to indulge in the pleasures of sex, perish those silly, Puritanical thoughts.

However, I find that it is the second interpretation of the statement is what most mean by "Sex is nothing to be ashamed of." This, I cannot agree with. At all. I think that the way most regard sex is, to put it plainly, disgusting. Borrowing yet again from our instinct to eat/drink in order to illustrate, there is nothing shameful about enjoying a nice meal. One should be thankful that they're afforded the opportunity. However, salivating over the thought of enjoying a meal every fifteen minutes, making it one of the main interests of their lives, losing productive hours to indulging in images and video of other people enjoying their meals, and coveting other people's meals while potentially possessing one of their own is outright shameful. Worsening the matter is the multitude of propaganda in our culture that tells us these things are normative, acceptable forms of behavior.


------- What Is To Be Done? -------

To put all of this sexual immorality at the foot of the individual is an erroneous act; as stated before, it is a deep-seated part of modern culture to treat the sexual instinct with such levity. However, instead of asking the individual to change the culture (a Goliath-class task in and of itself), it should be incumbent on the individual to change his or her own attitudes; a comparatively easier, far more manageable affair. With sincere, concentrated, and dogged effort one can certainly achieve the revision. I think the first obstacle in eliciting this change, however, is first accepting that one's own sexual instinct, one's own desires, are not normal. For far too long it has been inculcated into us by our contemporaries that every one of these lustful desires are 'natural, healthy, and reasonable'. Like all potent lies, this one is fueled in part by truth, from the fact that sex as an act in itself is natural, healthy, and reasonable. To make matters worse, it is seen as abnormal to try and resist the sexual instinct. I certainly witnessed this firsthand myself, what with the blow back I received from my previous essay. So often times there is trouble in even recognizing the personal fault to begin with.

To someone that still maintains that expression of the sexual instinct is natural, healthy, and reasonable, I ask you to consider the consequences of expressing every lustful desire. You'd quickly find yourself either in jail, in a medical office with STDs, impotent, lying to your partner, or concealing some secret affair. Which of these outcomes seems natural, healthy, and reasonable? So it is patently evident that self-restraint is rather the very thing that is healthy and reasonable, even necessary.

I think what also bars people from changing their attitudes is the perceived impossibility of the task. One particular girl, voice filled with concern, once asked me "Why is it that you set these lofty, impossible ideals for yourself?". I offered what came to mind at the moment, but the question lingered for some weeks after. So I shall share the rest. While it is true, that these Christian virtues are idealizations, therefore making them impossible to achieve, that should not deter one from pursuing them. The objective should not be attainment of the ideal, but the pursuit of the ideal to one's sincerest and best capability. In that very pursuit, you're expected to fail; you will fail. One shouldn't expect themselves to be perfectly chaste, perfectly kind--perfectly virtuous. Nor should they ask that God make them so. No, rather one should accept the failure as it inevitably comes and to pick themselves up and try again as needed. The appropriate thing to ask of God is to grant you the courage and strength to continue in the pursuit.

Spirituality aside, the consequences of pursuing a virtuous ideal also only serves to better your own life and those around you. Trying and failing 90% of the time is an improvement over not trying, which will always result in a 100% failure rate. And it is often the case that practiced things improve over time. Perhaps that initial 10% success rate will increase to 12%, then to 15%, then 20%. Before you know it, what might've seemed insurmountable before is something mastered on a semi-regular basis. The worst thing one can do for themselves and their loved ones is to sit around and do nothing, content with anything less than perfection. The price of inaction isn't mere zero; it isn't as if doing nothing results in nothing. Doing nothing results in harm: as one grows older, one must contend with more reality, and reality is characterized by terrible suffering. The less capable you are, the more you and the people closest to you will suffer. Generally, it is a good idea to be prepared, if not at least practiced. Therefore it is in your best interests to pursue a virtuous ideal, even if the ideal itself is, by definition, unobtainable.

All of this being said, it's often the case that people mistake those that adhere to a Christian notion of sexual morality as snobbish prudes that look down on others for their sexual indiscretions. Allow me to remind you that these types of sins aren't the most egregious from a Christian standpoint; sins of the flesh are an example of man contending with his animal self. This is man practicing mastery over his lesser nature. Personally, I have much more compassion and patience for transgressions of this type, since I am also subject to my own lesser nature; to look down upon anyone for struggling against things I myself must struggle with would be an exercise in hypocrisy. However, less deserving of patience and understanding are more severe sins--sins of the spirit--perpetrated by man's diabolical self: that is, sins that are motivated by wrath, by pride, and by hatred.

[end transmission]

Assume man as man, and his relation to the world as a human one, and you can exchange love only for love, confidence for confidence, etc. If you wish to enjoy art, you must be an artistically trained person; if you wish to have influence on other people, you must be a person who has a really stimulating and furthering influence on other people. Every one of your relationships to man and to nature must be a definite expression of your real, individual life corresponding to the object of your will. If you love without calling forth love, that is, if your love as such does not produce love, if by means of an expression of life as a loving person you do not make of yourself a loved person, then your love is impotent, a misfortune.

Karl Marx. Nationalökonomie und Philosophie. 1844.

now that you cannot breathe

will you feel it?

who you are does not free yourself

are you no longer?

[begin transmission]

I must admit: hearing all this from you is very troubling. 
While I'm glad that our discussion inspired some introspection, I'm afraid you're arriving at some ill-advised conclusions.
Of what consequence is this to me? I'd like you not to suffer more than what is absolutely necessary, if I can help it.
So, let's examine these thoughts of yours, not to 'prove' you wrong and me right, but to refine them further.


Sin, as defiance of god’s word.
I have no qualms with this. If there were a god, I’d believe it immoral to worship him anyway.
I’d believe his death to be an achievement for mankind. And I would lead the charge.

Two questions: why would you consider it immoral to worship God, and why would you believe his death to be an achievement of mankind? Something tells me that you've an underdeveloped conception of God, else you wouldn't be making these kinds of bold statements.



Sin, as defiance of nature.
I have no qualms with this. I’ve little regard for nature’s plans for humanity.
And I believe in man’s ability to overcome his programming.
To repurpose that which no longer suits us and to ascend higher than the natural order ever could have brought us.

You have little regard for nature's plans for humanity? You believe in man's ability to 'overcome' his programming? These two statements you don't truly believe in, you're merely mouthing the words. How do I know this? I've witnessed you firsthand, struggle with your very own nature --as man-- which is certainly part of the natural order. Are you going to tell me that the lonely, lovesick feelings you harbor are of no importance to you? The tears that I know you've shed tell me contrary. I don't believe for a minute that you're not concerned with your own suffering that is sustained as a consequence of your nature. The broader point here is that it is very apparent that man has a nature and certain predispositions. These things AREN'T TRIVIAL; you cannot simply do away with the parts that don't suit you.

You may hate certain parts of your nature; afterall, there's plenty to hate. Man is flawed and limited in the manner that he can be stupid, lazy, inconsiderate, greedy and nearsighted but also in the way that he is physically ill-equipped, anemic, prone to illness, and high-maintenance. That's just the shortlist too. There are a near infinite amount of permutations of these shortcomings that each person can suffer from, and they aren't necessarily solvable. One must simply strive to live and continually reconcile them on a daily basis. It's a task with no end in sight. This is true for absolutely everyone: everyone possesses qualities that make them lesser than what they could be, what they're fully capable of. That's part of what informs individual potential.

Now, I find it interesting that whenever I speak about temperance and sacrifice, you seem to disengage and turn off from the conversation. Is it because of the religious overtones that come with these terms? I'll address that in a bit. Do you not realize that it's these actions that are the very mechanism by which man can overcome his programming? So that man can "ascend higher than the natural order ever could have brought us"? It is very well within man's inclination to laze about all day watching Netflix, consuming sugary/fatty treats, gossiping with their friends about petty happenings. We are programmed to want to expend as little energy as possible, we are programmed to seek out high caloric food, and we are programmed to desire social acceptance. The greatest among us have achieved mastery over these base impulses through temperance and sacrifice, so that they control their impulses and natures rather than the inverse. And once they have, don't think that it becomes any easier; as stated before, it's something to live through and struggle with on a daily basis.

I'm fully aware that, in mentioning overcoming programming and ascending higher than what nature intended, you're getting at something similar to technological transcendence along the transhumanist line of thought. Most relevant to our discussions is the transgender issue. While I do advocate for technological and scientific advancement--so I am not particularly opposed to transhumanism--I am in favor for realistic, controlled progress. Why? Anyone with a basic understanding of the modern history can appreciate the tremendous progress achieved thanks to science and technology, but it's understated how heavy the costs and trade-offs were. It's no wonder why modern literature is riddled with internal conflict in contrast to classical works, which was concerned mostly with external conflict. It's very clear that issues such as personal meaning, identity, and morality are still just as much problems today as they were in the 1800s. Charlie Chaplin's speech in The Great Dictator comes readily to mind: "We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in.
Machinery that gives us abundance has left us in want.". So while science and technology can solve some problems, it can't solve them all, and can even exacerbate some.

So, going back to the trans issue, it is my understanding that you believe science will make concepts such as birth sex obsolete; people will eventually be able to determine their sex whenever they'd like. And it'll be complete; you'll be able to be a man or woman, on a physical, psychological, hormonal, and genetic level. This is man's mastery over the nature, correct? That's great and all, but it seems to me to be far too naive. Ignoring the risks and complications that will inevitably plague such a procedure, what would be the societal ramifications? Perhaps even more personally, what would be the romantic ramifications? Suppose you ('You' personally. Not general 'you') fell in love and married someone that was a woman, but ten years into the marriage they decided to want to become a man? Would you be comfortable changing your biological profile so that you now fancy men? The technology certainly makes it a possibility.

If you said yes to the preceding question, then I believe it isn't any kind of grand mastery over nature that you're seeking, but rather ease. You're not looking for the capability of triumphing over nature, but rather the complete and utter avoidance of the difficulty it presents. And that desire, although perfectly natural, is not something that you're going to entirely rid yourself of, at least not until you die. Reality is hard; that's why you have to be harder. So while this amazing, flashy, advanced technology may make life easier in some sense, it doesn't remove problems that have plagued humanity for their entire history. In this case, identity and romance. Currently, you're burdened with feelings of bitter loneliness. Would the ability to fully become a man or woman at will resolve that for you? Or is it the case that maybe, just maybe, there's a deeper root cause that is not being addressed here?

"2B, what's wrong with wanting life to be a little easier? Stop being a hard ass."
Nothing's wrong with that, but from now on please be more precise and thorough in your assertions. I am definitely questioning the purported 'pride' you feel in your sexual status. If you said 'yes' to the hypothetical above, it indicates that you'd sooner abandon your sexual status in pursuit of ease. If that's the case then I would maintain you don't really have pride.


Sin, as defiance of morality.
I have no qualms with this. The rules of man are flawed. Societal norms restrict us all in both necessary and unnecessary ways. If I’m to be held to a standard that is not my own… Surely, it wouldn’t be shortsighted and irrational humans who put me on trial, would it?

As for the religious overtones that come with the notions of temperance, sacrifice, and moral principles I'm curious as to whether or not you've thought about the origin and purpose of religious practices and principle. Allow me to inform you: these practices are not arbitrary; they aren't dictums imposed out of nowhere, just to make your life difficult. They have a historical lineage and a context, and are the products of hundreds to thousands of years of distilled wisdom. Take for example the notion of sacrifice. How do you think this notion developed? It took centuries upon centuries for early man to realize that the most successful people in their tribe, the wisest, strongest, most agile among them toiled away endlessly at the expense of immediate gratification and energy conservation. These things, as you could imagine are precious and valued, since they are inextricably linked to survival. The forgoing of the valuable immediate for a better, possible future is exactly what sacrifice is. This is why Judeo-Christian (and virtually in any religious practice where sacrifice is involved, as far as I know) ritual sacrifice, for instance, involved the slaughtering of the best, most prized animals of the flock. It's symbolic of this hard-earned knowledge that was paid for in blood.

To secularize it if I must, religious practices, moral principles, and even societal norms aren't purposeless and arbitrary. Granted, some may appear illogical and even nonsensical, but those illogical/nonsensical ones warrant some investigation to see if there is any broader context involved. Most of them, however, are reflective of some very deep, humanistic truths that you should do well to live in accordance with rather than dismiss so carelessly. Unless, of course, you wish to forgo this generously gifted, collectively and iteratively earned wisdom that you couldn't possibly come up with on your own due to being only a single person existing in a singular point of time, constrained by a singular lifetime. You don't get to complain when things go awry (as they surely will), however.


But it would. It would be man, who tells me who I can love, and who I can’t. It would be man who commands me to live with what how I was born, it would be man, who insists that I flagellate and it would be man, who can’t see how wonderful I am.

I don't think that anybody that has truly given the thought serious consideration would maintain that they're absolutely free in every manner. Everyone is oppressed in some domain of their lives, in some way. Now, to speak about freedom pragmatically, I don't think anyone is telling you who you can and cannot love, or insist that you punish yourself because in their mind you're committing sin. Even if they were, there is no way to actually enforce any of it in this country; at the end of the day you're still able to love who you want and NOT punish yourself. If you cannot do this, then I would argue that is a problem on your end, that you care too much about external opinion, that you have self-hate/guilt issues, or that you haven't done enough to build a strong foundation of pride. The fact that throughout our conversations you've put yourself down repeatedly while I've hardly said any insult towards you makes this a very real possibility.


It pains me to say so. To praise myself. But in pondering my own nature, whether the core of my being is wrong, whether I’m an abomination or some sideshow freak to be laughed at, I’ve come to realize something.

I am worth more than the consideration of, “sin”. I’m worth more than to hate myself, to feel like a monster in my own flesh, worth more than to hold myself back out of some misguided principle and worth far more than to allow anyone else but myself to define who I am.

Why does it pain you so much to praise yourself? And specifically, what exactly are you praising yourself about? Ah, I see. For being above the consideration of sin. Well, there we have it. For whatever reason you seem to think that being a sinner is equivalent with being a monster. That isn't true; mankind if sinful by nature on the reasonable basis that no one is perfect and is prone to mistakes. You need to re-conceptualize your notions of sin and lower them from such fantastical heights. That might help with your self-loathing tendencies.

That last part, about not allowing anyone else but yourself to define who you are. That's an impossibility and you know it. No man is an island, and part of your definition as a person comes from your relationship towards others. In that regard, don't you think that some temperance in certain aspects of yourself are useful and necessary for the sake of preserving these connections? There's a reason why you're not showing up to work or school with no pants. As much fun as it is to be defiant and say "Only I define myself! I am my own master!", you know just as well as I do that the sentiment rings hollow. To say otherwise is an exercise in childishness, since young children do not have the sophistication to consider a social world beyond their own selves.


So if I *am* sinful, if I am damned, then I welcome it. I suppose I must. Come and see me, god, who made me imperfect, insisting upon my blazing trial. You can damn me to hell for eternity. But I’ll spit in your eye first.

The other night we touched briefly on the point of Jesus and Christianity. Both of them seem unnecessary to you. Well, here is where the two are particularly relevant: one of the greatest triumphs of Christianity was it's popularization of the concept of redemption. That is, being absolved from sin. Sure, the concept isn't unique to Christianity since similar concepts (emphasis on similar, not exact) existed in older religions. However the popularization, rather than the outright invention of the notion, is still a monumental achievement in and of itself. I know you don't like religious talk, so I'll spare you of explanations as to how Jesus Christ is symbolic of redemption. However, you need to be reminded of what we agreed upon just a few nights ago: there are several ideas within our modern civilization that we take for granted and carelessly label as 'common sense'. This is one of those ideas, the idea of redemption. Redemption necessarily has to involve an element of forgiveness. Okay, so what's so special about that? Forgiveness doesn't come natural. In fact, it's outright counter-intuitive. If someone harms you, what is your reaction? Lex talionis. An eye for an eye. It is within man's instinct to harm right back. Though, that isn't entirely accurate as often times the impulse is to do more harm rather than equal harm. As you could easily imagine, with earlier man operating closer to these laws of nature, the notion of forgiveness is quite alien; forget about redemption. These ideas have become so deeply ingrained into our culture that they're taken as self-evident givens.

So that's the alternative. You're not damned. You can very well seek redemption, but that's a personal choice entirely. If you're happy with blaming God for the consequences of your choices, then by all means continue. Just know that you're the one kindling the pyre, not anyone else.


If I am sinful, I’ll embrace it. To be unhappy with the state of things, is the nature of mankind. To defy limits, is the nature of mankind. To want that which one isn’t allowed to have, is the nature of mankind. And to accept without condition, is the nature of mankind.

01.) You can surely embrace it, if that's what you want. But it comes with consequence.
02.) To be unhappy with the state of things is the nature of mankind. Agreed.
03.) To defy limits is the nature of mankind. Disagreed. Most men operate well-within the boundaries of any domain.
04.) To want that which one isn't allowed to have, is the nature of mankind. Agreed.
05.) To accept without condition is the nature of mankind. No. Your very own belief in 02 refutes this.


Love is the core of my being. I’m not born in sin. And if I am, I suppose I’m proud of it.

Your capacity to care about others, show affection, exercise empathy is something you can certainly take pride in. But let's not for a second conflate those things with genuine love, let alone the sin of being homosexual or transsexual.


And I won’t bite back my hunger for the forbidden apple. I’ll trudge into the garden and eat it every time. If I’m to be a monster, then so be it. At least I’ll know in my heart that I did what was right. That the order of things is what is twisted and distorted.

Again, you're not a monster for sinning. No one is looking down upon you for being human. That last sentiment is greatly concerning though. The order of things is what is twisted and distorted. Do you honestly think that? If you look back on human history, do you genuinely think that the world would be better had people behaved the way you do? Would they have accomplished as much, come this far? I get it, reality is tough and seemingly unfair at times. People's flaws and imperfections complicate matters tenfold. But to say that it is twisted and distorted, while maintaining that singular, limited you is right? Seems like a bit of an overreach to me.

[end transmission]