oops I did it again writes:
All objects have surface meanings and deep meanings. The deep meaning is the true meaning of what the object is.
I am fine with that, as long as it’s acknowledged that both meanings (let’s think a little about the word “meaning”, shall we? Meaning a bridge… meaning it’s a connection between our mind and the unreachable object of your knowledge; meaning is not what is at the other end of the bridge, but the bridge) are constructs of our mind, just like the verb “to be”, and the ideas of truthfulness and falsity (let’s say it: all what we can think).
Instead of to Heidegger for details on what sets girls and women apart from each other, I point you to Schopenhauer, and Hindu sapience, for some sobering humility and sense of one’s own proportions, if I say so. (Read “you” as in “you, Western civilization of the last 18 centuries”. A very plural pronoun.)
I wrote the post because I work as a mental health counselor. I have quite a few clients who get very upset at the fact that they get turned on by young teenage girls. Like age 14 or so. I was given photos of these girls to look at, and I almost fell over laughing. I told the clients, “That’s not a girl. That’s a woman! She turns you on because she looks like a woman, or in a sense, she simply is a woman.”
Why does a man get aroused by a 14 year old that looks like a woman? Because his brain looks at it and the brain thinks, “woman” because, let’s face it, the brain does not work very well by thinking, “Hey wait a minute. That is only the optical illusion of a woman. That is not a real woman because of ‘years lived’ or some weird statistic like that. Therefore she does not turn me on because I only get turned on by statistics like ‘years lived’.”
Hell no!
Your brain looks at that and if it looks like a woman, your brain screams, “Woman!” and it turns you on, just like that.
You argue for the other definition, that is she is not a woman due to her mind. In the mind, the teenage girl is not a little girl. But she is also not a woman. If you spend a lot of time around them as I have, you will see that yes, it is a woman, very, very much so, in some important ways. But in some other ways, it is still a pretty silly girl. It’s not a woman at all. So it’s neither a woman nor a girl, but something in between, or it’s both a woman and a girl at the same time.
Personally, I call them girl-women, and I call teenage boys boy-men.
I remember when we were in high school, the teachers habitually addressed as “young men” and “young women.” This felt very respectful to me, and I knew deep down inside that it was correct. It is very insulting to high school students boys and girls. It’s very demeaning, and it’s not even correct. I remember when I was 16 and 17 years old. I am not sure exactly what I felt like, but I do know that I sure didn’t feel like that boy that I had been for so many years up until maybe age 13 or so! Teenage boys are young men. Teenage girls are young women. This is the old fashioned way in which we referred to them for hundreds of years here in our country and it was not wrong.
Is it a man? Not really. “Young man” means something like “becoming a man.” The phrase young woman means something like “becoming a woman.” They are on the road, transitioning. But are they children? Hell no! For females, children are what we call “little girls.” If it’s not a little girl, it’s not a child. Period. A teenage girl is not really a little girl, though a 13 year old girl can come close. So it’s not a child. Maybe it’s not an adult either yet, but it sure as Hell isn’t a little girl for Chrissake.
Does your brain look at a 14 year old girl who looks like a woman and think, “Oh no! That doesn’t turn me on because it has the brain of a girl! It thinks like a girl, so it doesn’t turn me on.”? Hell no! The brain does not work that way. The brain doesn’t get turned on by a female or not based on how she thinks. The brain gets turned on by a female based on how she looks or appears.
