discussion

The point of intimacy

Posted on Updated on

Why do I feel a moral obligation, or a moral guilt when I participate in activities that are morally neutral? For instance, last night I went out – I kissed a guy and I feel, wrong, bad, unsettled about it. I’m not in a relationship and the kiss was consensual from both parties, so why do I feel uncomfortable about what I have done?

I guess this could stem from some sort of societal role that I feel I should fulfil. The idea that female promiscuity is ‘slutty’ or ‘degrading’. Or the values my parents hold, that being intimate is private and special and not something to be handed out easily. Or perhaps I feel like the act was simply out of character, so much as to rattle me up a little and question the genuinity of what I’ve done.. Did I really want to?

Either way what the experience has done is close me up. I don’t want to be promiscuous or flirty. I don’t want to be ‘easy’. The only reason I can directly attribute these feelings to is a sense of self-worth. Perhaps I was seeking some sort of intimacy with a guy in order to top up any insecurities I had. I don’t believe that I place my worth as an individual in the way I am viewed by others but of course having a guy find you attractive is a blanket of reassurance. So instead of the act being empowering and strong. It was carried out from a place of weakness and self-doubt – and that’s why I feel unsettled.

Does the future exist?

Posted on Updated on

It’s not a question I’ve pondered on a lot, that is until recently, I’m not sure what triggered me to even consider such a question I guess maybe the way in which we use our language to label almost everything. Everything including things we don’t understand or can’t claim to be ‘true’ I.e. God, love, pain etc. We can’t define these things and they are certainly subjective.. Are these traits applicable to the idea of a ‘future’?

If one doesn’t believe in any form of divinity or destiny then surely one must accept that the future doesn’t exist, for to exist it would be predetermined. For example one might claim that the future is say in two minutes time from now, the present. But to say with certainty that the future exists would rely on the concept of a greater being that had already put it in place. Something that had determined that there is going to be a ‘in two minutes time’. But surely if ‘in two minutes’ time is already determined it isn’t the future at all, because it is already ‘there’, it is currently, presently existing. Therefor it is ‘present’ but just not present in our current time.

Another argument is that we never experience the future, only the present. It is impossible for anything or anyone to ever exist in the future, because the present is inescapable, therefor the ‘future’ is unobservable by any of the senses, it is also, as expressed earlier unexplainable by definition. Or is it? A way of defining the future could indeed be ‘things still to come’. Although things still to come are in my opinion a continuous set of ‘presents’. However the ambiguity of the ‘future’ surely allows for interpretation, although ‘events yet to come’ are unanimously almost entirely ‘unknown’ why not label it with a word ‘future’ allowing future to vaguely assert a more conclusive concept. Although the future is arguably ‘nothing’ and never will be this doesn’t mean it can’t have a word to it. A meaningless word but nonetheless a quicker more efficient way of expressing ourselves.