Thought of the Moment

[eos_nyxia]

....

It really is hard to find the will to write publically anymore, especially when I just focus on living my life these days.

[Yimpa]

1 minute ago, eos_nyxia said:

And I don't need it, nor do I need them, nor do they need me. And that's fine.

You sound like a very friendly and compassionate person. You do deserve their attention.

[eos_nyxia]

I could just end this all right now and be the person I actually want to be.

[eos_nyxia]

FAT IN THE 90s/ EARLY 00s: I've been revisiting Kibbe (which often reads as astrology but for clothes) and was reminded how much the media hated soft-bodied people, which tends to more easily read as "fat" (especially in photos) regardless of your actual weight, body size, and body fat levels. In Kibbe typology, that's skewing toward having a more "yin" or ("romantic") bone structure and features. This means narrower bones and delicate joints, which are especially noticeable in the wrists, ankles, ribcage, and the structure of the feet and hands.

"Muscle" on a feminine frame tends to read instead as more "curves" in a moderately more structured way, which still visually reads as "soft", as opposed to what we typically associate with as muscles -- angularity, definition,  unless you are extremely lean and/ or muscular. I mean lean enough to stop menstruating as a woman. Kibbe teaches that part of that angularity and the "strong" or "bold" look comes from your skeletal frame and not only your body fat levels. 

Feminine-leaning types tend to look "lush" (a "yin" feature) rather than "dry" (sinewy, lean, elongated, angular, etc). 

I remember being super young when Titanic came out, and thinking that Kate Winslet looked so pretty with her colouring and her curls, 

And then I learned, apparently, she was fat. 

Other examples of being "fat":

SiTC (Kim Cattrall refused to gain weight, but she was styled as "fat"). (Fun fact: these types of pants made everyone look "fat" unless you were extremely thin with no muscle mass, and possibly pre-pubescent.)

(For what it's worth, Renee Zellweger gained weight for this role.)

 

When Nicole Ritchie was the fat friend on The Simple Life.

Character on the right was considered "fat": 

This movie just generally sucked though. 

"Fat" Britney:

What in the mental illness was wrong with people back then?

 

Edited August 7 by eos_nyxia

[eos_nyxia]

I don't have slutty FOMO anymore.

Finally, I accepted and made my peace with this: It's not like the people I thought I was missing out on would have understood me in the way I wanted and thought I needed anyway.

Edited August 9 by eos_nyxia
I waited long enough, and it just happened.

[eos_nyxia]

I should be happy about being replaced in ways that I thought I was essential, or at the very least, misunderstanding what people thought my use was FOR. "Love" can really mean a huge range of possible compulsions and emotions. 

Anyway, wasn't I looking for my way out this whole time, if it proved itself false?

I was looking for a reason for it to be false, shallow, and of no real meaningful and lasting value. Even if something lasts beyond death, it doesn't mean that it is worth preserving. And if it's not worth preserving, then I have no moral obligation to be open or connected in even a single way that could be considered "personal". I wanted to let myself off the hook from the burden that is feeling responsible for humanity, and god forbid I get something I actually personally want via the Law of Exchange.

That is just it. I want to remove the unnecessarily personal from all of this. From my connection to people. I could never have taken this karmic baggage in the direction I'm going. So I tell myself, so it appears. 

 

So then, why so angry about it?

 

 

I wanted to be right too, obviously.

Edited August 14 by eos_nyxia
The level of resentment and anger I've had over things been made inappropriately personal, and me thinking it meant anything, is the cause of all of this being blown out of proportion.

[eos_nyxia]

THE PRICE OF "PROTECTING MYSELF":

But from this perspective, even simply BEING and being open is too much for me, because I know that having parts of me taken and used for things that I explicitly DO NOT WANT is inevitable. The more open I am, the faster the wheel turns, the more that "just happens", and the harder it is to stop in terms of time and my energy. The more unwanted and damaging feedback I have to deal with. And I would rather protect myself instead of going through a repeated version of feeling profoundly and disgustingly violated again, only to get myself back to the point where it's like: I forgive you! Because there's nothing I can do about what you've done anyway! It's not worth holding onto any of this!

I'll just say this: there are not many times I was open enough to even get close to being disappointed. Even with my family, having profoundly low expectations saved me from being overly disappointed with them.

....

Since I'm in very regular contact with my family now, and since I have a long history of being by far the most emotionally "mature" despite being the youngest and the one who was "victimized". There's a reason why I put all my rage in a place which is not there, with them, so I can handle my family situation as cleanly and responsibly as possible. 

But why would I perform this sort of service for anyone else? Seriously... what for? WHY? When literally they could just live their lives and not make anything unnecessarily personal again.

--

So I refuse to be emotionally open, and it's not good for me. I know it's a profound self-sabatoge, to not be open, to keep yourself alone (I mean in the metaphysical sense, as in, open to all phenomenon and that inevitably includes people, instead of a such a delineated way of picking and choosing). I know can't stay this way for too long because it's just so limited in every single way. The only things I'll let out are of things that are of no real significance or actual vulnerability to me, because I don't want anyone to know anything which can be construed as "too personal". I don't want those attachments. It feels like a layer of ICK.  Of slime. A violation. It makes it feel more unbearable to be myself, to be open and expressive, to literally be in this body.

And then I will feel this way again, and dealing with it will be the same as it always was from early childhood. 

Edited August 14 by eos_nyxia
At least if I don't give them anything personal to work with, they're just making stuff up in my general direction at worst, and leaving me alone at best.

[eos_nyxia]

I have never seen a container large enough to hold the amount of rage I have had (and still have). 

And if you're not interested in my rage, because it's not all cute and vulnerable like my sadness, then I'd rather not show my sadness either.

 

 

Edited August 14 by eos_nyxia
I don't want others to feel victimized or like they have to "suck it up" either. But just once, a witness to the anger without reaction or judgement would be a HUGE act of grace. It is not my place to ask for this though.

[eos_nyxia]

It's not that I'm not capable of being happy for them because they got what they wanted.  I am.

It's just that it's better done away from me, while I'm out of sight.

 

 

Edited August 14 by eos_nyxia
No one ever bothered to consider the "fairness" of receiving something from someone, who by all conventional metrics of success and security, has less than you do?? Maybe not right now, but even a couple years earlier.

[MuadDib]

3 hours ago, eos_nyxia said:

I have never seen a container large enough to hold the amount of rage I have had (and still have). 

And if you're not interested in my rage, because it's not all cute and vulnerable like my sadness, then I'd rather not show my sadness either.

 

 

 

[eos_nyxia]

MY MOTHER'S COLDNESS/ PRAGMATISM: 

There are times where thinking like my mom just makes sense, as much as I've wished to distance myself from it, and as much as I had tried to be more and do more, to set myself up for a life that was more. 

Like who are any of these people and why do they even matter?

1. They literally do nothing for the bottom line of your life.
2. You owe them absolutely nothing. 
3. You have to look out for yourself, because they won't.  If you have a crisis,  who is actually going to be there for you in a way that matters?  
4. Whatever you have with them is not a relationship, regardless of whatever it is that they think, feel, and project onto you. If you can handle your business emotionally, then the whole issue is completely over because you decided it was.
5. They're just being dramatic about what they want. They're not actually thinking of or accounting for you in any serious way. 

The same survivalist mentality I took the pains to try to both escape and overcome. It goes on and on... and on. 

She doesn't say a lot of this explicitly even though she can be pretty blunt/ harsh at times, but it is implicit. 

She's not wrong. It is what it is. It works, especially in a pinch, if you can get your emotions in line enough to stand your ground and hold the boundary. I would feel a sense of shame and embarrassment explaining to her how I got myself in the situation I did emotionally, but of course it's because she can't relate either. She draws her lines and will fight for them, and knows that fighting might always be called for. I also do tend to face emotions and thoughts directly in way that she wouldn't and couldn't, which I think is 1) partially a base character thing  2) choices I made as a result of my character and what I consciously chose to prioritize  3) not need to worry about base survival in the way she has (actual 3rd world poverty) means that affording extra indulgences such as a certain kind of self-gazing reflection in pursuit of resolution is easier. I have had WAY more time and energy for it. 

She literally treats everyone this way, or strives to (probably with the exception of my dad), told me to treat my brother this way (regarding his upcoming wedding), and told me to treat her this way if she becomes unreasonable (like she gets dementia or something lol).  

I know full well the emotional cost and energy required with this kind of rigid boundary-holding. I have a lifetime's worth of experience with it.

Edited August 18 by eos_nyxia
My husband echoes a similar sentiment: ...like really, what do you "owe" humanity at large? Literally just think of yourself first, and do more, if you actually want to.

[eos_nyxia]

I really could just take the positive, useful qualities about her approach and leave the rest at the door. This is literally the point of approaching things in a rational but emotionally non-suppressive way. The point is to be able to pick-and-choose without unwanted, unforeseen consequences.

And I still don't have to deal with people I don't want to deal with, nor to be open or seen on unwanted terms! I don't have to feel anything about them either. That is the point of it -- to be free from the weight, not to add more of my own to it. 

[eos_nyxia]

I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE CONSIDER "SEX MUSIC": 

This list is wild.

Motorhead as sex music sounds like.... what it would feel like to wake up extremely sore down there and with absolutely no memory of anything that has happened. Or what it would feel like the next day if you had a 24-hour bender but you decided to amp yourself up and keep going. It sounds sloppy, drunk, and aggressive. No thanks, lol. 

Like seriously, what kind of rhythm is that, even?  (... and I assume that people have sex to the rhythm of sex music... right?)

At least it would be good music for kickboxing? I appreciate Lemmy and love Motorhead, but that man's body probably hated him. Honestly, I would rather SUNN 0))).

 

But I find the concept of "sex music" odd in general, as in distracting, awkward, and profoundly unsexy. I especially don't want to hear a dude (or anyone really) singing about himself and his moods during either, thanks. 

 

Edited August 21 by eos_nyxia
The fact that NIN, especially the early stuff, isn't considered sex music is also wild. It might not be my thing, but it's definitely many people's thing.

[UnbornTao]

On 21/8/2025 at 10:22 PM, eos_nyxia said:

I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE CONSIDER "SEX MUSIC": 

This list is wild.

 

Santana, Wu Tang Clan, Whitehouse - great philosophers. 

Santayana, a Chinese philosopher, Whitehead.

Edited Saturday at 09:46 PM by UnbornTao