E tenebras, lux dormiens

Nature of Friendship and Common Interest
With a discussion of male-female dichotomy

I am going to have dinner tonight, with my friends. How strange to see me type that. I guess these friends are different from the one that I expected. I guess I should avoid looking for a specific treasure, but to appreciate what I find.

I realized gamely that the specific "treasure" as I so called it is simply the one that I see on the street and saw in high school. In other words, they are the popular people.

Never mind the fact that we don't share the same interest. It would be soul-fulfilling to have them share their aura with me.

I wonder what people talk about in general. The "friends" I have talk about many things, but I never considered the subjects to be real conversations. I guess I wanted to have a philosophical discussion with cute boys. Then again, it's better for them to be dumb, so I can just pat them lightly on the head and stare into their vague unknowing eyes and smile. And then, I would kiss them on the eyes just to titillate them.

Geez, I wish I could and other people could maintain themselves. I wonder how so many women often look so good, so, so, so lovely, and yet I can feel not even the slightest sexual attraction to them. But men, males, boys, guys, half the population, many of whom rarely groom or do the things necessary to make themselves look and smell good, to them I am attracted.

The problem is that I am attracted only to those, the small fraction, that do keep themselves looking nice, but not overly flamboyant. I like those, like myself, I guess. Those that wear mild, but nice clothes, those that don't care too much about brand names, but what scintillate their eyes.

Turtlenecks, mock turtlenecks, mock orange turtleneck, mock neon orange turtleneck is a color I want to find. Dress down casual. Down casual. Casual. Yeah, that's a word.

It would be preferable if they have similar taste that I do. Not the same, but similar enough to be exchangeable. If people could look as good as I do [here is an example of arrogance] wearing the clothes that I wear, I would by all means date them.

It might seem strange that I use people instead of the more specific words that refer narrowly to half of the population with penises, and even more narrowly to people who do not think of themselves as the opposite sex or find pleasure in wearing clothes of the opposite sex.

It's just me. I don't like to employ the use of the word "man," "men," "boy," boys," "boi," "bois," "boyz," boiz," "male," "guy," "guys," "guyz," "dude," "hombre," "homme," "garcon," etc.

I like people. I guess this could be an instance of me still trying to keep open the possibility that I might turn straight. Or else, I am trying to avoid being the section of the gay population that is overwhelmingly sexist, using disgusting words (in my eyes, but obviously not in theirs).

It seems strange to me because I am somewhat egalitarian in my philosophy that I still accept any inequality that exists. It's hard for me to explain, because I have been looping these ideas in my though process, and having come so far, I am come round to the same argument, and cannot thus put it into words without contradicting myself. Being deaf means that I am decreased in importance to others. A woman has certain differences that highlight their specialized functions: nurturing. Although I would say that women are in general designed for that role, I would never say that all women should be in that role and nothing else. All the people have the rights to access of information, and rights to access of careers of their choices based on their intelligence, their capability, and their creativity.

One point that I was making was that I have just found one person of a segment of the gay population that has been stuck in the old view of the world.

I was aghast when he uses the word "man" in a discussion on philosophy or government when humanity, humankind, the human race, the people of the world, all the individuals, etc. could have just been as easily substitute. It behooves me to think of him as a misguided sexist. I did not see any point to correct him in saying that word, but rather, I decided to respond using the better word. People might consider it to be a form of political correctness, but I don't think so. Sometimes a politically correct word can be very offensive. Witness the degradation of "homosexual" in the gay community (no source provided to support the argument of the preceding sentence, but by general agreement of many gays and lesbians that you might meet on the street; people are the best, if not entirely reliable, primary sources of all).

I understand that the philosophers who have contributed to the general discourse are almost entirely male, if not entirely so. The problem is that no one has ever made an effort to count the influence of women. Who knows, perhaps there was a woman making a grand statement of equality could have caused a man to write a lovely argument in favor of equality without even crediting her.

The branch that decrease the importance of women is a supremely religious (i.e. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, along with other religions that I did not read about). Therefore, whoever claims to have foresaken their beliefs in God can still be mired in its words and culture.