Though this had been an underlying, mostly subconscious issue for me for most of my life, I never applied or extrapolated it beyond 'The Golden Rule' to what another subjectively would objectively need.
It wasn't until the strategic need for someone to have such a no-drama, operational space did I seriously review my own history of attitudes on the space I've given others. From hitting on the cashier or waitress to cat-calling at some fine-and-divine 'Missy' I encountered; it was seen as a "normal" male hormonal reaction to an alluring female.
I did give space to those who showed a fierce gravitas about their incidental focus and purpose and equally those who were busy with their job tasks. Yet, if not those of a projected fierce gravitas of themselves, I found my 'radar' alert for those who either projected a persona that involuntarily drew an unsolicited insertion into their physical and psychological space.
Now there were those who expressly and explicitly sought a particular subject or subjects to enter into their psychological realm of fetishes they had for themselves
When I was hormonally ignorant, innocent, and it was all 'rumor and hearsay' to me such personal advances into my psychological cognizance were seen as a rude invasion. Something that was lost as an aesthetic sensitivity when I realized the physiological pleasures that came with the consummation of such invasiveness. What was before categorized as strange looks
became the look I sought as the 'signal to act'. Of course, knowing the nuances of the intents of those looks was its own index of categories for my own presumptions.
As I learned that my male arousal often dismissed or neglected to notice the contextual signals of such looks of interests. Few were for the catharsis of random lust. More likely they had a culturally or individual mercenary ends in mind. That knowledge tempered any romanticism of 'ever-lasting love' to more predatory motivations for which a woman's psychological or physical space was a negotiation for what quid pro quo tangibles or intangibles were the woman's 'by any means necessary' end game. The flowers, candy, and doting words of devotion, though not yet dismissed as fantasy were being cast for the woman who'd be a needle in a haystack
.
What had become a negotiable infringement on someone's psychological and physical space was a cynical response to a perceived charade of representation. For someone 'to have the privilege' of a personal sacred physical or psychological space would be from status or circumstance, not a right. Existence had already become a usurpation of privacy by commercial, as well as governmental instrumentalities. Social media and artificial intelligence had access to our coming and goings. Who is he or she to think and expect some sacred privacy, when they themselves participated and enabled the very mechanism of the undermining of individual privacy.
People became the objectified specimens for other's utility. Thus, their psychological and physical space were fields of opportunity and exploitation. I, as part of the unwitting many, felt I was entitled by opportunistic circumstances to crowd into a space of interest. From the extremes of such unethics to the acknowledgement and reverence of a psychological and physical space.
Having that psychological and physical space allows for an autonomy of recreational dimensions-figurative and literal. Having the physical space of autonomy provides, at the least, the absence of externally originated drama. One can then concentrate on their own objective circumstances and imperatives. Having a psychological space of autonomy is not only that state of direct mental harassment, but also not having the noise of environmental drama as part of your sensory topography.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment