Black August Creed (Affirmation):

I will fight for justice!

I will fight for freedom!

I will fight for liberation!

I am a revolutionary!

Joy Powell’s Story (Introduction):

For those who do not know, Black August was created by Black revolutionaries to remind people to fight to free Black political prisoners in America and to celebrate Black revolutionary movements. In this essay, I want to focus on the political prisoners. Political prisoners are people who have unfairly been targeted by political forces and imprisoned for their Black activism. Since America can not imprison people for activism, many of these activists went through sham trials that accused them of a number of crimes. Throughout American history, there have been a number of political prisoners. Take Reverend Joy Powell, for example.

Powell was a Pentecostal pastor and activist who spoke out against police brutality, violence against vulnerable people, and community injustice. She started this work because a correctional officer raped her in 1995 while she was in prison for possession of drugs. After being released, she felt that she had damaged the community with her previous life of drug dealing. So she decided to give back to the community that she felt like she had harmed. She did this by starting a hair salon. She also created the organization Equality and Justice for All to aid in her goals. Later, the salon soon became a place where she would educate young teenagers and encourage them to be anti-violent. Unfortunately, her own son would later be killed by gang violence as a bystander. This and her experience in prison led to her life as an anti-violence activist. Soon her activism moved in a different direction. She started to notice that crime was connected to the environment it was found in. She then advocated for material changes to the city, specifically the removal of old abandoned houses where crime activity occurred and the replacement of them with new houses.

Eventually, the Rochester police would beat Lawrence Rodgers, an unarmed Black man having a psychotic episode, to death. She Powell led a protest and worked with the city to create the “Emergency Response Team” to deal with mental health episodes. Despite this, in 2005, during a mental health crisis, the police shot 13-year-old Lashedica Mason several times instead of sending the trained Emergency Response Team. She, of course, protested this event. Later, she called the police to aid in an abuse case involving her granddaughter, but when the police arrived, they arrested Powell and her son. The officer arresting her was Officer Simmons, the same man who shot Lashedica. A few more events like this occurred. In Oct 2006, she was attacked and called 911 to no real help from the police. She stated she would go to the Department of Internal Affairs. Days later, she got a call from one of the ministers of her church telling her ten police cars were at her home searching and that an investigator wanted to speak with her.

She was told that she was being accused of first-degree assault and burglary. And that her son, who is disabled, and 8 other unidentified people in “black hoodies, bandanas, and black outerwear.” Apparently, a woman, who was never questioned, stated that on Oct 8, 2006, she was stolen from and beaten up. Then she was picked up from the hospital by a police officer and taken to a pawn shop to retrieve her stolen items that were reportedly stolen from her and sold to this shop. Powell apparently matched the description of the person the pawn shop owner claimed sold him the items.

If it is not clear, her activism put her at odds with the police in Rochester, NY (her city) because her goal was to expose the violence of the city, police included. Naturally, the trial was very unfair. Powell was a Black woman given an all-white jury and therefore not a jury of her peers. Furthermore, several church members testified stating that Powell was leading a Bible study at the alleged time of the crime. Even more interesting, Powell claims that before the arrest by the Rochester police department, she was investigating corruption. Regardless, she was found guilty despite there being no witness to corroborate or DNA evidence. She was sentenced to 16 years.

Then in 2009, while in prison, she was arrested for the murder of James Rutledge, committed on June 6, 1992. (Note: she was in prison some time during the years 1992 to the year 1995.) The case was a cold case up to this point. But regardless, she was found guilty and sentenced to another 25-to-life sentence after she serves her 16 years. The main linchpin of the case was an unknown jailhouse informant who claimed to have witnessed Powell commit the murder. … This is the story we are told to accept.

Joy Powell’s Quotes:

Free Joy Powell (Bulk of the Essay):

If it is not clear, we are expected to believe that Joy Powell killed a man in 1992 before being sentenced to prison for drug dealing. We are to further believe that the police could not crack this case for years, allowing it to sit. While Powell left prison and became a pastor, activist, and community organizer. Then one day she decided to again engage in crime for the first time since her arrest. Decided to not only to commit a crime but a felony crime, with her disabled son. Only to be caught miraculously by a vague description of her with no witness or DNA evidence to corroborate it. To then be caught miraculously again by an unknown jailhouse informant who knew the perpetrator of a crime committed 17 years ago.

Joy Powell is a prime example of why we acknowledge Black August. She is not the first Black person to be unfairly targeted for her activism, and unfortunately she may not be the last. As the United States slowly approaches active fascism (which I argue this country was founded upon), there will be more political prisoners. Political prisoners exist to keep the general population in line. They exist to erase movements and to vilify activists. Yet, we have not taken time to address this as an issue. The United States has engaged in these behaviors since the Black Power Movement. Arguably, before even that. If we are truly dedicated to justice and fighting fascism, we must remember political prisoners.

There is a reason Black August combines both a celebration of revolutionaries with a charge to remember political prisoners. This is because they are intertwined things. Every time Black people globally have tried to fight for freedom, many of us are killed, imprisoned, tortured, or spied on. Black August charges us to not only celebrate some of our heroes and victories but to also remember the struggle we are in.

So let us not forget the following:

• Aug 1: The British Empire ended slavery … but it did not “decolonize” until decades later, and arguably still holds colonial social power.

• Aug 4: Thomas Sankara, the revolutionary Pan-Africanist, would become president of Burkina Faso … but he would be assassinated in a Coup likely funded by the French Government.

• Aug 5: Nelson Mandela is imprisoned … and South Africa to this day struggles to achieve a level of racial equality.

• Aug 9: Mike Brown is murdered, thus sparking the Ferguson Uprising …. And later activist Josh Williams would be arrested for his involvement.

• Aug 21: Nat Turner would start his slave rebellion … and later be killed for daring to free his people.

• Aug 22: The Haitian Revolution starts … only for the free Haiti to later be forced to pay back debts of “property loss” to its former enslavers, plunging it into economic despair

• Aug 30: Fred Hampton, a Black American revolutionary, was born … only to be assassinated by the US FBI.

Joy Powell's Legacy (Conclusion):

I want to encourage us to keep trying our best to fight for liberation. Despite the depressing nature of Joy Powell’s story, there is still hope. While in prison, Powell has continued her work as an activist. She fought alongside transgender inmates to get privacy curtains installed. She is constantly writing to legislative figures to change the conditions of the prison. She is constantly trying to advocate for the people in the prison despite being in prison herself. To me, this is inspiring.

Black August should get us to think about ways in which we can actively help change our world. For me, it reminds me that I want to continue to focus on helping the incarcerated and homeless gain access to their basic rights and needs. We can all do our part and play a role in the fight for justice and liberation. Joy Powell did and continues to do it despite her situation. What is stopping us?

Powell’s Prayer:

I pray that we will see the eventual freedom of Joy Powell.
I pray that her social activist work continues to help those in need.
I pray that people continue to talk about her case.

I pray for all people who have been wrongfully convicted.
I pray for all current and future political prisoners to be freed.
I pray for all those currently assisting in the various fights against injustice.

I pray that one day liberation will come for all people.
I pray that one day all the people of the Earth can be united regardless of identity.
I pray that this mythical one day … is tomorrow!

The Advanced Experience

Buy Me a Coffee

Sources, Resources, and Citations

Loh, Adriana. “Nearly 20 years after conviction, supporters continue community activist’s push for systemic change.” Spectrum 1 News. Published Nov 24, 2025.

“Rev. Joy Powell’s first wrongful conviction- a prescient look at Juneteenth.” San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper. Published May 27, 2022.

Philadelphos (Affirmation):

I love all people in society.

I believe all people in our society should have their needs met.

I know that I have the skills to help the community.

I have a heart for the people.

The people also have a heart for each other.

Feeding the Hungry (Introduction):

If you have kept up with my recent work, you would know that I have been volunteering my time to feed the homeless and food-insecure at a local church. This has been very important and rewarding work. It has been fulfilling and life-enriching. I love taking time out of my day to talk with people who just need some extra support and also serve them. However, despite my love for this work, I know that it is only a band-aid to the problem. Me serving the food insecure and hungry in one small city in North Carolina does not serve the hungry people of the rest of the nation. It especially does not serve the hungry people of the world.

This is because there is a system in place that profits off of the people and forces them into positions of hunger to make ends meet. We live in a world where even those in the most privileged nation on Earth must make hard decisions about whether they will eat a meal today or pay their bill tomorrow. We live in a world where those in the least privileged nations are forced to make the decision of whether they will eat moldy bread provided by their genocider or risk death searching for food in places they are “not supposed to be.” Everywhere on Earth, you see mass suffering and a complete denial of social wellness.

When looking at the world, I am often filled with despair. I travel around North Carolina, and I see people literally begging for money and food on every street corner. I get online and see Palestinians begging us in the United States to stop their genocide that has been continuing for years. When I read the news, I read about people in the Democratic Republic of Congo starving. Suffering just plagues the Earth. The worst part is that there are people who profit off of and benefit from the suffering. For every Congolese citizen struggling to find their next meal, there is a rich Westerner whose entire bank account was accrued from the absolute destruction of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and similar nations.

Yet, when you try to point to injustice, you are critiqued as an idealist. People get so desensitized to suffering that they justify it sociologically, politically, and theologically. We have enough resources to truly take care of basically everyone on this planet, but if you even suggest that every person on the Earth should have their basic needs met, you will be called ignorant. People will claim that the economy does not work like that. But if you point out that the economy is an imposed man-made creation that exists to control the resource production of the mass populace and therefore can be changed, they will call you a radical. When you ask why we have homeless people, many will make comments on “druggies.” Then, if you question where the drugs came from the response is “the cartels.” And if you continue to ask where they got the drugs or how they were able to bring the drugs up here, people will respond with a simple-minded demonization of South Americans. But, if you point out that the American government has played a role in overthrowing functional South American governments and leaving behind impoverished people who move toward crime to ease their suffering, you are called all types of names.

The clear message when you ask questions about suffering is always the same, “don’t ask those questions!”

Speaking to the People (Quote):

Meet the Need (Bulk of the Essay):

To me, social wellness is not just about the band-aid solutions. It is not just feeding the hungry, but moving towards ending hunger. It is not just about sheltering the homeless. It is about ending homelessness. It is not just about protesting war, it is about ending imperialism and all forms of colonization. We have spent enough time putting band-aids on bullet wounds. We need to address the real issue. The real issue is the system of power that has been set up to exploit our bodies, minds, and souls. A system of power that forces us to be so focused on surviving that we cannot even see the person being trampled beside us.

Now many people will say that this is going to be hard to do and the band-aid solutions are an important step, and I agree. However, all you people do is band-aid things at most and absolutely nothing at worst! Then, when you are suffering, and the sword of oppression pierces your overworked, callused, and destroyed body, all you will be given is a band-aid for your open gash. And if you dare to ask for anything more, people will call you ungrateful and claim that nothing more can be done. This is our reality.

We are seeing a complete destruction and degradation of the human soul. We are watching people be worked to death. We are watching people be genocided and killed for fascist ideologies and resource theft. We are watching the globe slowly heat up to a point of no return. All around us is death, destruction, and suffering in ways we have never seen before. Yet, our solutions are band-aids.

Soon we will all be wounded by the sword of oppression. Soon there will be no one to pass out even the band-aids. This is because we have not created real systems to heal the wounds. We have not truly engaged in a praxis of social wellness. What we have done is forge a shallow form of social pity.

Social Action (Conclusion):

I am sure at this point many people are asking for solutions. Ultimately, I do believe in the famous phrase, “think globally and act locally.” We can take specific actions that counter the system in ways that address the wounds of oppression and not simply cover them. What I would suggest is a refocus on mutual aid. Mutual aid is a radical form of social wellness. The political concept of mutual aid holds that groups of people should pull together their resources, skills, and knowledge to change people’s conditions. Mutual Aid is creating a food pantry where all people can both bring food but can also take food to slowly wean the community away from predatory grocery stores. Mutual Aid is offering your skilled services occasionally for free. Mutual aid is allowing your land to be used, for free, by the community to grow food that will then be used to feed the community. The concept exists to deny the idea that humans are competitive creatures who need to compete and defeat one another to survive. Humans once lived in communities that did not encourage us to destroy one another to survive. We can reimagine society in a way that prioritizes human need over profit incentives.

Our goal should be to build structures outside of the oppressive systems of power. The goal should never be to work within a system of power. It is not enough to be charitable. It is not enough to just extend a hand down and give a few resources. What is necessary is a move towards the complete destruction of inequality. We must create new systems in our community that do not work under the system but work against it. Then slowly we connect the new systems of our community with the new systems being made in other communities. Moving forward until we have enough global-wide infrastructure to truly change the world. That is the goal of social wellness. The goal is the complete reformation of our social reality.

The Meek Will Inherit the Earth (Prayer):

I pray that one day all people will have their basic needs met.
I pray that one day no one will have to choose which need to neglect in the moment.
I pray that one day we see a world that does more than simply charity.

I pray for all those who have died from hunger and poor shelter.
I pray for all those who have been killed in Western-funded wars and genocides.
I pray for all those who currently know hunger, poverty, war, genocide, and suffering.

I pray that one day liberation will come for all people.
I pray that one day all the people of the Earth can be united regardless of identity.
I pray that this mythical one day … is tomorrow!

The Advanced Experience

Buy Me a Coffee

Check Out My Other Work

The Advanced Experience

Book Review: Black Skin, White Masks

“White Civilization and European culture have imposed an existential deviation on the Black man. We shall demonstrate furthermore that what is called the Black soul is a construction by White folks.” -Fanon (Page xviii…

Read more

2 months ago · 1 like · Brandon Kennedy Richmond

However, I have to keep reminding myself that this is my blog. People do not have to like what I have to say in my own space, but I have the right to say it. So, here it is … the Pride Month Essay!

Serving (Affirmation):

Kings and Queens, you are slaying!

You are serving!

Some of you are Mothering!

Regardless of who you are, keep your head up!

I love all my Queer folx (folks). Whether they be lesbians, gay, bisexual, pansexual, or asexual!

Whether they be transwomen, transmen, enbies, genderfluid, demiboys, demigirls, butch queens, fem queens, stone butches, studs, stems, and fems!

All are valid around me!

Drag Brunch (Introduction):

As I write those affirmations, I already know there are a lot of people going, “What even are these words? It would be so much easier to accept this stuff if they just kept it simple!” Honestly, I understand the confusion and frustration, but at the same time, who cares? People have identified in a number of ways throughout history. Many people have lived lives that defy identity definition. While others have lived lives that have led to the creation of identity definitions. So, when I say “I understand the confusion”, I understand that to someone who has always identified in ways that align with common society, this stuff is difficult to understand. However, when I say “who cares,” I am mostly arguing that you should just focus on the Queer people in your life and try to understand them.

Most people will only ever interact with a limited number of Queer people. Therefore, you only need to understand a limited number of Queer identities. This is why I think a lot of this “It’s too confusing” talk is overblown. You do not have to understand how every person in the world identifies. So, you do not need to understand the depth of every term. However, you should make an effort to understand the Queer people who are actually in your life. You should make an effort to understand their lives, struggles, and identities. Not because it is “politically correct” or “woke” or whatever buzzword people stole from Black people. You should do it because you love people.

Iconic (Quotes):

Voguing (The Bulk of the Essay):

Honestly, I said a lot of great things in the introductory section of this essay. I encourage people to love the Queer people in their lives. However, at some point, love without actions is not better than hate. Back in February 2025, I wrote an essay titled Concerning the Murder of Sam Nordquist. The article was reflecting on the horrific murder of Sam Nordquist, a Black trans man (meaning he transitioned from woman to man). I can not overstate the disgusting nature of this case. Sam was assaulted in every way imaginable, both physically and sexually, by a group of White people. Using the case, I talked about how dangerous it is to be a Queer person in 2025. Especially a Black Queer person, as Black trans people are disproportionately murdered and hate-crimed. This should horrify anyone, especially if you claim to care about Black people and the violence committed against us. Yet, everyone is super Pro-Black until we start having conversations about Black Queer violence. Then suddenly y’all start sounding like White people.

I could spend a lot of time critiquing the disgusting and violent soul of the American people. However, I want to let the statistics speak for themselves, so here they are:

• 81% of Trans people have experienced violence in their lives.

• 76% of Trans people have been assaulted in the past year.

• In 2025, there were 1,042 anti-LGBTQ incidents.

  • Half of all incidents were against Trans and Gender non-conforming people.

• 47% of Trans people have been denied housing.

• 53% of Trans people have seriously considered suicide at some point in their lifetime.

• 45% of Trans people have attempted suicide at some point in their lifetime.

• 68% of all Transgender victims of homicide were Black.

  • Note: Only 13% of Trans people are Black.

• Trans women are 12 times more likely to be killed than the general public.

• 62% of Trans people have experienced sexual violence.

• 28% of Trans people have experienced sexual violence within the last year.

• 11% of Trans people are autistic. Meaning autistic people are 5 or 6 times more likely to be Transgender.

Neutrogena Wet Wipe (Conclusion):

I wanted to let the statistics speak for themselves. Yet, they should show that Queer people, especially those who break the gender binary, are attacked on an extreme scale. And these are just statistics. I did not want to touch the endless stories that come with these statistics because they make me sick to my stomach. Sam Nordquist’s murder haunts me to this day. The pure violence and foul actions against him were horrific. Yet, when you bring up violence against Queer people, there will be people who yell until they are blue in the face, upset that Queer people exist. Every Pride event has protesters. Every time a trans person commits suicide, people on the internet make jokes, as conservatives on Twitter did to 17-year-old Charlotte Fosgate.

I did not want to write this essay. Mainly because I never want to justify the existence of myself and others to people who do not care. However, I understand that at this time period, we need to call for an end to violence against Queer bodies. So, that is why I wrote this piece today. I want to call for the end of violence against all Queer people globally! I seek the liberation of all people around the globe, and I will never ignore Queer people’s cries for liberation. If you do not agree with my call for liberation and the end of violence against Queer people, understand that we are not morally aligned. If you cannot stand beside Queer people, you are, at best, an obstacle or, at worst, an enemy.

The Queer’s Prayer (Prayer):

I pray that one day we can see the Queer masses liberated.
I pray that one day we will see an end to Queer violence globally.
I pray that one day we will see the acceptance of Queerness with open arms.

I pray for all our murdered Trans sisters and brothers.
I pray for all my disowned lesbian and gay siblings.
I pray for all closeted Queers afraid to come out.

I pray that one day liberation will come for all people.
I pray that one day all the people of the Earth can be united regardless of identity.
I pray that this mythical one day … is tomorrow!

The Advanced Experience

Buy Me a Coffee

Sources, Resources, and Citations

“Anti-LGBTQ Hate and Extremism: Where We Stand Today.” Glad’s ALERT Desk. Updated constantly.

Garzone, Christian. “Beyond Depraved: 5 charged with transgender Minnesota man’s murder in Ontario County.” WHAM 13 (ABC). Published February 17, 2025.

Hodshire, Soren. “How Common Is It To Be Transgender?” Healthline. Medically reviewed by Francis Kuehnle. Published August 26, 2024.

Keller, Sebastian. “Transgender Violence Statistics.” Worldmetrics. Edited by Benjamin Osei-Mensah. Fact-checked by Lena Hoffmann. Verified May 5, 2026.

Mandler, C. “Murders of trans people nearly doubled over past 4 years, and Black trans women are most at risk, report finds.” CBSNews. Updated 13, 2022.

Monteil, Abby. “Everything We Know So Far About the Disturbing Murder of Black Minnesota Trans Man Sam Nordquist.” MSN.

Transvitae Staff. “When a Trans Teen Dies, Twitter Turns Her Into a Punchline.” Transvitae. Published May 27, 2025.

“Why Are So Many Trans People Autistic: The Science.” ScienceSights. Published March 17, 2026.

No oppressed people have ever been liberated by their oppressor! All oppressed people must liberate themselves! If an oppressor has “given” you rights or let you “earn” your rights or “awarded” you rights … you are still oppressed! Rights are not bestowed upon us by oppressors. They are taken back by the oppressed.

This should not require explanation. Yet, we are in an age where most people are brainwashed and fundamentally misunderstand their own position in the global struggle for liberation. So, I will explain regardless to make sure no one is left behind in the fight for human dignity, freedom, and liberation.

Rights Are Not Given

Point to a historical group of people who were “given” rights. Point to a historical group of people who were liberated by their oppressors. … You can’t! There is no such thing as an oppressor benevolent enough to break the chains they placed on you! This is why I hate when people say “Black people have been given rights.” Or when they proclaim, “We gave women the right to vote.” Or “We gave gay people the right to marriage.” None of these groups were given rights. People fought for these rights after they were stolen.

Rights are inherent to humanity. If you find yourself in a position where you are missing certain human rights, you are oppressed. Humans are born with rights! If you are missing your rights, someone has taken them from you. And that someone cannot just “give” them back. This is not the nature of theft. If a thief steals your wallet, they cannot just gift it back. That wallet is yours! It cannot be given to you. It can only be taken from you or taken back by you. If a thief gives you your wallet back, when you look inside it, the contents will be different. Things will be missing or replaced. This is because if someone takes advantage of you, they will never return the full advantage they took from you in the first place.

Despite this, people clap like seals when they have been “given” rights. Clap like babies playing peekaboo. Then, when we look at the “rights” we have been given, everyone pretends not to notice the missing pieces. These laws and pieces of legislation passed by our oppressors are celebrated as “historical.” This is part of the trick. It is not “historical” for Black people to be given human rights. Black people already had rights. They were just stolen from us. It is not “historical” to “give them back.” If anything, it is anti-historical to claim that Black people were “given” rights instead of correctly acknowledging that we had our rights stolen and we took them back.

But the oppressor never acknowledges history. The oppressor loves anti-history. Anti-history helps convince people that they are free when they are still oppressed. Again, if an oppressor has given you rights, they have merely swapped out your iron chains for gold ones. No oppressor will ever give you rights. If an oppressor has told you that you are “free,” you must look that gift horse in the mouth. In the mouth of the given horse, one can see the rotten teeth.

The oppressor “gave” Black people rights to engage in the economic marketplace and then told us to ignore the fact that economic engagement has not even freed poor White people. Women were “given” the right to work and then told to ignore the fact that work in the capitalist system requires overworking and underpaying people for the oppressor’s benefit. Gay people were “given” the right to marry but were told to ignore the fact that now the government knows who to send the bill to when your spouse dies.

My point is that none of what Americans think is liberation and “human rights” is real. We have been told that we are free to do as we please, but our sign of freedom is not the removal of chains. We are told that all of our chains being equal is a sign of freedom. When questioned about this, the oppressor says, “Why are you complaining? Did we not give you the same chains as everyone else?” And then when you ask where the oppressor’s chains are, they reply, “Trust me, I had chains too. I just worked hard to take my chains off. If you keep working hard, you can take your chains off too.” What is worse is that people believe them, despite the fact that we know the oppressor has never been chained.

This is my problem with people today. They complain that “Trump is taking our rights away.” … We barely had those rights to begin with. Trump has just replaced the gold chains with the original iron chains. Everyone was clapping like morons at the few fake rights we had and stopped fighting the oppressors. Now that everyone has become complacent and weak, celebrating their golden chains, the oppressors realized that they could return to their previous state of glory by taking advantage of our weakness. When the thief steals your wallet and gives you it back with all the money missing, you people thank the thief for his generosity. Then when the thief takes your money to buy a gun, tracks you down to your house, shoots you, and takes all your stuff, you fools go, “How could you do this to me! We had a deal, and you gave me my wallet back.”

The oppressors (thieves) can do this because you believe your rights were given to you. You choose to ignore that the rights were stolen. You choose to ignore that you never received all the rights back. You accept the gift mindlessly and act like it’s liberation. You replace your iron chains with gold. And then when you are face to face with the emboldened strength of the oppressor, you are confused about why they do not acknowledge the value of your gold chains.

Rights Are Not Earned

To earn something implies you either did not start off with it or that at one point you did not deserve it. Rights are not earned. Rights are natural to humanity. If anyone tells you that you need to do this or that to gain your rights, they are tightening your chains. If a thief takes your wallet and tells you to do something to “earn” it back, if you do that thing to earn your wallet back, you have willingly oppressed yourself. A thief cannot tell you how to earn what is yours.

When people are marching in the streets and fighting, politicians try to tell us, “You need to do things the right way, or else we cannot fix your oppression.” Despite it being obvious that the politician does not want us to be liberated, you people get online and start talking about “the right way to protest.” Everyone believes liberation is to be earned, and because of that, you tighten the chains of the people around you. And as you tighten those chains, you start saying, “They will never let you be free because your chains are too loose. They are going to think you’re trying to escape.”

Anyone who tells you rights are earned is either an oppressor or a moron. Again, point me to a society that earned its liberation? Point to a society that was not good enough to be naturally free, but through effort earned the right to be free? This is how colonizers talked about colonized countries. Africa, South America, and Asia were not good enough to have freedom, so Europe came in and oppressed them. But now they have learned and “earned” their ability to be free. Then we are encouraged to ignore the fact that Europe still rules the world and most countries are colonized in everything but name. … No one earns rights. Rights are taken, not earned.

Rights Are Not Awarded

People love to say that if we just achieve enough, we will get our rights. If we have enough Black businesses, if there are enough gay politicians, if there are enough women in science, we will get our rights. When the thief steals these people’s wallets, they try to do jumping jacks to prove to the thief that they shouldn’t be stolen from. They shout, “Look, I have achieved all this stuff. Surely you will give me my wallet back.” And the thief won’t do anything but laugh and walk away.

Some of you all are so convinced that if we just have more oppressed people in high places, we will become free. If we have more intellectuals, doctors, politicians, lawyers, or whatever, we will get our full rights. And I do not necessarily disagree, but if these people in high positions are not fighting to take back our rights, they are useless. I do not need a Black sociologist to point out my chains to me. I need a Black sociologist to find a way to break the chains and take our stuff back. I don’t need a female scientist to point out what the chains are made of. I need her to find a way to corrode the chains, so we can take back our rights. I do not need a gay lawyer pointing out that the chains have a keyhole. I need a gay lawyer who is willing to find the key, break us out, and take our rights back. Anything less than the removal of chains and the reclamation of our natural rights is useless! Yet, y’all miss the forest for the trees.

Rights Are Taken

I should not have to say anymore. This whole essay should have demonstrated that people have never been liberated by oppressors. People have never been liberated through the oppressor’s recognition of accomplishments. People are liberated by their own hands. Yet, even as I write this, I know most people will still fight for nothing. Most people will accept their gold chains and merely complain that Trump wants to bring back the iron chains. The goal should be freedom, not better chains. The rights being taken away already sucked and were not anything close to real freedom. Yet, y’all’s uncritical acceptance of them led to a weak will that allowed people to start to reverse even the weakest of “rights.”

Everyone is trying to figure out what to do. Yet, no one’s answer is to fight against the oppressors and take our rights back. You people are talking about bills and executive orders instead of protests and revolutions. You people are too busy discussing whether the gold chains or the iron chains are better when we shouldn’t have chains at all. The longer I have lived, the more I have seen the chains of oppression. They shackle every inch of our body, from our head to our toes. They constrict us and make it much more difficult to move and breathe. And every time I ask about the chains, I am told, “Well, there used to be more chains, so be happy with what you have.” Or I am told, “The chains used to be uglier and heavier, but now they are nice and light.”

At this point, I have decided that I am tired of the chains. I do not care that the chains used to be heavy but are now light. I don’t care that they used to be iron but are now gold. I don’t care that they took the chain off my pinky finger when they added an extra one to my forearm. Stop accepting the chains and then becoming mad that they just add more. Fight for your rights and take them back! Do not let anyone take away your rights. Do not let anyone tell you to earn your rights. Do not let anyone tell you that rights are awarded for achievement. Rights are either taken from you or taken back by you. I am going to get my rights back or die trying. The rest of you are welcome to join, but I will not sit in my chains alongside y’all.

The Advanced Experience

Buy Me a Coffee

Self-Soothing (Affirmation):

My Life Has Meaning!

My Life Is Worth Living!

This Is No Time To Give Up!

I Must Fight To Be Free!

The Uncanny (Introduction):

Mental Health is a complex term that means different things to different people. In the broadest sense, “mental health” refers to a healthy state of mind or a state of mental wellness. One does not need to be diagnosed with a mental illness to have mental health struggles. Everyone at some point will struggle against their own brain to maintain a healthy state of mind. Yet, it should be understood that people with mental illness will struggle with obtaining a healthy state of mind, let alone maintaining it.

Mental illness (as I understand it) is any disorder diagnosed by the DSM5-TR (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition). The DSM5-TR is a thick book with a long list of mental disorders. I have firsthand experience with it because one of my roommates just finished his mental health counseling program. It is important to understand that there are several different types of mental disorders that affect the brain in different ways. There are anxiety disorders, mood disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, sexual disorders, and so much more. Each of these categories contains multiple disorders. Some disorders sit at the intersection between two categories.

I highlight this to show the depth of this field. And while I have some philosophical disagreements with the field of psychology and counseling, it is important to understand the important work found in this field of study. The DSM5-TR does not exist just to point to mental disorders but also provides assistance in dealing with them. Every therapist, psychiatrist, and psychologist is trained to work with and understand the DSM5-TR. This is why therapy is important for every individual, because no matter the issue, there are professionals trained to assist you with your specific needs. The job of a therapist is to aid in mental health matters. So, it is important to highlight, even if it is over-understood, the importance of therapy in any conversation about mental health.

Yet, it is more important for people who struggle with mental health to be open about their struggles. It is important for people to try to understand the brains of the mentally ill. Most people care about mental health in theory, but when the ugly reality of mental health appears, people express their discomfort without empathy. The goal of this essay is really to talk about my experience with mental health issues.

The Meltdown (Quotes):

The Shadow Work (Bulk of the Essay):

I wanted to highlight these quotes from Albert Camus because he is a philosopher often associated with mental health struggles. These are not even his most notable quotes about depression. Yet, when I first read them, they resonated with me. I have realized that people who have never thought about suicide don’t understand the gravity of extreme depression. This is why depressed people cling to Camus, because he seems to understand the state of being depressed.

I have struggled with depression my whole life. I do not say this for sympathy or pity. I do not say this for clout, like many people on the internet. I say this because this has been a real struggle, for which I am on medication (Fluoxetine). Depression is no joke. Some days you wake up and struggle to get out of bed because you know that as soon as you get up, the day will be full of suffering. Some days, you move through the day wondering if you are alive or if you are a zombie shambling through life. Depression is not just extreme sadness. It is an uncanny feeling about life.

Depression may come in the form of sadness, but that is not the depth of it. When I am in a full depressive episode, everything means nothing. That is to say, Apathy is the dominant emotional state. Things I like become meaningless. Food tastes meaningless. Life, passions, and friendship feel meaningless. I have a deep fear of apathy because of depression. In my opinion, apathy is the true antithesis of love, not hate. You see, a person cannot hate one thing if they do not love or at least like something else. Hate is rooted in some form of value judgment. Apathy, or better described as non-feeling, non-concern, and non-judgement, only exists when all value judgements go away. Love creates values of right and wrong. Hate is a misguided attempt to navigate those values. Apathy is the belief that all values are the same and therefore are meaningless.

When my depression starts, when I start to feel that apathy, I wrestle against it. This is how sadness, anger, and hatred appear. As a matter of fact, sadness, anger, and hatred are not manifestations of my depression. They are responses to it. When you realize something you love now feels meaningless, you feel sad about it. Yet, sadness does not last forever. So, you try to replace the sadness with anger. You try to convince yourself that the now-meaningless thing was always meaningless. You start to lash out at the meaningless thing in an attempt to feel alive. In an attempt to reclaim meaning, even if the meaning is negative. Yet, anger is also not sustainable, so then hatred appears. You start to hate the meaningless thing and hate yourself for liking that thing. Then you start to hate yourself for existing and for suffering. Then you start to hate suffering. Soon, you start to hate the world that causes you to suffer. If sadness is the immediate reaction and anger is a failed attempt to reclaim meaning, hatred is the last-ditch effort to stop that meaninglessness from infecting everything else. Hatred tries to give everything a negative meaning. It tries to stop the growth of meaninglessness. Yet, hatred is not sustainable, and apathy comes anyway. Once apathy arrives, even hatred’s attempt to create a parody of meaning falls apart. For apathy’s goal is to use that one meaningless thing and corrupt you to eventually see the whole world as meaningless.

This is how depression has operated for me historically. And while I have not been at the point of complete hatred since I was in high school, I still remember what that feels like. I remember what pure apathy felt like. I never reached the point where everything became meaningless, but I think I got close in high school. Currently, I better understand how depression works, so I take steps to handle it when it comes. In all honesty, the trick, besides the medication, is love. Love is the opposite of apathy. So, when you start to feel apathetic, you need to cling harder to the things you love. You also need to find new things to love. You can’t let the sadness turn into hatred, because then apathy eventually takes over. (Also, go to a therapist! Take medication if needed!)

Grounding (The End of the Essay):

I have no real ending for this essay. I just want to thank the various people who have seen me through some rough times. I remember when I was in the midst of a massive depressive episode in college. I had skipped a few meals and skipped my classes for a few days. My partner at the time forced me to call the crisis line, and I got an appointment to start receiving antidepressants. I am ever thankful to her for that. I am also thankful for my family and friends, who, while not often understanding depression, will help when the time comes. I’m thankful for my junior year roommate, who let me take a million hot showers every day, even when inconvenient, because “My bones just felt so cold.” I am thankful to the other people in my battle with depression. Those people understand my struggle like no other and can provide real guidance. I am thankful for all the various therapists, counselors, and psychiatrists whom I have seen over the years. And I am thankful for you, the reader. I am thankful that you are alive and that I am alive. I am not always thankful to be alive, so I have to say my thanks when I feel it deep in my heart. I know due to this essay, I am going to get the most “I am glad you are alive” comments I have gotten in a while. And while they are annoying, they are appreciated. … Thanks!

The Mad Hatter’s Plea (Prayer):

I pray that one day all minds and hearts will be at peace.
I pray that every person gets the mental help that they need.
I pray that everyone has a strong support system.

I pray for all those who have committed suicide.
I pray for all those who have self-harmed.
I pray for all those who struggle to get out of bed.

I pray that one day liberation will come for all people.
I pray that one day all the people of the Earth can be united regardless of identity.
I pray that this mythical one day … is tomorrow!

The Advanced Experience

Buy Me a Coffee

Sources, Resources, and Citations

Camus, Albert. Lyrical and Critical Essay. Edited by Philip Thody. Translated by Ellen Conroy Kennedy. Vintage Books, 1967.

Warning: This essay has vulgar language. I have a diverse audience, and I know some of my readers (especially my family) will not be interested in my use of vulgarity. However, I am not censoring myself for others, so these are my raw and real thoughts.

Over the last few months, conversations about weight have kept coming up. Sometimes it’s about my weight. Sometimes it is about other people’s weight. Regardless, it seems to me that everyone everywhere is dedicating time to losing weight. Therefore, they assume that I have also been taking the time to focus on weight loss. Honestly, I have lost weight, but it has not been purposeful. In full transparency at this point in my life, I like being over 300 pounds.

I am not sure if I will always choose to be this weight. I’m sure one day I will want to slim down. Yet, being this size comes with so many advantages. First, I take up space. What I mean is that I cannot be easily ignored. I was told recently that when I teach, I have a commanding presence. I can only assume this is true because I am above average height and over 300 pounds. It is not easy to just glance over me. Another reason I like being this size is safety. When I was in high school, no one tried to physically put their hands on me. Why? Because I was so much larger than they were. Most people have enough sense not to go toe-to-toe with someone double their size. Even if they knew I couldn’t fight.

Yet, those are not the main reasons I have chosen not to focus on weight loss. The main reason is pure pettiness. I hate that everyone feels entitled to talk about other people’s weight and bodies. My whole life, people have made little, slick comments about my weight. Or people will just outright call me a “fat bitch.” Most of my life, I have been bigger than people. Sometimes I have abhorred my weight. Other times I have loved my size. Regardless, I have learned so much while being fat. I have not learned a lot about dieting or weight loss like other people. What I have learned is that there is a deep sickness within the human psyche that causes people to hate themselves and others. I have always stated that I am a scholar of the human experience. I chose to study Religion, Philosophy, and Literature for these reasons. So, today I am breaking down some of the key things I have learned about the human experience as a fat person.

Number One: People Think Beauty/ Weight is Equal to Morality

One of the first things most fat people, or people who have been fat, notice is that skinny people are treated much nicer than fat people. It is so obvious. When you start to lose weight, people are always making comments like, “Oh, you look good!” People will smile at you more when you are losing weight. Some people will not even look in your direction until you have lost a number of pounds. On the flipside, have you ever noticed that when “skinny” people start gaining weight, people start saying things like, “They really let themselves go,” or “She used to be so pretty.”

The underlying message of these types of statements and behaviors is, “I hate fat people.” Even if one does not literally dislike people with bigger bodies, something in their subconscious is causing them to behave in a certain way when they see bigger bodies. Many fat people I have talked to will ask the question, “Where does this hatred come from?” The simple answer is society. Yet, no one really discusses how our society understands fatness.

For starters, we live in the Western World, which is, for the most part, made up of Western Europe, the USA, Canada, and Australia. All Western thought is mostly a response to the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Both Plato and his student Aristotle argue that goodness (morality) is intertwined with beauty (aesthetics). Plato and Aristotle’s philosophical outlooks on beauty and morality, whether they intended this or not, lead people to believe that beauty is a moral good. This is to say that attractive people are morally good people. Here is a direct quote from Aristotle,

For Aristotle, happiness was the best way to become virtuous (good). Yet, he argues that ugly people will always struggle to be happy and, therefore, struggle to be good people. This thought, whether you believe it or not, has spread like wildfire throughout Europe. Beauty and morality have long been discussed in Western philosophy as dual subjects up until the modern age. Now we live in the modern age. People still assume that ugly people are inherently bad or mean because they are ugly. How many times have you seen someone be rude to someone else, and the response is, “I would be rude too if I looked like that!” Have you ever noticed that in comic books and superhero movies, a lot of the villains are often ugly or deformed? For example, Red Skull, the Penguin, Darth Vader (under the suit), Jason Vorhees, Freddy Krueger, the Wicked Witch of the West, and so many more. Ugliness and all of its extensions are viewed as synonymous with evil.

This brings us to fat people. In the modern world, fat people are considered ugly. If you are a fat person, people will make sure that you are very aware that you are ugly because you are fat. And if ugly is viewed as evil in the Western world, so is fatness. This is easily provable. Have you ever noticed that when skinny or beautiful people are mean, some people will excuse it at first, or just comment that this skinny person is just a bad person? Yet, if an overweight person says something not even mean but with a harsh tone, people immediately start calling them all types of “fat bitch.” And don’t let a bigger Black woman say something a little bit rude but correct, because then people will call her a “big fat funky bitch.”

Lizzo is a perfect example of this. Everytime Lizzo does anything people do not like, they call her a “big fat Black bitch.” Half of the time, Lizzo does not even say anything rude. People just hate her for being big. Monique had a similar experience. What’s different is that Monique is actually, in my opinion, a bad person. Yet, when Monique was big and mean, everyone was calling her all types of “big hateful bitch.” Now that she is smaller and still mean, people just go, “Well, that’s Monique.” If that’s just how Monique is … why was her weight factored in to disliking her when she was bigger? The answer is that people assumed she was mean because she was big. My point here is … people hate fat people because they subconsciously assume they are bad people.

Number Two: People Love Lying About How They View You

Another thing I have noticed as a fat person is that people you do not know will honestly comment on your size. I recently shared that I have been helping feed the homeless in my area. What I did not share is that my first day helping, we were serving hot dogs, and one of the homeless people asked me, “How many hot dogs have you eaten? Because it looks like you’ve eaten about 50.” When I told people about this incident, they were like, “Did you say something back?” And to answer that question, I did not. He is homeless or food insecure, him lashing out at me could have been the only way for him to feel good about himself. In full honesty, I am used to people saying things like that. I have been fat for a long time.

Strangers being rude does not matter. What is interesting is how friends and family lie about how they see your weight. People who are close to you will say, “Oh, you aren’t that big.” Or they will say, “I don’t think you’re fat.” But if we get into an argument, now I am being called all types of “big fat ugly Black bitch.” I remember specifically having a conversation with a friend, who I am still friends with, and he said he doesn’t view people he likes as fat. He views people he doesn’t like as fat. I’m sure he meant this in a nice way, but all I could think about is that if this friendship ends negatively, then I am back to being a “fat motherfucker.”

You see, this point ties into the first point. People see fatness as immoral. Being big is an act of evil. Yet, if your friend is fat, you will not want to view them as a bad person, so you create a false divide between your bigger friend and your fat-ass enemies. The perfect example of this is 2Pac versus Biggie. Biggie and Pac used to be cool. Yet, as soon as the beef starts between them and 2Pac drops Hit ‘Em Up, what is the first thing he says? Pac states,

Here is the perfect illustration of my point! When 2Pac feels betrayed by his previous friend Biggie, he states, one, that he has no friends. Two, that he slept with Biggie’s wife. And three, that Biggie is a “fat mothafucka.” Why? Because Pac wanted to illustrate that he hated Biggie, so he commented on his weight. His bigger friend became his fat-ass enemy. This is why I hate when my friends say, “We don’t see you as fat.” Yes, you do! Stop trying to be nice by lying! You very much perceive me as fat. There is no point in denying that.

This does not just happen with fat people. People love lying about how they view people. We have all known couples where the man calls his girlfriend, “the sweetest thing ever,” but as soon as they are in an argument, she is a “bitch”, “hoe”, and a “thot.” People will compliment you all day, but if you make them mad, every compliment you got is flipped upside down. You go from “beautiful, smart, funny, etc.” to an “ugly, bald-headed, dumbass nigga.” This may seem like whiplash, but it is so explainable. People love to lie about their real opinions on people. Or … Number 3.

Number 3: People Insult Others to Feel Better About Themselves

Now everyone knows this is true, so I am not going to belabor the point. What I will say is that many people point out your weight to feel better about their own weight. Many will say that this is insecurity, but I disagree. I won’t say that insecurity does not play a role. Most people are insecure about their bodies and their weight. Yet, the question is “Where does the insecurity come from?” The answer is … fat people are not treated well! No one wants to be seen as fat, so they make sure people know that they are not as fat as others. People insult people’s weight to reaffirm their place in the hierarchy of beauty. That is not a matter of insecurity. That is a matter of power politics.

In my opinion, this is why smaller people love stuff like My 600-lb Life. I hate that show! To me, that show exists to make smaller people feel better about themselves by watching fat people who are on the brink of death become skinnier. I have never seen anyone question why these people’s lives are turned into entertainment. No one questions why Dr. Younan Nowzaradan insults these people so much. To me, the show is the fungal outgrowth of the American infection. What I mean is that people will sit down and watch a show about clearly mentally unwell people, who are being yelled at by this doctor (who, by all accounts, no one would have as their primary care provider, because he is rude), get surgery to lose weight. My question was always why? The answer is, it makes people feel better about themselves. It reaffirms their place in the hierarchy of beauty. That’s why people also watched The Biggest Loser, which was an equally stupid and borderline abusive concept of a TV show.

Number 4: White Supremacy Is Somehow Tied to Weight Loss Culture

It should not be lost on anyone that when White supremacy strengthens in America, weight loss culture reappears. I want to point back to that Aristotle quote from earlier. Aristotle basically said that ugly people and deformed people (people of poor birth) were less likely to be good people. It should never be lost on anyone that Aristotle was used by racists, colonizers, and White supremacists historically to argue that Black people were evil because we were of “poor birth”, have bad blood, and are ugly. This is why stereotypes of Black people are always centered either on our bodies or our culture, which White Supremacists view as a product of our bodies and our “natural inability” to be civil.

Moving to fatness, has no one ever noticed that Black people are naturally associated with bigger bodies? Has anyone ever realized that BMI is a scale based on White bodies? I assume that the answer is no, you have not realized. Being a fat person, I have noticed specifically that White people have a more malicious hatred of fat bodies than Black people do. Black people’s dislike of fat bodies usually appears in the form of comedy. Black people love jokes, and jokes about fat people are par for the course. This is why we have The Nutty Professor, Norbit, and Big Mama’s House. Also, in the Black Community, in my experience, it seems that Black women are the victims of a lot of fat jokes. So there is a clear link between anti-fatness and people’s views of women. Yet, at the same time, Black people love curves, especially on women. Extremely skinny people are also made fun of by Black people. Not to the same degree, but it is notable. On top of all of that, Black people are also very aware that the type of food we eat adds weight to our bodies. So, in the Black community, being fat is not viewed as a good thing, but people will just have a joke and move on. This is because all Black people know they have bigger cousins, aunties, uncles, and maybe even their mama is bigger.

White people truly hate fat bodies. I have seen and heard from White people that their own family members will comment on their weight in ways I only experienced at school from bullies. You see, Black people will roast you about your weight. They will call you a “Big husky nigga’ but in return, they are well aware that you are going to say something back. I was very known for being quick with the lips after someone said something. Yet again, Black people have a tradition of roasting or playing the Dozens. White people will insult your weight but present it like they are doing you a favor. They will say, “That dress is not flattering on your body,” and not expect a roast back. If a Black person insults my weight, I’m gonna comment on their overbite. If a White person insults my weight and I say something back, they think I am the bully.

White people will insult you as an attempt to correct your behavior or motivate you to “be better.” Matter-of-fact they do not even view these comments as insults. Black people will insult you, but they understand there is a possibility that you are either gonna say something back or that you might put hands on them. I have seen many a nigga slapped for a roast, and I have seen many a nigga cry after they said something and couldn’t handle the push back. White people will say the nastiest insult to your face and expect no back talk. What is worse is that they do not just insult the weight of strangers, but also their children, parents, cousins, and their pets. It is truly fascinating.

I have noticed that White people have some strange relationship to body size that is rooted in White Supremacy. I am not sure of all the details quite yet. Although I have noticed that White men talk very badly about larger women and curvy women. In the Black community, a curvy woman is a treasure. This does not mean she will not experience sexism. She will experience sexism, but she will also be pursued. (Black Women, feel free to comment on your experience with fatphobia and attraction in the comments!) In the White community, being too curvy is not seen as a good thing. I have seen White men call a woman fat, not because she is large, but because she has some curves. I have noticed that White straight women hate having certain types of curves because they perceive them as bad. I have always been confused about a lot of this. I can only assume that it is somehow tied to White Supremacy and patriarchy. I would assume this is because a smaller-sized woman takes up less space. Therefore, she can be ignored and overpowered more by an abusive and violent man. … Now again, this is just an assumption. I have no empirical evidence for this. However, I do want to point out again that as White Supremacy strengthens … weight loss culture in America also grows. And women are way more affected by weight loss culture than men.

Number 5: People Do Not Care About Health

I have mostly ignored the “elephant” in the room. Most people will claim that being fat is unhealthy. I am not here to deny that this is true. Yet, most things people do are unhealthy. People do all types of activities that are dangerous to their health. This is their life choice. I am not saying we excuse all life choices, but if it affects only them, then it does not matter. I have met skinny people who drink all the time, to the point where I am concerned for their liver. Yet, when the topic of alcoholism comes up, people are empathetic. When the topic of obesity comes up, it becomes, “Those fat bitches just need to lose weight.”

What is also interesting is that there are people like me. At this point in my life, I do not want to lose 100 pounds. In the last few years, the only time I have gotten on a scale was at the doctor’s office. I have no clue how much I weigh exactly … and I don’t care. To most people, I am an oddity. Being obese is presented as the most dangerous thing you can be. However, I am mobile. I walk multiple times a week for multiple hours at a time, just because I enjoy it. I stretch in the mornings. I mostly drink water, and I try to drink a gallon a day. I do not do any of this to lose weight. I do all of this to stay mobile and energized, despite my weight. Yet, people look at me and assume I am unhealthy, that I do not like water, and that I hate exercise. And while I am not the healthiest, I am nowhere near death’s door.

I have learned that people do not care about health. They just act like they do to justify their dislike of fat people. No one really asks about my lifestyle or what I am doing. When I walk, people assume it’s for weight loss. They often ask me, “How many pounds have you lost?” To which I typically respond, “I don’t know, like 10.” I do not care about weight loss. People just assume that is why fat people do anything. They see me, a fat person walking, and assume it’s for weight loss. It is never viewed as a possibility that I enjoy walking. When I eat a salad, people assume it is for healthy reasons. They never assume that I just like salad.

Number 6: People Will Hate You For Anything

This was a lesson that came to me more recently. I have lived my life as a fat, (closeted) queer, autistic, dark-skinned Black person. People hate me for every single thing I just listed. I have been maligned for my skin color, my skin shade, my size, my sexuality, my identity, my self-expression, and my personality. I have learned that there is no point in getting skinny for others, which is what I tried to do when I was younger. People will always find a reason not to like you. So, I have learned to just exist.

People love being hateful, and they love any excuse to be hateful. My size gives a certain type of person an excuse to be hateful. Same with my skin color. Same with my identity. Same with my personality. I have learned that none of this stuff really matters because people are just hateful, and they are encouraged to be hateful. This is why so many people who lose weight become hateful themselves. The weight loss did not make them happy. It did not get them more acceptance. People just found another reason to hate them. So, I have decided at this point in my life that I would rather be fat and free than skinny and resentful. So, call me everything under the sun. Call me a “Fat bitch,” “big husky nigga,” “Fat Albert,” “Cleveland Jr.,” or whatever. I have literally heard it all. Just remember that I have always fought to be free.

Conclusion

I have no real conclusion! Honestly, these were just my opinions and experiences. I know people will comment on the new academic field that is “Fat Studies” and tell me I should look into that scholarly endeavor. I probably will at some point, but I wanted to just express my raw thoughts. I am okay with being fat. That is the primary message of this essay. Everything else is just my experiences as someone who has chosen to be fat. Although I am curious about other people’s thoughts. Please sound off in the comments about your experiences as fat people or previously fat people. What did you notice about the world as a fat person?

The Advanced Experience

Buy Me a Coffee

Sources, Resources, and Citations

2Pac. “Hit ‘Em Up.” YouTube. Published Oct 19, 2018. (Universal Music Group, 1996.)

Aristotle. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Robert C. Bartlett and Susan D. Collins. The University of Chicago Press, 2011.

NowThisImpact. “Sabrina Strings Explains How ‘Fatphobia’ is Rooted in Racism.” YouTube. Published Apr 1, 2021.

Olurinatti. “If Pretty Is a Privilege, Ugly Is a Curse.” YouTube. Published Aug 28, 2025.

Most of the people who are volunteering are older people. This is likely because the church gives out meals on Friday mornings. I thankfully have a schedule flexible enough to join and help out. If I am scheduled to work on Friday, I just simply go to work later in the afternoon. This is a privilege I have. I am a working student with a monetized blog and a part-time job, so while I do have a lot to do throughout the week, I can also make my schedule work for me. I understand that not a lot of people have this privilege until they are retired. Most people have demanding jobs that take away their ability to volunteer during the day, and there is little time or energy to volunteer in the late afternoons.

Despite the fact that mostly older people are able to volunteer, the people who attend these hot meals are diverse. Some of them are older. Some of them are around my age. Some of them have disabilities, both mental and physical. Some of them have families. Some of them wear nice clothes. Whatever you imagine when you think of a homeless or food-insecure person, you have to throw that out the window. Some of these people are living with family members or couch surfing. Some of these people are food insecure because they are sick and put most of their money toward their medical bills. Not all of these people “made mistakes.” A lot of these people ended up in bad situations. And even if they “made mistakes,” it does not justify their suffering.

Yet, it is so easy to dehumanize these people. It is so easy for people to roll up their windows and turn away when they see the homeless waiting at the intersections to ask for change. It is so easy for people to stop seeing the homeless as people with difficult stories and start seeing them as nuisances that crowd the streets. Most people, even those who are struggling to make ends meet, find it easier to identify with the rich rather than the homeless. Yet, most people are one bad situation away from being homeless. One lost paycheck away from being food insecure. The current economic climate is straining people of every penny they have earned. Although no matter how much you inform people that they are more likely to be homeless than millionaires, they just state that they have made the “right decisions” in their life and that God, or the economy, or their boss will reward them with money. People form whole philosophies and theologies to falsely explain why they deserve to live better lives than other people.

People believe that they have made “right decisions” and that, because of this, they have been “rewarded” with financial gain. To believe this, one must, at least subconsciously, believe that poor people are people who have made “wrong decisions” and are being “punished” with poverty. But, unfortunately, that is not how our economic system works. One can make every “right decision” and still end up hungry on the streets. People can make every “wrong decision” and still stumble upon a lot of money. And what is crazy is that everyone understands this fundamentally, but people live and treat people as though the economy is a system of justice, and not a system that simply empowers the powerful.

What makes all of this worse is how this belief in a fair and just economy plays out. To believe that the economy rewards you for your decisions, you must believe that you have only done “right” in the eyes of the economy. Yet, no one truly believes the economy is sentient. No one believes the economy actually has the ability to reward and punish people. People, however, will not shake this belief that they are entitled to economic rewards for “correct” financial behavior. So to uphold this false belief, people do one of two things. They either pretend that the economy is fair and they themselves punish people on the economy’s behalf to justify the belief in a fair economy. Or people convince themselves that they are somehow special and therefore are the exception to the rules of the economy. This may be hard to follow, so please walk with me through this train of thought.

The first group of people, those who pretend that the economy is fair and just, typically become the agents of the economy. This is a commonality for any person who believes in a flawed system. For example, White people who value White supremacy, and therefore systemic racism, subconsciously believe that White Supremacy is a fair and just system. To believe this, racist White people become agents of White Supremacy and engage in violence against Non-White people because they believe People of Color are inherently bad and need to be “punished.” Their enactment of “justice”, in their minds, is proof that White Supremacy is a system that creates “justice.”

Similarly, there are people who believe the economy, a system of financial gain and loss, is just and fair. To uphold this belief, they engage in economic behaviors that punish others for doing things they do not approve of. People who do these unapproved actions are subconsciously viewed as bad at best, or evil at worst. For example, let’s say Bob and Susan work the same job and have the same position. Suddenly, their boss starts asking them to take on the extra work of other positions without extra pay. At first, the boss presents this as a one-time thing, so both Bob and Susan do it. However, when this increased workload continues, Susan starts to demand a pay raise, or else she is not going to do this increased amount of work. Bob, on the other hand, continues without a verbal complaint. This leads the boss to reward Bob with a raise and punish Susan with nothing, but both are still required to do the same increased workload. Here, we see the boss viewed Susan’s actions as bad. Therefore, in the mind of the boss, it is just and fair to punish her financially and reward Bob. Why would the boss do that? Well, in the boss’s mind, this is how the workplace is supposed to operate. The workplace is supposed to punish Susan and reward Bob. Yet, this nonsensical decision, rooted in a false sense of justice, now affects Susan and Bob’s economic status. But this does not bother the boss. In the boss’s mind, he would have done what Bob did. As a matter of fact, the boss likely believes that he is like Bob and that he made all the right decisions and was rewarded economically by his previous bosses. Therefore, in his mind, it is his job as their boss to “correctly” aid in the system that aided him. And how does he aid the economic system? By enforcing faulty ideas of rewards and punishments on behalf of an economy that is not fair.

The type of people who become these “agents of the economy” are typically people who have power. They become agents of the economy because the economy gave them a position of power, so they have been taught to believe that this power is just and fair. Even though, in reality, most people end up in economic positions of power due, in part, to connections. The people who end up in positions of economic power without connections are usually people like Bob from our example. People who have seen the punishments and rewards of our economic system firsthand and refused to comment on them. People like Bob just take their reward and never question it. Because if Bob were to stop and question things, he would realize that he was not rewarded. Bob gave the company free labour. His pay increase is not a reward. It is what was owed to him. Bob would have realized that there is no system of rewards and punishments. There was only an unjust theft of Bob and Susan’s labour that was repackaged as a reward. Bob would have realized that the economy, as it exists in America, is not a system of justice but a system of injustice that rewards no one but people like the boss, who already have power and can steal people’s labour.

The second group of people who subconsciously believe the economy is fair are those who believe themselves to be special. These people, like the first group, live as though the economy rewards good actions and punishes bad ones. Yet, when they find themselves economically punished, they do not view themselves as people who have made bad decisions, but as unique sufferers. These people will tell themselves that they have done everything right. They have all the “financial literacy” skills. The only reason they are economically suffering is because “life just went sideways.” I call these people economic Jobites, in reference to the Biblical Job. Job was a man who was presented in the Bible as having done everything correctly and still suffering. These people believe they have taken all the right economic actions, but are still suffering regardless.

Now, while I agree with their core sentiments, as I have proven in this essay, I disagree with their understanding of others. These economic Jobites believe that their suffering is unique, but they also believe that other people’s economic suffering is because of bad actions. For example, everyone always mentions poor White southerners, who are on food stamps themselves, complaining about other people on food stamps. The leading question is, “Why do these people think they are different?” Well, the answer, besides the obvious association of food stamps with Black people, is that these poor White people think their suffering is unique. They believe they have done everything economically correct and therefore should not receive punishment. They believe that they deserve the food stamps. Yet, these other people in their same economic situation, according to the economic Jobites’ belief, are people who should suffer and not receive food stamps.

The issue is that EVERYONE of these economic Jobites assumes that the other Jobites are lying about their situation. They must believe that others are lying. Because if you believe that a bunch of other people are “uniquely suffering” like you are, then you would have to realize your suffering is not unique. You would have to question, “How fair is the economy?” Ultimately, one would quickly come to the conclusion that the economy is not a just and fair system. Yet, people are not going to stop and question the nature of the economy, because when you do unravel the nature of this system. If you did, you would realize what I said earlier in this essay! You are more likely to be homeless than you are to be a millionaire! You will realize that it does not matter how many “correct” economic actions you take.

It should be very clear that the economy does not reward people. This is provable by all the people who put their money in companies that then go bankrupt. According to the doctrine of “financial literacy,” it is a wise and correct action to invest in a company. Yet, when a company fails, and you lose your money, the missionaries of the church of “financial literacy” will simply tell you that you made an “incorrect” action by investing in the “wrong” company. Yet, they will discourage you from asking, “How was I supposed to know that this company would have failed?”

The point of this essay is to show in depth the nature of this beast. The economy is not some fair and just system that is controllable through “financial literacy” and “correct” financial actions. The American economy is a capitalistic system that brainwashes people to create a false system of punishments and rewards to justify the suffering of others, while excusing one’s own suffering. The end goal of a capitalist economy is to reward the few powerful people and punish the many powerless people. Stop believing the lies of this system. Once you stop believing these lies, you will again see homeless people as human and start understanding that most of us are all united in economic suffering.

The Advanced Experience

Buy Me a Coffee

Echolalia (Affirmations):

I am autistic, and I am Proud.

I am autistic, and I am Proud.

I am autistic, and I am Proud.

Taking Down the Mask (Introduction):

In all honesty, I am afraid to write this. I am afraid I won’t say the right things. I am afraid that other autistic people will not be able to relate to my experience. Although I do not want to let this stop me. My goal in this essay is to be vulnerable and reflective on my own experience. I hope to allow others into my experience, so that they can better understand what ASD looks like. This essay really seeks to expose people to the Neurodivergent Paradigm, which is an emerging framework for understanding human mental variation, ability, and disability (Robert Chapman and Monique Botha, 2023, Pg. 310).

The Neurodivergent Paradigm encourages us to move away from medicalizing mental disabilities or attempting to make Neurodivergent people “normal.” We should attempt to understand mental differences as they are and create a society that can help people live their best lives. This is important as autistic people have higher rates of suicide than their age counterparts (Chapman and Botha, Pg. 311). This is likely from the pressure to be normal and the desire to feel normal. This is an example of Neurotype Dysphoria. Neurotype Dysphoria is when an individual’s goals or identity clash with their neurotype (Chapman and Botha 314). For example, an autistic person may experience a feeling of uneasiness and stress at a social event because their goal is to socialize correctly, but their brain won’t let them. Not to mention, disability scholars also note that there is a Dysfunction Ontology (Chapman and Botha, Pg. 313). This is when autistic people understand non-autistic people better than non-autistic people understand autistic people. Yet, despite this, autistic people are never seen as authorities on themselves. Therapists, clinicians, and people without autism’s voices are always listened to more than autistic voices.

I mention this to give depth to the nature of being autistic. Non-autistic people just focus on how strange autistic people are. Or they focus on how “difficult” it must be to have autism on a genetic/ biological level. No one really cares about what it is like to be autistic within a society that hates autistic people. Everyone points and laughs at the anti-vax parents because they do not understand science. Not many people question why these parents would rather have children who could die from polio than have an autistic child. The answer is simple. Autistic people are not seen as people, but as obstacles and annoyances. We are things that need to be handled and dealt with. We are problem-causers. In the minds of the anti-vaxers, it is better to have a dead human baby than an alive autistic “thing.”

Non-Verbal (Quote):

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Maladaptive Daydream (The Bulk of the Essay):

Maladaptive Daydreaming or Immersive Daydreaming is a state where the person is in an “intense absorption in elaborate mental fantasy scenarios, stories, and worlds” (Melina West, Eli Somer, and Inge-Marie Eigsti, 2022). It is very common in autistic people. Normal daydreams and Maladaptive daydreams have some similarities, as the person is engaging in fantasy. The key difference is that a Maladaptive Daydream is vivid and endures much longer than a normal daydream. They can last for hours. Many people report that their immersive daydreams have detailed and developed narratives that span years (West, Somer, Eigsti, 2022). All the daydreams make up one cohesive imaginary story. Yet it is called “maladaptive” because some people use these long daydreams to escape reality and go to a more comfortable fake reality that they made.

I have maladaptively daydreamed my whole life. I did not think much of it when I was younger. Although when I was in high school, I started to be more concerned. I would just daydream for hours at a time. I would put on headphones, listen to music, and imagine myself in a different world. I would run around and gallop around while listening to music. It was normal to me as I had been doing it since I was a child. And the concern high school me had did not stop me … I still ran around the house like it was normal. I would just run around my house. Originally, I would do it when my parents weren’t home. Then, when COVID hit, I explained to my mom that I needed to run around and listen to music. She found it odd, but she didn’t stop me.

I really didn’t know how to explain that I would enter another world. Be a different version of myself who was everything I wasn’t. That Brandon was cool, popular, powerful, magical, etc. Studies show that autistic people are very drawn to fantasy worlds (West, Somer, Eigsti, 2022). I was no different. I spent a lot of time obsessing over fantasy video games, movies, and books. Then I would take the fantasy powers and plotlines and add them to the story in my head. The same daydream story I was working on for over a decade at this point.

When I went to college, I made an effort not to do ‘that weird thing that I do.” So, I didn’t … for a while. Then, after a family friend, who was younger than me, was murdered my freshman year, I found myself walking at night time around my campus with headphones in and just daydreaming for hours again. At the time, I did not realize the connection between his murder and my daydreaming, but looking back, it was clear. I wanted to escape. Eventually, I was able to stop my sophomore and junior years again. … Well, I had not fully stopped on purpose. I just thought that I was weird and needed to stop. So, every time I would start to daydream, my brain just wouldn’t let me. All I could hear was, “What would your new adult friends think?”

Eventually, I went back to therapy. I went because I wanted to better understand “this weird thing that I do,” and I wanted to see if I could learn to accept it as me. At the time, I was worried that I was changing too much. I was worried that losing my daydreaming meant that I was losing myself. I knew I had to go to a therapist. So I scheduled a meeting and went to the appointment with the sole goal of explaining “The Mindplace.” That was my name for daydreaming, as I did not have the terminology yet. I went in there and broke down what was happening. My therapist expressed that it was clearly an escape and a way to deal with social and identity issues. She told me it was good, and I had mostly stopped, and encouraged me to stay grounded. … So I did, and for a year, I did not maladaptive daydream at all. I could not even do it if I tried.

Then I went through a breakup. And there was a three-month period where I felt like life was passing me by. A few months after that, I found myself back in the “Mindplace.” I was a senior in college at this point, but I was back to walking at night and daydreaming for hours. I would sometimes leave my college apartment at 10pm and not be back until 1am or 2am. When I graduated, I found myself moving my walking schedule from night to morning. I told everyone that I just liked walking. This way, people did not question why I was walking for hours. The truth was, I was maladaptive daydreaming. I graduated two years ago … and I haven’t stopped maladaptive daydreaming. I still do it multiple times a week. If I am not able to do it for a few days, I start to get stressed. I am a grown-up adult, 23 years of age, who can’t deal with reality. … That’s what it feels like. Yet, I can’t stop because life just seems to get harder and more complicated.

So, here I am. This is part of my story. An embarrassing part that I hate talking about, and even writing this makes me uncomfortable. With every keystroke, I am reminded that I am still that weird little kid who ran around my grandparents’ yard daydreaming.

Hyper-Fixation (End of the Essay):

The above ramblings are just a small part of my experience with autism. Yet, that was just the surface. I could have talked about how, for months after my father’s death, I ate fast food every day simply because “I always knew what it was going to taste like. There were never any surprises.” I could have talked about how it takes me months to watch a new show or movie because my brain tells me, “Why watch something new and full of surprises when I can watch the same show again and know everything that is going to happen?” I could have talked about the fact that at one point in my senior year of college, I was watching South Park every day. Going to sleep with it on. Turning it on when I woke up in the morning. Listening to the episode’s audio as I walked to class. All because I always knew what was going to happen, I could never be surprised. I could have written about the feeling of realizing you talked to that person way too long about birds, or Greek mythology, or Hip-Hop, or philosophy, or whatever. The feeling of realizing that a person is just nodding their head, so you will stop talking about your weird thing faster. I could have written about how I sometimes talk to myself while imagining having an audience to which I am lecturing about a topic that I am passionate about. I could talk about the moments when I am at my lowest and how, in these moments, I find myself repeating phrases over and over and over again as a self-soothing technique.

Yet, I stuck with maladaptive daydreaming, because it is vulnerable. It was a glimpse into my ASD psyche. My “abnormal’ mind and experience. I have no grand statements about living with Autism. Everyone’s experience with it is different. There are no better or worse autistic people. It is a spectrum, like the color spectrum. Just like one cannot claim blue to be more of a color than purple, one

Self-Soothing (Prayer):

I pray for the liberation of all autistic people globally.

I pray that one day, autistic people will truly be able to be understood.

I pray that one day, autistic people will truly be able to be heard.

I pray for every autistic child who was told to stop being weird.

I pray for every autistic child who cries themselves to sleep, craving normalcy.

I pray that every autistic child’s needs are met.

I pray that one day liberation will come for all people.

I pray that one day all the people of the Earth can be united regardless of identity.

I pray that this mythical one day … is tomorrow!

The Advanced Experience

Buy Me a Coffee

Sources, Resources, and Citations

Chapman, Robert, and Monique Botha. “Neurodivergence-Informed Therapy.” Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 65 (2023): 310-317.

International Society for Maladaptive Daydreaming. Autism and Maladaptive Daydreaming: Exploring the Potential Link. International Society for Maladaptive Daydreaming.

West, Melina Jay, Eli Somer, and Inge-Marie Eigsti. “Immersive and Maladaptive Daydreaming and Divergent Thinking in Autism Spectrum Disorder.” Imagination, Cognition and Personality 42, Issue 4, (2022): 372-398

Despite this, I think it could be a good thing to explore these “gaps.” I think this is important for us to do this because we can reflect on real social problems through these mostly made-up social problems. We also have an opportunity to explore real, and sometimes problematic, sociological phenomena that appear in relationships, such as the age gaps, wealth gaps, and the infamous orgasm gap. To do this, I am going to split this essay into two major sections: Real Relationship Gaps and Pseudo-Relationship Gaps. In the former, I will discuss real sociological and academically studied phenomena that appear as “gaps” in a relationship. In the latter, I will discuss pop culture relationship gaps that are not empirically studied but could still provide interesting insight into how people understand relationships. Please come along with me on this journey. We are going to talk about things both deep and dumb. Both taboo and mundane. (At the end, I will again have some personal reflection questions.)

Previous Meditation:

Note: This is a longer essay. It has different sections for people to start and stop as needed! Treat this essay like a Wikipedia article. Read what interests you and leave what does not! (And please donate or subscribe if you can. Even a dollar helps keep my dream alive!)

Real Relationship Gaps

Age Gaps

To reiterate, “age gaps” refer to a partnership in which one person is older than the other person. Derek Scolpino and Howard Steele further define it as couples having “ten or more years in age separation” (Scolpino and Steele, 2024, Pg. 47). Age-matched couples are typically defined as couples within 0 to 3 years of age. (They do not address couples who are 4 to 9 years apart. Assumably they can relate to research from both categories.) 6 percent of married couples in the United States are in Age-Gap relationships. Meaning this is not a very rare type of relationship. Despite this, these relationships are considered “taboo” and are stereotyped. I myself often stereotype these relationships, but after reading Scolpino and Steele’s study, I understood why. Although I still have questions.

According to Scolpino and Steele, age-gap relationships are stereotyped as being inherently unequal. The younger partner is assumed to have parental issues. The older partner is assumed to be someone who seeks power, domination, and exploitation. The implication is that a power-seeking person will have an easier time wielding power over a younger person than an older person. People also assume that age-gap relationships are less happy (Scolpino and Steele, Pg. 48). Studies have shown that these stereotypes often negatively impact the mental health of those in age-gap relationships. They often experience more depressive symptoms (Scolpino and Steele, Pg. 49). Women are the most harshly judged, often being seen as ”gold diggers” if they are the younger partner and “cougars” if they are the older partner. This is made more interesting by the facts of age-gap relationship statistics.

Studies have found that in the Western world, most age-gap relationships have an older man and a younger woman (Scolpino and Steele, Pg. 47). This is likely because straight men are willing to date someone 15 years younger and claim to prefer younger women. Most straight women are willing to date someone 10 years older. It is hard to understand why this is the case. Evolutionary theorists argue that women want older men because they can provide more resources, safety, and security (Thomas, Banbury, Lusher, Chandler, 2024, Pg. 1367). Yet this is likely not the case because younger women in age-gap relationships report lower sexual satisfaction. Social Exchange theorists argue that women may seek older men because they have a level of social power and credibility that younger men do not have (Thomas, et al., Pg. 1368). Social power, which, according to these theorists, the younger woman can use to advance herself socially.

The monkey wrench to these theories is the existence of studies done on age-gap relationships with an older woman and a younger man. Studies suggest that older women in these age-gap relationships have more sexual satisfaction, subjective happiness, and sexual self-efficacy (sexual autonomy and confidence) in age-gap relationships. Studies also suggest that emotional intelligence might be demonstrated more in these age-gap relationships. Despite this age gap, relationships with older women and younger men last on average around 2 years (Scolpino and Steele, Pg. 49). Studies suggest that this could be because of the social pressure and the taboo of an older woman dating a younger man. Most people assume women need to be passive sexual objects who are to be sought after. An older woman going after a younger man becomes a social taboo because it flips this. This could explain why age-gap relationships are more likely to happen and more accepted by the Queer community (Scolpino and Steele, Pg. 47).

Despite this … I am personally not the biggest fan of age-gap relationships. I understand people over the age of 30 dating people 10+ years older than them. I understand people who are over 40 dating ten years younger. Although I am hesitant to fully accept relationships between people under the age of 25 dating people 10 years older than them. I do believe this often leads to an imbalance of relationship power. I personally, as a 23-year-old, would not date a 33-year-old. Nor would I date someone 21 or younger. Even if a person is my age-match (to use the language from the studies), it does not mean I will date them. You might ask why? … Because someone so much older than me cannot possibly relate to me in any deep way. And people under 21 can’t hang out with me because they cannot drink alcohol. At 23, I am old enough to have a college degree, start my career, and pay rent. Despite this, I am not what Black people would call “good and grown.” Meaning I do not own a house, I do not pay a mortgage, I do not have children, etc. I just find it hard to relate to someone older. Now I am not saying age-gap relationships between people in their 20s and older people are awful. I am sure it is great for some people. And I know that there are exceptions. I have many Queer friends who are in age-gap relationships, and they love them. … Me personally, I just cannot do it.

Scolpino and Steele state that younger people are the most likely to stigmatize age-gap relationships (Scolpino and Steele, Pg. 48). They suggest that this could stem from younger people having more to lose in these relationships. … I think it is more complex than that. When I was growing up in the 2010s, I remember other kids my age (emphasis on the word “kids” as we were under 18) being preyed upon by men 18 to 21. I remember older people in the community telling me stories about how, when they were in high school in the 80s and 90s, adults would pick some of their classmates up from school because they were dating. Then I am also a child of the internet, where “grooming” was common. Grooming is any action an older person takes to get ready to abuse children (Tsara, Susilastuti, 2024, Pg. 230). Grooming also prepares the children for abuse. It can be an attempt to psychologically prepare them by telling them things like “you are mature for your age” or “you wouldn’t do that to me.” It can be physically preparing them, like forcing them to eat more food, because you like your partner to be larger. … The use of the term Grooming has been expanded to any form of abuse where the abuser uses their power to prepare the victim to be abused. Therefore, it can happen between two adults, as long as there is some type of power imbalance or attempt to create a power imbalance. My fear is that grooming can be easily done in an age-gap relationship, especially when you have a younger adult (20-25) and an older adult (35+).

However, a lot of my thoughts could be unfounded. There is so much more research that needs to be done on age-gap relationships and grooming. Yet, alongside research, there should be discussion and conversation. We need to know people’s experiences and opinions to move forward. I think it is important because of what the conversation can highlight. I remember when the actress Tracee Ellis Ross shared why she had decided to stop dating men her own age. She stated that men her age clung to toxic masculinity and a certain cultural idea around relationships that she did not like. I also remember when the rapper YG released the song 2004 which is about how he lost his virginity to an older woman who was picking him up from high school and how this dynamic traumatized him. Both perspectives are needed! Research and conversations are important to better understand why, how, and when age gaps manifest. Regardless, I support love regardless of how it manifests, even if that is in an age-gap relationship. However, we must remember that abuse is never love.

Orgasm Gap

Now we are going to talk about sex and orgasms, specifically the orgasm gap. The orgasm gap refers to a well-researched phenomenon in which men have more orgasms, on average, than women during partnered sexual activity (Wetzel, Sanchez, et al., 2025, Pg. 683). The orgasm gap implies that in sexual relationships, men often experience more orgasmic pleasure than women. This has been an interesting topic of research for sexuality scholars. There are many hypotheses for why this gap between men and women exists.

The traditional standpoint held by many members of our society is that sex is more enjoyable for men than women. This is a terrible argument for a number of reasons. One, women do enjoy sex as much as men. They are just more likely to enjoy sex if an orgasm occurs for them (Tuijl, 2026, Pg. 3). Therefore, if a lot of men are not getting women to orgasm, then many women will not like sex. My second critique of this position is from a biological standpoint. As Piet Van Tuijl argues, if sex is not enjoyable for both involved, then creatures would not do it (Tuijl, Pg. 14). If no creature had sex, their species would die out. Tuijl and many other academics hypothesize that this is the reason the clitoris exists. For those who don’t know (although all educated people should know this), the clitoris, or clit in slang, is the female counterpart to the penis (Christmas, 562). It is a genital organ located at the end of the vulva. The clitoris is the main source of orgasms for women. Academics suggest that, evolutionarily speaking, the clitoris exists to make sex enjoyable for mammals and prompt them to reproduce.

This leads us to the second theory trying to explain the orgasm gap. Some have suggested that the traditional understanding of sex and orgasms stated above has led to a misunderstanding of sex and sexuality. When people assume that women do not enjoy sex, they will not care to find a way to stimulate an orgasm. Many of you should rightfully ask, “Why did people assume sex is not enjoyable to women?” Well, the answer likely goes back to the clitoris. Most women do not orgasm from vaginal penetration, but from clitoral stimulation. The clitoris was not fully medically understood until 20 years ago (Tuijl, Pg. 2). For a long time, many people, specifically men, did not really know about it or care to figure it out. And since men used to be the only people allowed to study medicine and humans, a lot of people did not know the clitoris’ sexual relevance. Many past scientists at one point declared the clitoris to be an ”evolutionary accident” (Tuijl, Pg. 14). So, the emphasis on vaginal penetration over clitoral stimulation, caused by academic misogyny, could have created this gap.

Many people in the last few years in feminist and queer spaces have talked about the orgasm gap. What makes the gap more damning is the fact that lesbian women report, on average, a higher orgasm rate (Tuijl, Pg.1)(Wetzel, Sanchez, et al., Pg. 683). To add on, women have a much lower post-ejaculation refractory time. Meaning, most women can have multiple orgasms in a short span of time unlike most men (Tuijl, Pg.3). There is also no masturbation gap, meaning in non-partnered sexual activity, orgasms across genders occur at the same rate (Tuijl, pg. 9). For many people, these facts prove that straight men care less about women’s sexual pleasure than women care about men’s. Although the study by Piet Van Tuijl found that women experienced more orgasms in longer-term relationships, and usually had fewer orgasms in short-term relationships (Tuijl, Pg. 11). So, this could imply that men care more about their sexual partners if they are also their romantic partner. Or this could imply that women just dislike casual sex, which makes sense because statistically they engage in casual sex less (Tuijl, Pg. 3).

Now, as a Black scholar, I can never ignore how race intersects with social phenomena. The White and Asian orgasm gap is statistically equivalent and is larger than the orgasm gap in the Black and Latin American communities, which themselves are statistically equivalent (Wetzel, Sanchez, et al., 2025, Pg. 686). Most studies about the orgasm gap focus on white people, like in the case of Tuijl’s study, or do not account for race at all. So, everything discussed above is mostly reflective of White people. All other racial and ethnic groups studied demonstrate some key cultural differences in sex and sexuality. I want to address some of these differences quickly.

Asian people have an orgasm gap similar to that of White people for some key reasons. Both Asian men and Asian women report having fewer orgasms, on average, than their white counterparts (Wetzel, Sanchez, et al., Pg. 686). As a matter of fact, Asian women have the lowest orgasm rate out of everyone, which is likely what maintains the gap (Wetzel, Sanchez, et al., Pg. 686). This could be because Asian Americans, according to the studies, exhibit more conservative sexual attitudes and a stricter display of gender roles in the bedroom (Wetzel, Sanchez, et al., Pg. 687).

The Black orgasm gap is smaller than all others except the Latin American gap. Black men report a lower frequency of orgasms. Black women have orgasm rates at the same rate as White Women (Wetzel, Sanchez, et al., Pg. 686). Therefore, the orgasm gap is lower. This could be for a number of reasons. Yet, it is hard to really pin down because straight Black men’s sexuality is rarely studied. The study hypothesizes that is because Black men report desiring women’s sexual satisfaction (Wetzel, Sanchez, et al., Pg. 688). In contrast, studies suggest that Black Women have a more positive view of their sexuality, but Black women’s sexuality is also not largely studied (Wetzel, Sanchez, et al., Pg. 687).

Latin Americans have an orgasm gap comparable to Black people. This is because Latin American women report the highest orgasm frequency out of all the groups of women surveyed (Wetzel, Sanchez, et al., Pg. 686). Other studies have suggested that Latin Americans whose primary language is Spanish experience more sexual pleasure in relationships than bilinguals and Latin Americans whose primary language is English (Wetzel, Sanchez, et al., Pg. 688). Yet, it is unclear why this could be the case. Latin Americans also self-report a high rate of oral sex, both receiving and giving.

The orgasm gap is a fascinating concept that I do think straight people need to discuss. I am not sure how the gap affects relationships, but it is clearly an important topic since so many women on the internet express that they relate to the information presented in the studies. Many women have experienced men failing to help them orgasm. I believe that within a healthy relationship, sexual pleasure is something that the couple needs to learn how to navigate effectively. Before I close off this section, there are some things that I think go vastly overlooked when discussing the orgasm gap. First, orgasms are not required for sexual pleasure and satisfaction. While most people desire them, not all people require them. Second, experiencing an orgasm also does not necessarily mean that the sex was enjoyable or pleasurable. Third, there are a number of psychological disorders, classified in the DSM5-TR (the psychological diagnostic manual), where people struggle to have orgasms because of past trauma. The most notable is Female Orgasmic Disorder, where there is an orgasmic buildup but no release. Fourth, 90% of men and women reported having faked an orgasm. However, in some cases, this was just to provide positive feedback to let their partner know they are enjoying things (Tuijl, Pg. 2). Lastly, research about the orgasm gap in relation to Queer people, race, culture, age, and income is deeply understudied. So, with all things considered, the orgasm gap is a problem and should be discussed. Yet, there is still some grey area to be explored.

Education Gap

The next two “gaps” are deeply interconnected, and I almost wanted to classify them together as the “Socioeconomic gap,” but I decided not to. Yet, I encourage you to remember that the financial gap and the education gap are deeply connected as you read about them. The education gap refers to relationships in which one partner has more education than the other. This means that one partner has more degrees than the other. I am not sure how large of a phenomenon this is, but I assume it is not that large of a phenomenon for a number of reasons.

People who study relationship creation argue for the concept of the “partner market.” Scholars argue that people do what is called “assortative mating,” where they systemically sort potential partners to decide who they can form unions with (Lersch and Schunck, 2023, Pg. 455). Some people engage in assortative mating by examining potential partners’ competitiveness and matching potential (Lersch and Schunck, Pg. 456). This form of assortative mating is called the “partner market.” According to this concept of the partner market, people prefer partners with more resources (competition) and prefer people with similar tastes (matching). People’s opinion on the “marketplace” determines which partners they deem worthy. The partner market can be further broken up into submarkets, which further reduces the number of potential partners. Therefore, people with college degrees are more competitive in the partner market, because they make more money than those without college degrees and will likely not date less competitive candidates. Educated people usually are more left-leaning, meaning that education level also affects value matching (Lersch and Schunck, Pg. 456).

Alongside that, women with college degrees are 12% to 17% more likely to get married than non-college-educated women (Karney, 2020, Pg. 2). Women with college degrees also are 40% less likely to get divorced than women without college degrees. Why is this? Well, the answer is complex. In communities that have more men and fewer women, women can be more selective of partners. This forces men to focus on their career, value long-term commitments, and attempt to meet women’s demands (Karney, Pg. 6). On the flipside, in communities that have more women and fewer men, women have to compete for partners. Men, on the other hand, value their own commitment less and cheat more. Women in these communities have to either risk infidelity or not marry men (Karney, Pg. 6). Societies with more men have higher marriage rates, lower divorce rates, and lower infidelity. Societies with more women have lower marriage rates, higher divorce rates, and higher infidelity. (Remember this when we cover the financial gap!)

In communities with higher socioeconomic statuses, there are more men than women (Karney, Pg. 7). Usually, in these higher socioeconomic communities, people are more educated. To add on, partners meet in three distinct spaces. The public space, where anyone can access. Selective spaces, which are spaces that only certain people who meet a certain criteria or standard can access (think college or workplace). Then there are private spaces, which are spaces created by your social network of friends and family (Karney, Pg. 8). People from diverse backgrounds can meet in the public space, however educated people seem to meet more in the select and private spheres.

The last idea is offered by Valerie Oppenheimer, who argues that life achievements make one’s future clearer (Karney, Pg.10). For example, a high school graduate’s future is unclear. They could go to college, or they could go do something else. Yet, if they go to college, their future becomes slightly more clear. A college student can either pass and graduate or develop negative habits and fail. Once a college student graduates, their future is even more clear. They could move forward and have a successful career or get more education to become an academic/ professor. A college graduate’s future success and possibilities are the most clear. One just has to wait and see what happens to gauge whether someone is a viable partner or not. This could explain why people who delay marriage are more likely to marry educational peers (Karney, Pg. 10). What is implied is that people with education are more willing to wait to see how partners compete in the partner market and quickly realize that their educational peers are better for them.

I show all of this to make the argument that most people do not partner outside of their educational status. I am not sure whether this is good or bad, but it seems evident that education gaps do not really occur. This is not to say that intelligence gaps do not occur. It seems clear that many people are in relationships where one person is clearly smarter than the other. Yet this can happen among educational peers. I graduated from college with people I couldn’t hold a real intellectual conversation with. I have had deep philosophical conversations with people who never went to college. Personally, I would not date anyone not on my educational level for a few reasons. One, I want to be an academic, and, in my experience, only people with master’s degrees, at the least, can fully understand what that life will look like. Yet, not all academics are equally intelligent. I want an educational peer as well as an intellectual companion, and the two are not one and the same.

Financial Gap

The financial gap, sometimes broken up into a wealth gap and an income gap, refers to any gap in economics between people. Usually, you will hear terms like the “racial wealth gap” to refer to an economic gap between races. Yet, on a smaller scale, within relationships, sometimes there is a partner who generates much more money than the other. Sometimes there is a partner who just has more money than the other, not from income but from wealth. People usually do not date outside of their socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status or SES refers to an individual’s overall social standing and access to resources (Karney, Pg. 2).

Why don’t people usually date across SES lines? Well, simple, the partner market! People with a high SES have more access to resources and therefore compete better in the partner market. Also, wealthier people are typically more conservative. Therefore, they are value matches for other wealthy people (Lersch and Schunck, Pg. 456). So financial gaps within relationships are not a real problem among people with a high SES. It is also important to note here that education status is an important aspect of SES. Therefore, all things I stated in the above section about education gaps also apply to SES and the relationships that interact.

Now, within financial brackets, there is still a lot of diversity. For example, wealthy men are much wealthier than women in their same bracket (Lersch and Schunck, Pg. 470). So, wealthier women often date men with slightly less wealth, but still choose well-off men. Middle and lower-class women are often in equal wealth positions to their husbands, within their households (Lersch and Schunck, Pg. 470). This again proves my point that financial gaps do not really occur in relationships. At most, there is some diversity within upper-class relationships, but it appears as wealthy women dating well-off men, not wealthy people dating poor people. So all this talk about wealth gaps, income gaps, and financial gaps does not really matter within a relationship. Yet, they do demonstrate something about our society, as there is a gap between high socioeconomic partnerships and low socioeconomic partnerships.

People only partner within their social boundaries in societies that are rigid and closed off. These rigid societies also have more inequality (Lersch and Schunck, Pg. 455). In societies where people can partner across social boundaries, these societies tend to have less inequality and more social mobility. Therefore, in these societies, the partner market and assortative mating do not really appear, because those are methods of dating born from inequality and class structure. A study done by Philip M. Lersch and Reinhard Schunck showed that the United States has a rigid social structure that leads to assortative mating. They also found that assortative mating increases inequality between households, while decreasing inequality within households. To simplify, in assortative mating societies, people, because of the partner market, choose partners that are similar to them in economic status to benefit themselves. Yet, the downside of the partner market is that poor people are forced to partner with less competitive people, because they themselves are less viable partners in the partner marketplace.

This causes countries like the United States to have two types of socioeconomic intimate relationships: intimate relationships with a high SES and intimate relationships with a low SES. People with a low SES enter relationships faster, have sex earlier in a relationship, and cohabitate earlier than their high SES counterparts. Despite this, people with low SES marry at lower rates. Why? Well, as I stated in the education gap section, communities with more women and fewer men have certain complications, such as lower marriage rates, higher infidelity, and higher divorce rates. Men in these communities are less likely to commit. I also stated in the education gap section that communities with a higher socioeconomic status (SES) have more men than women. Well, the reverse is also true. Communities with lower SES have more women than men. This is why most people with low SES are less likely to marry (Karney, Pg. 8). As most men are not competitive partners in the partner marketplace, and the men in low SES communities who can support a family are less likely to commit, because they have many women competing for them (Karney, Pg. 10).

People in high SES intimate relationships do not have to worry about the same things. They do not rush into relationships like those from lower Socioeconomic backgrounds. This is because they, again, as Valerie Oppenheimer suggests, have the ability to wait to see how potential partners develop in the marketplace. People with a higher SES also have less stress when it comes to bills and health concerns. These people have greater access to and receive greater help from couples therapy (Karney, Pg. 13). People who struggle to pay bills are more likely to become hostile. Men in poor communities also struggle with mass incarceration and unemployment which affects their ability to contribute to the household at an equal rate to their partner (Karney, Pg. 10). This is terrible because people across SES desire partners who can economically contribute equally, or greater, to the household (Karney, Pg. 9). This is why, as unemployment rates rise … marriage rates fall (Karney, Pg. 11). The same stressors that irritate couples with a high SES can destroy couples with a low SES (Karney, Pg. 12).

Couples from all economic backgrounds report relationship struggles in regard to being good parents, having good communication, having sex, doing household chores, spousal parents, and spending time together. Yet, couples specifically with a lower SES report extra struggles such as money problems, substance abuse, infidelity, and conflicts over friends (Karney, Pg. 11). Gender also plays a role in this. 70% of low-income wives make more than their husbands. Only 34% higher income wives make more than their husbands (Karney, Pg. 17). Poor couples are also more likely to stay together in unsatisfying relationships for financial reasons (Karney, Pg. 15). When divorce does happen, couples with a high SES report communication, lack of love, incompatibility, and personal differences as reasons. While divorcing couples with a low SES report physical abuse, substance abuse, and failure to contribute to the household as reasons (Karney, Pg. 17).

I went over all of this to first demonstrate that there is no commonly seen financial gap within relationships. There is, however, a large financial gap between relationships. This gap widens as economic inequality increases! And why does economic inequality increase? The answer is Capitalism! Karl Marx’s theory of alienation argues that, eventually, capitalism leads humans to believe that every aspect of human life is competitive. You stop viewing other people as people, but instead view them as competitors.

Marx argues that under capitalism, everyone knows the system sucks, but they convince themselves that the system will protect them and only hurt others. In the context of relationships, we see this play out. Everyone assumes that if they play “the game,” they can get the “good degree” and then get the “good job.” Part of playing this “game” is dating the “right person.” Not a person whom you actually love, but a person who is a good competitor in the game of Capitalism. Did anyone question why scholars were calling it the “partner market”? The answer is that people judge relationships in the context of personal benefit and survival under Capitalism. If you have the money and resources to take care of yourself (i.e., you have a high SES), you can date for love. Yet, most people do not have a high SES. Most of the world has a lower socioeconomic status. Therefore, some people with a low SES do not date for love. They date for resources. And the people with a low SES who do date for love end up under extreme pressure due to a lack of resources, which destroys their relationship. So, many people engage in assortative mating and dating for resources. This only furthers the problem because, as stated earlier, in rigid societies with a lot of inequality, these assortative partnerships form. These assortative relationships further the divide between classes, because no wealthy person will date a poorer person at the cost of their economic status.

Intelligence/ Knowledge Gap

The intelligence gap, which is different from the education gap, is when one partner is more all around knowledgeable than the other. I have no scholarly research on this, but I do have opinions! One, I think people should date people they are intellectually compatible with. This is not to say that I believe people should only date people with their same level of intelligence (even though that is the way I usually date). What I really mean is that people should date someone whose intelligence does not conflict with their own. The psychologist Howard Gardner outlined 8 types of intelligence as follows:

1. 1. Spatial Intelligence- You easily understand visual content.

2. 2. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence- You easily understand by doing or moving your body.

3. 3. Musical Intelligence- You easily understand patterns of sound.

4. 4. Linguistic Intelligence- You can easily communicate and understand ideas.

5. 5. Logical-Mathematical Intelligence- You can easily understand puzzles and problems.

6. 6. Interpersonal Intelligence- You can easily understand other people.

7. 7. Intrapersonal Intelligence- You can easily understand yourself.

8. 8. Naturalistic Intelligence- You can easily understand nature and natural patterns.

I do not fully agree with how Gardner breaks up intelligence. For example, he basically breaks up what many would call Emotional Intelligence into two categories: Interpersonal and intrapersonal Intelligence. However, it is a good starting framework for understanding intelligence. There are not smart people and dumb people in the world. People’s intellectual abilities are simply different. You are going to drive yourself crazy trying to date someone as “smart” as you, because there is no guarantee that a “smart” person has emotional intelligence.

Therefore, to reiterate, I argue that we need to look for places where we are intellectually compatible with others. You may have high spatial intelligence. It may be a skill you have honed as an artist, architect, or engineer, but your partner could have a low level of spatial intelligence and a high level of linguistic intelligence. This does not mean you two are incompatible. You would just either have to find the place where you are intellectually compatible, for example, the two people in my example could both have compatible naturalistic intelligence. Or you and your partner must be willing to learn and grow in each other’s dominant area of intelligence. The spatial genius must be willing to learn from the linguistic genius and vice versa!

Now, do not take this and use this to justify dating certain types of people. You must have an intellectual standard in your dating life. For example, if you are a progressive person, you should not be willing to date a racist because you both have great spatial intelligence. This is where my radical leftist sentiments come out. There are forms of social intelligence not mentioned above. I would argue that cultural intelligence and moral intelligence are real things that can negatively impact relationships. If you are a Black person dating someone outside of your race who has low cultural intelligence, that relationship probably will not be healthy. If you are a woman dating a man with low moral intelligence, that relationship probably will not be healthy. You should date people who share a lot of your values. Values are often derived from education and/or development in one of these intellectual forms. For example, someone with a high naturalistic and linguistic intelligence may end up valuing veganism. This person may have problems dating an athlete who has a high bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. Someone who likely grew up eating a lot of meat to gain the right amount of muscle to compete in his sport. The way people grow in their field of intelligence can put them at odds in terms of their values and lifestyles. So, to reiterate again, it is not about dating your intellectual peers but dating people you are intellectually compatible with!

Pseudo-Relationship Gaps.

Restaurant Gaps

New York Times contributor Luke Fortney defined the “Restaurant Gap” as a “misalignment in tastes, spending habits, and culinary curiosity.” It is basically when people do not have the same taste palette, eating habits, or restaurant preferences. It was Luke Fortney’s article on the restaurant gap that made me want to write this article, because my immediate reaction was, “That’s dumb!” Although after some thought, I understand aspects of this. I don’t know if I could really date someone who only wants to eat TV dinners. I don’t know if I could date a picky eater. I love eating and going to new restaurants. I love trying new foods! It is a large part of my lifestyle, and it would be hard to date someone who hates eating out or only wants McDonald’s. I understand why this could be an issue for people, but I would assume you can work around it.

Although I could see how differences in taste and eating patterns could affect a relationship. Can a vegan date a meat-eater? Well, the answer is likely yes, but as I stated in the section on the intelligence gap, what values lead one to veganism and lead the other to meat-eating? Then, from a cultural standpoint, I could also see the restaurant gap being an issue. As I have stated many times in this article, I am Black. I love Black Southern cuisine. I even love foods people hate, like coleslaw and chitlins (not together). I could not date someone who would complain about the seasoning in the food I cook.

Restaurants are often places where dates happen. Food is often the focal point of many dates. So, there is a possible importance in being compatible in taste. And when a relationship goes further to cohabitation or marriage, you will be eating together often. Some couples have so mismatched tastes that they cook separately and eat together. The restaurant gap is a larger idea to be explored.

The Fashion/ Swag Gap

The fashion gap, known on TikTok as the “Swag gap,” is when someone in a relationship dresses better than the other or is cooler than the other. I feel like this is a larger problem for women than men. I do feel like many beautiful and well-dressed women date men who dress like Adam Sandler. Clothes, aesthetics, and accessories add depth to your personality, but it is important to never mistake them for personality. Someone who dresses nicely can be boring. Someone who dresses like Adam Sandler could be … Adam Sandler.

But I definitely still understand this. I have piercings, I wear makeup, and I like to be very flashy. I do this because I love compliments from strangers, so I like to stand out. I love being with other people who like to stand out, but I do not have to be with people like that to have fun. What I cannot do is be with someone who hates the way I dress or dislikes what I do with my body. I also understand having someone who matches your vibe. For example, I used to have locs, and I had beads and shells in my hair to make my locs stand out. At various times, I would attract very earthy women who loved nature and wearing flowery skirts. My vibe/aesthetic and their vibe/aesthetic matched. And hanging out with those women was nice. Yet, hanging out with people who didn’t match my vibe/aesthetic was also fine.

I think if you love someone, you will love their style of dress, because it is a reflection of them. Dating is not a performance, and some of this conversation feels like an attempt to focus on how your relationship looks to others. Although I understand that straight Women often have partners who dress terribly. Women put a lot of time and effort into their looks, and it sucks to go out on the town with a man who didn’t do anything. There is a difference between your style reflecting your personality and your style reflecting carelessness. I also understand that many people love it when their partner dresses in certain ways. It can make your partner more attractive to wear a certain style or article of clothing. I think that is a conversation to discuss within the partnership. Yet, the goal should not be to overhaul their style.

The AI Gap

Alright, welcome to what feels like the beginning of the end of our society. AI gaps are what they sound like. It is when people in a relationship use and value Artificial Intelligence in different ways. Now this one I understand entirely. I hate generative AI and would not date someone who uses it often. Generative AI refers to technology that attempts to generate content, information, or answers by pulling from a large database or dataset called “machine learning models”. I have no problem with things like text-to-speech readers, Siri, or Grammarly. Which leads to my next problem. Artificial Intelligence is not real! AI is a marketing term that plays off science fiction tropes to get people to believe that it is both intelligent (which it is not) and inevitable (which it is not).

As Kayla Kibbe states in her Cosmopolitan article, beliefs about AI are representative of a large ideological position. Some relationship experts and scholars encourage people to be honest, open, and empathetic when discussing AI use in relationships. Yet, I think it is okay for it to be a deal breaker for many people. AI has negative impacts on the environment, society, education, the government, and more. My problems with AI are intellectual, philosophical, environmental, and sociological. I think the AI fad is proof that these Silicon Valley tech companies can lie about “world-changing” products, and people will buy them without critical analysis. I believe these AI companies can only exist in late-stage capitalism, where corporations are seeking a way to control the population on a massive scale. I could not date someone who believes AI is the “future.” That would be a clear misalignment of values that I would not be willing to work through.

Bedtime Gap

Ok, so the concept of the “bedtime gap” was tweeted out likely as a joke, but people in the Twitter comments were talking about it like it was an issue. The implication is that it refers to differences in sleep schedule. I do not believe that this is a real problem amongst adults. People’s bodies and schedules are different, which causes them to go to sleep at different times. Night owls can still date early birds. The relationship dynamic would just have to be molded to meet the needs of both. Maybe you just don’t fall asleep at the same time. Maybe the early bird makes breakfast while the night owl does minor chores when the other is sleeping. This is just a dynamic that needs to be figured out. It likely does not cause problems in a relationship by itself.

Follower Gap

This was also likely tweeted out as a joke. I am only mentioning it because the New York Times article that inspired me to write this essay mentioned it. The follower gap implies that in a relationship, one person may have many more social media followers than the other. I can see why this could cause problems. For example, if someone has 100,000 followers, this means there are a number of people interested in their content. Yet on the internet, there are people who become obsessive or parasocial followers. Parasocial refers to a one-sided, obsessive relationship a fan has with whoever they are a fan of. Parasocial people can become dangerous. Also, some people “hate-follow” social media accounts. Meaning they follow people they hate just to comment mean things on their posts.

I could see a person with very few followers struggling to understand the concerns of their partner, who has a lot of followers. Especially if someone is dating a YouTuber, Instagram model, or Internet Celebrity. People will comment very disgusting, disturbing, rude, or nasty things about people in their comment section. This can be a lot for social media influencers and content creators to handle. It is also likely hard to understand that reality unless you are living it. Other than that, I think the follower gap is just a joke concept!

Conclusion and Reflection

Thank you for reading this essay! This took weeks to work on, but it was very fulfilling. I did a lot of self-reflection about my own desires and approach to relationships while working on this. If it is not clear, relationships are complicated. They can manifest and operate in very different ways and have very unique problems. Yet, at the same time, people on the internet take personal problems and try to make them universal issues. I do believe we should critically analyze our relationships. We should look for the “gaps” in our relationships. We should not do it to make a think-piece on the internet, but to think through why your relationship works. To think through yourself and your partner as individuals who have learned to work together. To acknowledge the unique struggles your relationship may face due to small areas of distance between you and someone else.

Typically, in this series, Meditations on Love, I have a series of reflective questions at the end, and I am going to do the same here. (Note: This is a personal activity. Do not feel pressure to comment your answers or answer all the questions. If doing this activity generates new questions in yourself, I encourage everyone to be curious and explore your feelings, opinions, and further questions this activity may generate.)

Reflection Questions:

1. 1. Is there a “gap” of some kind in your relationship?

2. 2. Did this discussion make you think about previous partners? If so, why?

3. 3. If you were in any of these gap relationships, what would you do to keep the relationship healthy and functional?

4. 4. Are there any “gaps” in relationships that you believe exist that are not talked about?

5. 5. What minor habits are you willing to put up with in a relationship? What minor habits are you not willing to put up with?

Bonus Philosophical Question For Those Who Want It: Some of these gaps are cultural, social, and economic. If we lived in a more equal and equitable society, would things like wealth gaps or orgasm gaps exist?

The Advanced Experience

Buy Me A Coffee

Sources, Resources, and Citations

Downie, Amanda, and Teaganne Finn. “Agentic AI vs. Generative AI.” IBM. No Publishing Date.

Fortney, Luke. “Are You In a Relationship Gap Relationship?” New York Times. Published April 3, 2026.

Goh, Amanda. “Tracee Ellis Ross, 52, on why she dates younger men: ‘A lot of men my age are steeped in toxic masculinity.’” Business Insider. Published April 20, 2025.

Karney, Benjamin R. “Socioeconomic Status and Intimate Relationships.” Annual Review of Psychology 72 (2020): 391-414.

Kibbe, Kayla. “‘AI Gap Relationships’ Have Entered The Chat.” Cosmopolitan. Published February 10, 2026.

Lersch, Philipp M, and Reinhard Schunck. “Assortative Mating and Wealth Inequalities Between and Within Households.” Social Forces 102, no. 2 (2023): 454–474.

Marenus, Michele. “Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligence.” SimplyPsychology. Published 26, 2025.

Marx, Karl. “The Working Day (1867).” Critical Theory: A Reader for Literary and Cultural Studies. Edited by Robert Dale Parker. Oxford University Press, 2012. Pages 388-394.

Mehta, Kumar. “A Havard Psychology Says Humans Have 8 Types of Intelligence. Which One Do You Scare The Highest In?” CNBC. Published March 10, 2021.

Scolpino, Derek, and Howard Steele. “Age-Gap Relationship Stigma.” New School Psychology Bulletin 21, no. 1, (2024): 47-64.

Smith, Serena. “Are You In an Intelligence-Gap Relationship?” Dazed. Published September 5, 2025.

Thomas, Marilyn, Samantha Banbury, Joanne Lusher, and Chris Chandler. “Age-Hypogamy, Emotional Intelligence, Sexual Self-Efficacy, and Subjective Happiness Association.” Sexual & Relationship Therapy 39, no. 4, (2024): 1360-1371.

Christmas, June Jackson, Elizabeth B. Connell, et al. Everywoman’s Health: The Guide to Body and Mind. Revised Edition. Edited by Douglass S. Thompson. Illustrated by Leonard D. Dank. Doubleday & Company Inc., 1980.

Tsar, Elka, and Dewi H. Susilastuti. “The Evolution of Public Reactions on Celebrity Grooming Relationships: An Analysis of Billie Eilish and Taylor Swift.” Rubikon: Journal of Transnational American Studies 11, no. 2 (2024): 229–50.

Tuijl, Piet Van. “A Reversed Orgasm Gap? Gender Differences in Orgasm Frequency During Heterosexual Partner Sex.” Sexes 7, no. 1 (2026): 1-15.

Wetzel, Grace M., Diana T. Sanchez, Amanda N. Gesselman, Olivia R. Adams, Jessica T. Campbell, and Justin R. Garcia. “Exploring the Orgasm Gap Across Racial/Ethnic Groups: A Descriptive Analysis.” Journal of Sex Research 62, no. 5 (2025): 683–692.

I noticed this one morning during my walk. I had spotted a morning dove, but in my early morning haze … I thought it was a pigeon. But as I observed it closer, I realized that it was not a pigeon but a dove. It was then that I decided to look up why pigeons and doves look alike, only to learn they are members of the same bird family. A bird family (Columbidae) that only consisted of pigeons and doves. Larger members of the family are usually called pigeons, and smaller ones are usually called doves, although there is no scientific distinction between the two.

The difference between the two creatures is deeply arbitrary. But the difference between many things is deeply arbitrary. There are a plethora of instances where two things that are fundamentally the same are viewed differently. Sometimes this appears in a cultural context. For example, chitterlings (chitlins) and tripe are fundamentally the same food. They are both animal intestines, but they come from vastly different cultures. Does the culture of the various foods distinguish and define their difference? Culture, and to a larger extent society, is a human invention. Therefore, if the difference between chitterlings and tripe is social, then that would mean that humans are the arbiter of definitions.

And if humans are the arbiter of definitions, then to a certain extent, we control what can be perceived as definitively true. Despite pigeons and doves being fundamentally the same animal, if I were to call a pigeon a dove, someone would correct me. But they would be wrong … and right at the same time. Pigeons are not doves, but yet they are doves. Two contradictory positions end up both being correct, simply because human definition and human empiricism (sensory experience) both determine truth in different ways. Through the empirical nature of science, we know that pigeons and doves are the same thing. Despite this, through the human categorization of truth through definition … we have also made it true that pigeons are not doves. Again, two fundamentally opposed truths, sitting beside each other, neither fully canceling the other out.

Now, I am sure for a lot of you, this may have been a little confusing. I just engaged in a few distinct subfields of philosophy. I am going to try to go over two of the topically related subfields for us to explore.

Epistemology

The first is Epistemology, the philosophical study of knowledge. Epistemology encourages us to ask, “Can humans reach the truth, and if so, how?” Epistemology breaks down further into many categories. One of these smaller categories is empiricism, which holds that truth can be obtained through sensory data. In layman’s terms, truth can be gathered through our senses of touch, taste, sight, hearing, etc. Empiricism is the foundation of science and the scientific method. Then there is rationalism, the philosophical opposite of empiricism. Rationalism holds that truth can be obtained through reason (logic). Reason is the only way to access truth, not sensory data. To give an extreme example, one that all rationalists would not agree with, a rationalist may argue that even if you were only a conscious mind in an empty void of nothingness, you could still figure out the truth. It does not matter that this mind cannot see, hear, taste, or touch … the mind can think, and that is all that is required. To give more concrete examples. An empiricist might say that we know there is no difference between pigeons and doves because our sensory data, through science, tells us such. A rationalist might say that pigeons and doves are different because the way the brain defines one is different from the way in which the brain defines the other.

Despite their differences, both rationalists and empiricists would argue that truth is in some ways accessible. This is not a position held by skeptics. Epistemological skeptics always question how available truth is to humans. They will point to the flaws in language, culture, our senses, and our brains. A skeptic may argue that it is pointless to try to determine the difference between doves and pigeons, because you can never accurately define anything. Because to define a pigeon or a dove, one must define a bird. To define a bird, one must define an animal. To define an animal, one must define what it means to be alive. To define what it means to be alive, one must define what it means to exist. To define existence, one must explain existence. To explain existence, one must hypothesize as to why anything exists at all. Skeptics often focus on the fact that all “truths” are rooted in previously established “truths.” And if you follow this “chain of truth,” you will realize that there are multiple versions of the following possibilities. There is no beginning to the chain of truth, just an endless chain of indefinable positions. Or you will realize that the foundation, “the first truth”, is not a definitive truth at all but some type of assumption, guess, or hypothesis. Or you will realize that all truths and beliefs require a web of other unprovable truths and beliefs to exist. These are the foundationalist, coherentist, and infinitist schools of epistemology, to which the skeptics deny all of them. (See picture below for visual assistance!) Typically, skeptics will state that the belief that truth even exists is an unprovable assumption.

The last major epistemological framework that is important to discuss is the social constructionist school. These theorists argue that our understanding of truth is conditioned by our social and cultural reality. These people would argue that what humans perceive and understand to be “true” comes from our society and culture. Therefore, they would argue that it is functionally true that pigeons and doves are different because our society has defined them, described them, labeled them, and viewed them as different. The social constructionist group would argue that the fact that doves are seen as signs of beauty while pigeons are seen as disgusting is proof that our understanding of truth is molded by our society. Many of you would say that there is a good reason for that. Pigeons crowd cities and make them dirty, while doves do not. … Little do you know, rock doves or rock pigeons (pictured below) are not native to North America. They were brought over from Europe as pets and were trained to live in cities. … So your understanding of them as natural pests, unlike doves, is in fact socially constructed both literally and psychologically. As Hans-Georg Gadamer argues, our cultural prejudices (pre-judgements) and traditions stop us from understanding reality as it exists.

The Philosophy of Language

I also engaged in some techniques from the philosophy of language subfield. Language is defined by humans. However, humans also use language to define other things. Then we use those other things to further define language. … I hope you all see the clear issue. … Language is deeply flawed at truly describing anything, because it is invented by humans.

Not to get too far in the philosophical weeds, but we use words to signify objects. The letters D-O-V-E signify to your brain an image of a small bird from the Columbidae family. Despite this, you know the letters D-O-V-E, while representative of the animal known as a dove, you understand that these four letters themselves are not a dove. The word dove is simply a signifier for the signified (the image of the dove itself). This is a philosophical concept called semiotics, founded by philosopher of language Ferdinand de Saussure. Semiotics is foundational for modern linguistic theory. Semiotics holds that words are signs that point to (signify) objects, concepts, and images (signifieds) through a process called signification. For Saussure, language is a system of signs (words/ sounds) that represent ideas and objects. He argues that each sign is different from all other signs.

It is this point that gets Saussure into trouble. … Enter the philosopher Jacques Derrida. Derrida argues that signifieds can become signifiers. In other words, objects, concepts, and images (signifieds) can themselves signify other concepts, objects, and images. For example, let us say we went on a walk together, and I saw a Morning Dove, pointed, and said, “Hey, look at that dove.” The word dove is being used to signify the bird in front of us. Then we continued walking and encountered a Blue Jay, and I then said, “Hey, look at that bird.” This turns the signified of the last statement (“ bird”) into a signifier itself for the Blue Jay. Therefore, the process of signification is “arbitrary and conventional” (Bressler, Pg. 109). The difference between the image of a dove, the word dove, the word bird, and the image of a bird is not as static as we may think.

Derrida argues that this leads to a fundamental problem for understanding truth. If all words signify other words and are also signifieds themselves, then there needs to be a foundational truth that cannot be turned into a signified. Derrida calls this the “transcendental signified.” A thing whose meaning can only exist in itself. And if there is something that exists and can define itself, then all other things can be defined in contrast to this thing. Derrida argues that this is the goal of most Western philosophy. The goal is to find the transcendental signified.

To do this, Derrida argues that we engage in “logocentrism.” Logocentrism is the attempt to create, or find, something to center all truth. He states these are things like God, essence, reason, or truth itself. Once we center these things, we use them to define other things through Aristotle’s principle of non-contradiction. This principle states that two contradictory things cannot both be true at the same time in the same way. For example, pigeons and doves cannot both be fundamentally the same thing and also fundamentally different. One of those statements has to be true, and the other has to be false, at least according to Aristotle. However, Derrida critiques this formation of “binary oppositions.”

Derrida takes this point to its logical progression. The law of non-contradiction applies to all types of signs, not just concepts. The law of non-contradiction would argue that a person’s race cannot be both white and non-white. Therefore, both White people and non-White people must both exist separately. This is called a binary opposition, or a pair of ideas set as opposing centers of truth. Derrida argues that when you create binary oppositions, or opposing contradictions, to determine truth, you are also forced to view these oppositions unevenly. What Derrida means is that if a person cannot be both white and non-white, they are forced to determine which is true. To do that, you must define them and determine that one opposition is the superior definition regarding that thing.

Continuing with the example, let us say that we are looking at a person. Remember, one cannot be white and not-white. Therefore, the person must fit better into one of these definitions. Let us say that this person has pale skin, blonde hair, and green eyes. Using our binary opposition, we can quickly determine that they meet the definition of a white person and not the definition of a non-white person. Therefore, “white person” becomes the “superior” definition in this case. But Derrida would ask us, “Where did we get the definitions of White and Non-White from?” The answer is our cultural background. This cultural background has already decided the superior and inferior definition! As the superior opposition (White) has to define itself against the inferior opposition (Non-White) to be a true definition. Or in layman’s terms, our society has defined White people by what they are not… that is to say, all other types of people. Therefore, the term “White” is in a privileged position over the term “Non-White” because White defines itself by signifying difference from Non-White.

This is the flaw of language that Derrida points out. Whenever we define things, we define them by what they are not. In doing so, we create binary oppositions, and all binary oppositions privilege one sign above the other. In the case of pigeons and doves. Pigeons and Doves create a binary opposition in which the dove is privileged over the pigeon. Doves are basically socially defined as any Columbidae bird that is not a pigeon, while pigeons, in contrast, are defined as Columbidae not good enough to be doves. … Now let us again move away from pigeons and doves and think about social binary oppositions: Man/ Woman, White/ Black, Adult/ Child, Human/ Animal, Soul/ Body, or Good/ Bad. All of the first terms I listed in these binary oppositions are often defined as being non-the secondary term. Man is non-woman. White is non-Black. Adults are non-children. So on and so forth.

Yet, Derrida encourages us to break binary oppositions and therefore our cultural prejudices by flipping the opposition. We must ask, “Is a woman truly non-man?” “Is Black truly non-White?” If the answer is yes, then how and why? We must switch the privileged sign with the unprivileged sign to understand the bias in our “truths.” And once we do that, we can question what we hold to be our transcendental signified. That is Derrida’s argument.

Conclusion

With all of that complex philosophical gunk done … I want to ask, what is the real difference between a pigeon and a dove? How did you get your answer? Were you an empiricist, a rationalist, a skeptic, or a social constructionist? Did you flip the binary opposition between pigeon and dove? Did you ask, “Is a pigeon truly non-dove?”

I have wanted to write this essay for months, but it never would come out the way I wanted it to. I wanted to explore the complex nature of truth and understanding. I wanted to expose our hidden biases in places that we did not even know were there. Yet, ultimately, I wanted to use doves and pigeons to explore how we as a society understand each other and the world around us. … We assume that our understandings of the world are inherently true because we only know what we have experienced, thought about, and been taught. Yet, there is a world beyond our individual egos that questions what our egos hold to be true. These egos have been forged by culture, society, tradition, and biased perception. It is our job as humans in the current era to explore those questions, check our egos, and move toward true understanding!

Now, please use the following sites to look at doves and pigeons!

1. CornellLab

2. FatBirder

3. Oiseaux Birds

The Advanced Experience

Buy Me A Coffee

Sources, Resources, and Citations

Bressler, Charles E. Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. Fifth edition. Longman, 2011.

Garber, Daniel. “Rationalism.” The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pages 771-772.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. “Course in General Linguistics (1916).” Critical Theory: A Reader for Literary and Cultural Studies. Edited by Robert Dale Parker. Oxford University Press, 2012. Pages 37-48.

Lipstick on the Mirror (Affirmations):

I love women. I love Black women. I love Asian women. I love Latine Women. I love Indigenous women. I love women in STEM. I love women in the arts. I love lesbians. I love Queer women. I love trans women. I love Asexual women. I love hijabi women. I love religious women. I love spiritual women. I love revolutionary women.

I love women’s art. I love women’s inventions. I love women’s aesthetics. I love books written by women. I love music made by women. I love movies made by women. I love philosophies crafted by women. I love my girl best friends.

Foundation (Introduction):

Honestly, I am not sure how to write this. Womanhood is a unique and sacred experience that I have not gone through. Despite this, I felt like it was imperative for me to write an essay for Women’s History Month. It only makes sense as a woman gave birth to me and raised me. I have an older sister and a younger sister. I have a young niece. I have aunts. I have three grandmothers who each took a part in raising me in different ways. As Tupac once said, “We all came from a woman. Got our name from a woman and our game from a woman.” So it is important to have an essay focused on women and liberation.

Vision Board (Quotes):

Handbag (The bulk of the Essay):

In preparation for this essay, I read Hélène Cixous’ essay The Laugh of the Medusa. Cixous is a French psychoanalytic feminist philosopher and writer. In this essay, Cixous argues for the concept of “l’écriture feminine” or “women’s writing.” This concept holds that women should write about women and try their best to deviate from male-centered forms of writing/ expression. What Cixous means is simple. Men have been the dominant force in literature, art, and written content. In this male-dominant content, women are presented either as an object that exists to make men whole or an object that exists to destroy men. Essentially, men create two types of women in their minds, stories, and art. A woman, likely a mother, daughter, or wife, who exists only to help, take care of, or assist men. Or they, men, create a monstrous or evil woman who, in their mind, only exists to be adversarial to men. Cixous uses the Medusa from Greek Mythology to represent this second type of woman.

Cixous critiques this idea of women. Pointing out that Medusa can only be a dangerous villain in a man’s story. The goal of the story of Medusa is to imply that a woman’s beauty, or implied sexuality, can turn a man to stone. Therefore, men depict this free and beautiful woman as monstrous and evil. Therefore, I want to reflect on the first quote of Cixous that I presented. Cixous argues that many men want women to have what she calls “antinarcissism” in exchange for their “antilove.” Antinarcissism refers to the desire for women to only ever love, think about, and focus on men. Antilove refers to the idea that many men do not love women. They love that women love them. Therefore, many men’s idea of love is not rooted in love, it’s rooted in narcissism. Through this, many men force women to play the role of the “antinarcissist,” or a person whose whole existence is to support a narcissist. Cixous point is that this cannot be called love. It is the opposite, “antilove.”

Therefore, Cixous argues that women must decide their own fate. Women must understand that they are in control of their bodies, minds, souls, and desires. They do not have to simply fulfill men. Nor do women have to support the male desire to dominate or control things. Women must learn how to “fly.” That is to say that women must learn how to be free as birds. For it is through the freedom of women that we all can be liberated.

Setting Spray (Ending):

My audience is full of different types of people. Some of you likely deeply related to and enjoyed Cixous’ analysis. Others of you likely deeply objected to this analysis. Others of you may have questioned whether Cixous analysis can be applied to all men or just White men. (Interestingly enough, Cixous, throughout the essay, constantly compares women as a whole to Black people. The question for me the whole time was, “If women are equally oppressed as Black people … what does that mean for Black women?”) Honestly, the French feminist movements has its limits.

Despite this, Cixous’ words are very powerful. Many men do not love women. They want to love themselves through women. They craft stories and ideas of women that either justify their pseudo-narcissism or they demonize women who themselves want to be empowered. This is because an empowered woman will not aid a man’s narcissism or love of self. I think all men reading this essay should ask themselves honestly, “How do I view women?” Any women reading this will likely have their own takeaways, and it is best that I, as a non-woman, don’t tell women what they should take away with them.

Sweet Treat (A Sweet Prayer):

I pray for the liberation of women locally and globally.

I pray that one day we can see a world where Women and Men are truly equal.

I pray that one day we will all be freed from patriarchy and patriarchal thinking.

I pray that women are able to one day live in their full truth.

I pray that people will recognize women as more than their mothers, wives, girlfriends, and daughters, but as people with full lives,

I pray for the end of any and all forms of violence women experience on a day-to-day basis.

I pray that one day liberation will come for all people.

I pray that one day all the people of the Earth can be united regardless of identity.

I pray that this mythical one day … is tomorrow!

The Advanced Experience

Sources, Resources, and Further Readings

Cixous, Hélène. “The Laugh of The Medusa (1975).” Critical Theory: A Reader For Literary and Cultural Studies. Edited by Robert Dale Parker. Translated by Paula Cohen and Keith Cohen. Oxford University Press, 2012.

Davis, Angela. Women, Race, and Class. Vintage Books, 1983.

hooks, bell. Ain’t I A Woman: Black Women and Feminism. Routledge, 2014.

hooks, bell. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. South End Press, 1984.

Tupac. “Keep Your Head Up.” Strictly 4 My N.I.G.G.A.Z… Released October 28, 1993.

“Let’s take a long walk around the park after dark
Find a spot for us to spark
Conversation, verbal elation, stimulation
Share our situation, temptation, education, relaxation
Elevation, maybe we can talk about Revelation 3:17.” -Jill Scott in A Long Walk

It is during these slow moments that you can do what Jill Scott mentions … talk about your dreams, desires, secrets, struggles, and beliefs. It is these slow moments where intimacy is built. Those moments where you are sparking conversation, verbal elation, and stimulation. Those moments where you are sharing your situation, temptations, and education. Those moments where love creates relaxation and a feeling of elevation are what create intimacy.

The little things in life matter. The little things in our life are how we show and display our love. The author Zadie Smith once said, “Time is how you spend your love.” To me, this embodies what I am talking about. Those little things in life that you spend time doing show what you care about, value, and love. Similarly, the little things in relationships are what build intimacy and love among people. This is not just in terms of romantic relationships but all social relationships. It is the simple things, such as a mother buying her children chocolate for Valentine’s Day. Or a neighbor shoveling your driveway after finishing their own. It is the simple little things. It is asking how people’s day went. It is sending a short text letting people know you are thinking about them. It is checking on people when you know they are going through a rough time. Love is full of those little actions. This is the point of Jill Scott’s song.

“Or maybe we can see a movie
Or maybe we can see a play on Saturday
Or maybe we can roll a tree and feel the breeze
And listen to a symphony
Or maybe chill and just be, or maybe
Maybe we can take a cruise and listen to The Roots
Or maybe eat some passionfruit
Or maybe cry to the blues
Or maybe we could just be silent.” -Jill Scott in A Long Walk

This is the bridge of the song. Here, Jill Scott offers up a number of things to do with this person she loves. They are all little simple things. Some are simple actions such as seeing a movie, a play, listening to music, or eating food. Some are simple emotional moments, such as crying together or feeling the breeze. But it is the last line that has always sat with me. Jill Scott states that “or maybe we could just be silent.” I love this line because it shows even the action of sitting in silence together, enjoying each other’s presence, is a small action of love. Love is simple. It can require action, but it does not have to. It can require conversation, but can also be silent. It can be going to events or going on a walk. Love is broad because love is not about what you do. Love is about connection.

Just as I did in the first installment of this series, I am going to ask questions to prompt us to reflect on ourselves and our lives. (Note: This is a personal activity. Do not feel pressure to comment your answers or answer all the questions. And if doing this activity generates new questions in yourself, I encourage everyone to be curious and explore your feelings, opinions, and further questions this activity may generate.)

Reflection Questions:

1. What is something simple you have done for a loved one recently?

2. What is something simple a loved one has done for you recently?

3. When was the last time you took a long walk or felt the breeze with another person?

4. Have you ever enjoyed the presence of another person so much that you did not even notice you were sitting in silence?

5. In what ways does your time management reflect what you value, love, and care about?

6. What simple things do you love to do for yourself?

7. What simple things do you love to do for your community?

8. What simple things make you feel loved?

I hope these questions prompt deep reflection for both you, the audience, and me, the writer! Love is complex and multifaceted. That is why I started this series. I wanted to take a deep look at the complex nature of love and reflect on love as much as I can. I hope you can join me in the next installment of Meditations on Love.

The Advanced Experience

More In This Series

Sources, Resources, and Further Readings/ Listenings

Scott, Jill. To Whom This May Concern. Released February 13, 2026.

Scott, Jill. “A Long Walk.” Who is Jill Scott? Words and Sounds Vol. 1. Produced by Dre & Vidal. Released January 16, 2000.

Smith, Zadie. Intimations. Penguin Books, 2020.

“Zadie Smith Quotes.” Goodreads.

The Deviled Eggs (Black Affirmations):

I love Black women. I love Black men. I love Black children. I love Black musicians. I love Black artists. I love Black Gays. I love Black lesbians. I love Black Christians. I love Black Muslims. I love Black spiritualists. I love Black farmers. I love Black city folk. I love Black people.

I love Black music. I love Black art. I love Black movies. I love Black history. I love black books. I love Black poetry. I love Black events. I love Black plays. I love Black hair. I love Black fashion. I love Black skin. I love Black lips. I love Black revolutionaries. I love Black inventions.

Oh, how I love my people and the culture we have strung together!
Oh, how I love the African Diaspora!
Oh, how I love being an African American!
In every lifetime, whether on Earth or in Heaven, make me a Black American!

The Potato Salad (The Introduction):

I’m not really sure how to describe being Black to non-Black people. … Nor do I plan to. It seems to me that in this day and age, Black history has mostly become a tool used to do a handful of things that are not liberatory. People use Black history to explain Blackness to White people. While others use Black history to purely create narratives around Black businesses and entrepreneurship. Then some use a very skewed and mangled version of Black history that they read on Facebook to argue nonsense at the Barber Shop. All of these, in my opinion, are misunderstandings of Black history. Black history is about liberation. It is not about explanation, capitalism, or argumentation. So that is what I want to focus on this Black History Month! I want to focus on Liberation! So, in this essay, I will reflect on Liberation. To do this, I want to present a quote.

The Mac & Cheese (Quote):

The Ribs (The Meat of the Essay):

The rapper Malice, from the rap duo Clipse, says the above line in the 2002 song Virginia. Malice and his brother, Pusha T, are a rap duo from Virginia, and for the most part, the song is about their experience being drug dealers in Virginia Beach. Despite some aspects of his past, Malice has always been very insightful. To me, this quote is one of the most insightful lines of any piece of media. (Also, Virginia is a great song.) Why is it so insightful? Simple, it’s so true, especially for Black Southerners. The same land we grew up on, have memories of, and built our lives on … is the same land Black bodies were hung and enslaved. There is a strange irony to this.

I know for many of you this is cliché. I’m sure many of you have heard the decade-old Black and Native American saying, “America is a country founded on stolen land using stolen people.” (Or at least heard something along those lines.) Some of you will reflect on Malice’s lyrics and see how far we have come. Others of you will reflect on the lyrics and wonder how much further we need to go. To me, the lyrics are stagnant. Time does not affect their truth, and time is not affected by their truth. No matter how far into the future it is, the lyrics will still be true as long as Black People live in the South. No matter how much the world changes or does not, the lyrics will still be true as long as Black People live in the South. This is why I do not like when people imply that liberation is some nebulous point in the future where everyone can forget about slavery. Even if everyone in the future forgets about slavery, the lyrics would still be true.

Most Black People relate to the idea of making money on land where their ancestors were enslaved. I grew up in the Carolinas. The Carolinas are also the place where my ancestors were enslaved. The further I go back on either my mother’s or my father’s side, nothing but a bunch of Carolinians show up. There was a very famous lynching in the city I was raised in. I also still live in the Carolinas. So, the same place I am making figures at … is literally the same place they used to hang niggas at. My ability to make money does not change the truths of lynching, slavery, and segregations. It just makes those things cosmically ironic. Black businesses are not liberation. Making more money does not change the previous suffering that has occurred. They just produce a strange (not necessarily negative) sort of irony.

The Chitterlings (The End of the Essay):

Liberation is not about money. It is not about how successful Black people can become in the modern day. Liberation involves intentional acknowledgement to move forward. Wounds do not just go away. When a wound heals, a scar is left. Skin is permanently changed after wounds. The skin never goes back to the way it was before the wound. One’s body is forever altered after a wound. Yet, that does not mean that wounds do not heal. Wounds heal when you acknowledge their existence and take the necessary steps to foster healing. Once the wound is healed, the goal is to take measures to prevent any future injury to the healed-over wound.

Liberation is no different. One is not liberated by ignoring the past. Nor does liberation come from simply making money. Liberation is about collective freedom, not individual success. It does not matter how much money Oprah, Tyler Perry, Usher, Rihanna, etc. have. The fact that there are Black billionaires does not liberate Black people. The fact that Black businesses exist does not mean the scars of racism are gone. There are still Black people who struggle day to day with a multitude of things, from food insecurity to identity issues. Liberatory efforts should be focused on stopping any barrier to the community’s healing and self-actualization.

So, this Black History Month, I want to encourage people to talk less about “buying Black.” I want people to talk less about Black entrepreneurs. I want to encourage people to be in their communities! I want to encourage people to volunteer at the homeless shelter because there are Black homeless people. I want to encourage people to donate to charities that help Black people. I want to encourage people to bring books to the Little Free Libraries that are in most American cities and towns because Black children deserve good books. There is so much more to it than just “buying Black.” There is so much more to do than explaining Black history to Non-Black people on Facebook. There is so much more to do than arguing with people at the barbershop, beauty salon, and the TikTok comment section. During this Black History month people should be in their communities fighting for the liberation of all Black people.

The Banana Pudding (A Sweet Prayer):

I Pray for the Liberation of all Black People Globally.
I pray that one day we can see a day when there are no Black children mining for gemstones in Africa.
I pray that one day, little Black boys and girls will be able to express themselves without worrying about how they will be received.

I pray that one day Black people will free themselves from the mental chains of American imperialism.
I pray that one day Black mothers can stop having to bury their murdered sons and daughters.
I pray that one day Black trans people and Black Queer people can live freely.
I pray that one day liberation will come for all people.
I pray that one day all the people of the Earth can be united regardless of identity.
I pray that this mythical one day … is tomorrow!

The Advanced Experience

Sources and Resources

Clipse. “Virginia.” Lord Willin’. Produced by The Neptunes. Released on Aug 20, 2002.

Cone, James H. A Black Theology of Liberation. The Fortieth Anniversary Edition. Orbis Books, 2012.

Davis, Angela Y. Freedom is a Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the Foundations of a Movement. Edited by Frank Barat. Haymarket Books, 2016.

“I asked, it is true, for greater treasures than a little food or rest: I require kindness and sympathy; but I did not believe myself unworthy of it.” -Creature (Frankenstein Pg. 118)

“If I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear.”- Creature (Frankenstein Pg. 128)

I have just finished reading the novel Frankenstein for a graduate class I am taking. Before this, I had read Frankenstein twice. The first time, I was a senior in high school, and while the text resonated with me … I did not get all the complex themes. The second time I read it, I was a junior in college. I enjoyed the novel, but I did not fully sit with it then either. I just did it to complete my required reading. I enjoyed the novel every time and loved the themes, but this last time I read it was just different. This time, I really sat in the words, diction, and language used in the novel. The way Mary Shelley uses language adds to the novel’s powerful themes.

During this read-through, I noticed that love was a larger theme of this novel than I originally thought. Victor’s love for his family is demonstrated throughout the novel, which is why the death of his family at the hands of the creature is tragic. Victor truly loved his family and friends, and each death is gut-wrenching for him. Each death is made even more tragic because we, the audience, understand that his love of scientific discovery led to these deaths. It is Victor’s love of science that led to his creation of the creature. Although it is important to understand that Victor’s love for his family, friends, and study drives the story. The creature’s experience of lovelessness also drives the story. In this essay, I want to reflect on love using quotes from Victor Frankenstein’s monster (the creature).

The earlier quotes come from a conversation between Victor Frankenstein and his creation. In this conversation, the creature tells Victor that he (the creature) deeply desired love. Despite the creature’s desire for love, he has a creator (Victor) who has done nothing but avoid him. The other humans are too deterred by the creature’s appearance to give the creature any kindness. This leads the creature to go so far as to hate his own existence. (This likely foreshadows the creature’s suicide at the end of the novel.) The creature expresses how he is capable of loving and experiencing love. We, as the audience, know this because on page 125, the creature saves a girl from drowning. Despite his good actions, after saving the girl from drowning, he is shot for his appearance. His moral beauty cannot be recognized by humans because of his physical ugliness. After all of this, the creature asks Victor for a companion, a mate, to spend the rest of his life with. Which Victor refuses to do so out of fear that the creature and his new wife will turn against humanity. Despite all of this, the monster pleads that he is “not unworthy” of love.

The focus of this essay is not really on the plot of the novel Frankenstein. The point of this essay is to reflect on the importance of love, sympathy, empathy, and compassion in our society. Just as the humans in the novel deprived the creature of love, many people in our society deprive each other of love for such minor reasons. And just as the creature states, those who cannot feel and inspire love will attempt to create fear. In my opinion, this phenomenon can explain a lot of the bad things that are happening in our society. People who do not feel loved often lash out in our society. People commit rash and violent actions with the sole goal of causing fear, simply because they do not feel loved. Or simply were never taught how to love other people.

These are some of the reasons I wanted to start this new series. Similar to my What Can We Learn series, this is a new sporadic series where I take time to reflect on the nature of love, empathy, and desire. Today, I want to encourage us to self-reflect on our own relationship with loving and being loved. To do this, I want to again present the two quotes from Frankenstein and ask us to reflect on our own lives using some guided questions. This is a personal activity. Do not feel pressure to comment your answers or answer all the questions. And if doing this activity generates new questions in yourself, I encourage everyone to be curious and explore your feelings, opinions, and questions this activity may generate.

1. Have you ever felt unworthy of love? If so, when and why?

2. Have you ever felt that other people were unworthy of your love? If so, when and why?

3. How important is love in your life? Would you consider it one of your greatest treasures?

4. Have you ever felt like you were denied love when you should not have been?

5. Have you ever felt emotionally abandoned?

6. Have you ever emotionally abandoned someone else? If so, why?

7. Have you ever felt like you were robbed of sympathy or empathy by the larger society?

8. Have you ever denied someone else sympathy or empathy? If so, why?

9. Can a person be or become unworthy of love?

10. What does it feel like to be lonely or loveless?

1. In what ways do you inspire others to love?

2. In what ways do you, accidentally or purposefully, create fear in others?

3. What is the relationship between love and fear?

4. Have you ever been afraid of someone you love? What were you afraid of?

5. Have you ever used or tried to use fear as a weapon against a loved one? (This could be as simple as threatening to leave someone to get them to do what you want.)

6. Have you ever felt like you were not loving enough?

7. What inspires love within you?

8. When you feel inspired to love, what do you do with that feeling?

9. Are you afraid to love people? If so, why?

10. When a loved one (friend, family, or partner) expresses fear about your relationship’s future to you… how do you react?

Again, I encourage everyone to reflect on these questions. Please understand that I am also going to reflect long and hard on these questions and my answers to these questions. It is important to me that we as a society really take time to understand the nature of love. Alongside this, I encourage my audience to read Frankenstein if you have the opportunity to. This series is the start of a long journey I am taking, and hoping people will join me on. Love is a major force in our society, and if we do not understand it … we will make monsters. Or worse, we ourselves will become monsters.

Special thanks to my friends and roommates who inspired some of these thoughts.

The Advanced Experience

Sources and Resources

Shelley, Mary. “Frankenstein.” Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism Series. Edited by Johanna M. Smith. Third Edition. Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2016.

Kollo, Charles. “Wise African Proverbs and their Meanings: ‘The Child Who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.’” Global African Times. Published August 13, 2025.

What is the WhiteDate Hacking

WhiteDate was a niche dating site where self-identified White supremacists, White Nationalists, and Neo Nazis could find and meet each other. This was a site owned by a woman named Christiane Horn. According to Futuristic, Christiane Horn’s profile states that her hobbies are “feng shui, eating brunch, and Naturgeister (German Nature Spirits).” The fact that Horn is a white supremacist who enjoys feng shui, a Chinese spiritual practice, should not be lost on anyone. Other than Horn, there were thousands of people who were using this app with the goal of meeting other White Supremacists. The Writer Eva Hoffman called the app “Tinder for Nazis.”

Seemingly unrelated, every December the Chaos Communication Congress holds its annual meeting in Hamburg, Germany. The Chaos Communication Congress is a large annual conference for hackers. Last month (December 2025), during the annual conference, a woman in a pink Power Ranger costume who was going by the name “Martha Root” gave a presentation. The presentation was titled, “The Heartbreak Machine: Nazis in the Echo Chamber.” During this presentation, Root would pull up a Windows terminal running a Python script (Python is a programming application) titled “lol.py.” In front of the audience, she instructs the script (via typing in the script) to delete the websites WhiteDate, WhiteChild, and WhiteDeal. Similar to WhiteDate, WhiteChild, and WhiteDeal are also White Supremacist-focused websites. WhiteChild was focused on promoting White childbirth and helping White supremacists meet pro-White sperm donors and find White children to adopt. WhiteDeal was a freelancing site that offered freelance work from a White only staff. Martha Root hacked into and deleted all three of these websites. (If you would like to look at the archived links for these now deleted websites, the Hacker Journal, HackRead, has easy links to the Wayback Machine.)

Moving the focus back to WhiteDate, Root was able to use Meta’s AI system Llama to create an AI chatbot whose sole programmed goal was to gather as much information from other users as possible before being noticed and before the website was deleted. Root was working with journalists Eva Hoffman and Christian Fuchs, who actually wrote a piece about WhiteDate back in October 2025 in the German Newspaper, Die Zeit. Root leaked over 8,000 profiles. She sent the uncensored leaks to DDoSecrets, a US non-profit that publishes and archives hacked or leaked documents that are relevant to public interest. Only verified journalists can access the uncensored data from what DDoSecrets and Root are calling the “WhiteLeaks.” However, for those interested in a more sanitized version of the leaked profiles, Root has created a site called Okstupid.lol. Okstupid contains a map of leaked users, where you can easily find their WhiteDate bio and username, but pictures and most names have been removed.

Lesson One: White Supremacists Are … Kind of Dumb

So, I have taken the time to do some casual searches on Okstupid and read many people’s bios (biographies) and profiles. (Although I have noticed that Root has removed and/or censored many more people’s profiles than the original map. So, there are way fewer profiles now than there were.) One of the first things that stuck out to me was how this site has a dedicated section in people’s profiles where they can state their IQ score. I then noticed that many people mention how smart they are in their profiles. Despite this, these have to be some of the dumbest people who walk the Earth. For example, let us look at three people’s Biographies. One from the United Kingdom, one from America, and one from elsewhere, then a quick look at the IQ section. (Note: the large majority of profiles are American, but most of the American leaked profiles have been removed from Okstupid.)

If it is not clear … These people are not the brightest around. Take a look at the first Bio where this person from the UK argues, “progressives treat the state or globalism as a sort of deity.” Ignoring the fact that this is an awful way to attract a relationship prospect … This is stupid. Firstly, globalism, while often used as a framework by progressives, is not an inherently progressive framework. Globalism just explores the interconnectedness of the World. You can have right-wing globalists, but that does not matter to these people because, in their mind, globalism is the process in which White Western countries weaken themselves to help the rest of the non-White world.

Second thing to notice about this quote is the belief that progressives also deify “the state.” Deification refers to the process of making something a god, not to be confused with idolization (the process of turning people into objects of worship and adoration) or idolatry (the process of taking images, icons, and idols and worshiping them as gods), which are different. Deification, idolization, and idolatry overlap and are often used interchangeably, but they are distinct. To deify something is to make it a god in your mind. To idolize someone is to elevate them above most other people, but not necessarily to a divine level. To idolatrize something is to take a normal thing and worship it as though it were a god. To further simplify, idolatry is more of a religious action, idolization is more of a social action, and deification is more of a philosophical or psychological action. Why did I make this distinction? To illustrate a point. What progressive, consciously or subconsciously, views the State, that is to say, nation-states, as gods. Progressives do not worship the nation-states. The worship of nation-states is called Nationalism … which is what conservatives do. Conservatives deify their nations and their states. Conservatives are the ones who take their nation, their heritage, and their ethnic group and turn them into objects of worship. Progressives do not do this. So why would he make this claim? Well, by “State” he likely means “government,” as conservatives typically believe that liberals and progressives “worship the government.” Despite this, “government” and “state” are different terms.

The second and third biographies are also stupid. The second biography simply states that humans can’t be the same race because there are clearly different races. … This is what happens when you do not have a comprehensive idea of race. People say “humans are one race” to denote the more scientific fact that Humans are the same species. Humans, whether White, Black, Asian, or otherwise, are different from elephants, apes, bananas, and apples. Things like race, ethnicity, and nationality are human constructs used to explain why people look different, live in different places, and have different cultures. Race is not scientific. Which is why humans can all be a part of the same species and have different “races.” The simple answer is that race is not a scientific category. It is a social category. The third bio is standard far-right stupidity. The argument is “the world hates White people, and my education system tried to convince me I should hate myself.” Then, in an attempt to educate himself about the white race, this person said they started getting into conspiracy theories. … You cannot make this shit up. This is a Non-American, by the way.

These are the types of people drawn to these sites like WhiteDate. People who do not even know the difference between species and race. People who complain about the political state of the world, but do not actually know anything about political thought. These people do not understand anything, which is why they turn to conspiracy theories and nonsense. Yet, like most ignorant people, they feel insecure about their knowledge, so they turn to things like IQ tests and standardized testing to prove their intelligence. Ignoring the fact that IQ tests and standardized testing rely on outdated science that itself is rooted in racism and classism.

Lesson Two: White Supremacists Have Complex Religious Opinions

Going back to the first biography I presented, notice how this person went on a tangent about religion. He claims that “white guilt” is the same as the Christian concept of “original sin.” Original sin is a complex theological concept. The basic idea is that because of Adam and Eve, humans are born inherently sinful and when given the chance will always choose sin and evil unless they are saved by God’s grace. This person goes on to state that Progressivism is “a non-theistic dogmatic orthodox faith.” To summarize, this person believes progressivism is basically a system of belief that works like a religion and holds a “theological” belief in White guilt to make White people feel bad about themselves.

Now, the implication under this, which is not outright stated, is that original sin is a concept that exists to make you feel bad. The statement reads as an anti-original sin argument. This is not necessarily bad, as many Christians have denied the doctrine of original sin or have tweaked the doctrine of original sin. Yet, original sin is a theological viewpoint most conservatives have, and often is a cornerstone of conservative theologies like traditional Calvinism. It is important to understand that not all conservatives have the same religious beliefs. As seen in the biographies below, some of these White Supremacists identify as Christian, and some identify as atheists and pagans.

The big topic in the Religious Studies and Philosophy world is the topic of Christian Nationalism. This is still a major issue, and many of these profiles are clearly far-right Christian Nationalists. Yet, it is important to understand that non-religious people and non-Christians can also be White Supremacists. Christian Nationalism relies on a few core beliefs. Christian Nationalists of any nation believe things like, “this nation was destined by God to be formed”, “the founders of this nation were Christians”, “God moves through our nation to further his goals”, “the fall of our nation will lead to the fall of Christianity”. Yet, Christian Nationalism is not a unique form of far-right conservatism. It is a form of Religious Nationalism which appeared in every century since the concept of the nation-state was created. Religious Nationalists are not different from Secular Nationalists either. Secular Nationalists will hold the same ideas. They just take God out of the equation, saying things like, “Western Nations are destined to rule the world.” Some go as far as to deify Whiteness and claim, “White people are destined to rule the world.”

To summarize this lesson, while religion can be a key force that conservatives, White Supremacists, and far-right people use, there is no coherent religious thinking on the right. This likely does not come as a shock to most people who study religion and sociology. Yet, many people assume conservatives are all the same. No, they are not. At the basis of conservatism is the belief that certain values need to be conserved. Although the question is, which values? Cultural values, religious values, political values, or philosophical values? The answer to which values one believes should be conserved determines what type of conservative they may be. Or at least determines a key dimension of their conservatism.

Lesson Three: White Supremacists are Losers

Re-read the profiles I have shown you up to this point. … These people are losers who do not have much going for them. They are lonely people who want community and connection but have no clue how to get that. The worst part is that these are the more interesting profiles. Most of the profiles on Okstupid are people with bios that say stuff like, “I have been having trouble finding a like-minded woman.” Or “I tried dating outside my race, and it didn’t work, now I have been redpilled.” (The term redpilled is a term used by incels, Neo Nazis, and far-right trolls that is based on the Matrix films. It is used to as a synonym for “waking up to reality.”)

White Supremacists are people who feel like outcasts. To avoid this feeling, they convince themselves that the society that has outcasted them is flawed. … In a way, they are correct. Our society is flawed. Everyone should have a place in our communities and feel valued. The issue is that White Supremacists never recognize the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem is that powerful people weaponize systems of oppression to alienate people from each other, themselves, and their labor. … But this is the progressive understanding of the world directly stripped from GWF Hegel, Karl Marx, Frantz Fanon, and WEB Du Bois. Conservatives do not blame the powerful. They blame some scapegoat that they made up in their mind. When you ask a conservative why they are suffering, they say, “It’s because of the Blacks, the Jewish, liberal women, and the Muslims. They have created a society that I am an outcast in. They are using white guilt, feminism, and progressivism to change society and make me feel out of place.”

Lesson Four: … AI Can Be Used to Scrap Data …

I understand that to many is a story of the heroic nature of AI. Futurism’s writer Victor Tangermann applauded this as a positive use of AI. To a large extent, this is an impressive and mostly positive use of AI. … But how are we going to feel when AI is used to collect data on all of us? … Bad news, that’s already happening! AI is being used by major companies, private equity, and rich tech billionaires to scrape the internet for information about you! Not everyone with knowledge about technology are people like Martha Root. Most of them are people like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. My first thoughts were like this.

In short … yes, a hacker could easily access many sites I have profiles and accounts on, if the sites are not properly secured. … Or if the hacker is dedicated enough. But the more important thing is that AI can be used to get your data. Forget about hackers, think about the powerful people who run all these tech companies.

Final Lesson: Hacking can be … progressive

If you go to the website Okstupid, underneath the map of the profiles, there are some words from Martha Root herself. Some of her words are very funny jokes, but some of them are astute cultural commentary. Also, at the bottom of Okstupid is a quote from Black progressive philosopher Audre Lorde.

Root is clearly very engaged with progressive political thought, which drove her action. This is interesting to me because I once associated hackers with far-right trolls and White Supremacists. My formative years were the 2000s and the 2010s, were far-right men on sites like 4chan were known to use hacking skills to bother and harass people. Hacking itself is a dubiously legal activity at best and a fully illegal activity at worst. Depends on what you are doing. Yet, despite this, hacking and these taboo technological skills can have a clear benefit. Through this research, I have learned that there is a whole network of technological reporting sites, non-profits, and hacking websites dedicated to exposing and reporting on the alt-right online spaces.

There are people who use their technological knowledge to expose the dark underbelly of our society. And while I do think many aspects of hacking can be reckless and harmful, I think some of these technological skills we should learn and engage with more. I have been encouraging people to gain more technological, philosophical, religious, and political literacy. Better understanding things like hacking might be an important step forward. I am not encouraging people to become hackers. Although I am encouraging us to reclaim our relationship with technology and the internet. Hacking is a counter-cultural expression of frustration with the world. This frustration can be found in all of us. Unfortunately, these expressions of frustration are often reckless and harmful to most of us. Yet, when honed through communal effort, learning, and cultural understanding, counter-cultural expressions of frustrations like hacking, rap music, or indie video games can be used to further our global struggle against oppression and bigotry.

The Advanced Experience

Sources and Resources

Courtney-Guy, Sam. “Hacker deletes ‘Nazi dating site’ and leaks thousands.” MSN. Published January 7, 2026.

media.ccc.de. “39C3 - The Heartbreak Machine: Nazis in the Echo Chamber.” YouTube. Video Posted on January 3, 2026.

Naprys, Ernestas. “‘Tinder for Nazis’ hit by 100GB data leak, thousands of users exposed.” Cybernews. Published January 2, 2026.

Tangermann, Victor. “Woman Hacks ‘Tinder For Nazis,’ Tricks the Racist User Into Falling in Love With AI Chatbots.” Futurism. Published January 6, 2026.

Waqas. “Researcher Wipes White Supremacist Dating Sites, Leaks Data on okstupid.lol.” HackRead.

Websites For Future Research On The Topic

Okstupid. Edited and Credited by Martha Root.

DDoSecrets.

Whiteleaks. Hosted by DDosSecrets. Uploaded by Martha Root.

The philosopher David Hume argues that humans are reasonable beings and therefore receive nourishment from science (Hume, 3). Despite this, Hume argues that humans’ ability to understand the world around them is diminished. Hume argues that are ability to actually understand things is not on par with our ability to sense or experience things.

Hume’s argument is complex, but his main argument is that we cannot fully understand the world that we experience. Our brain can do a lot and can process the world to the best of its ability, but there are still clear flaws. This is why science cannot answer all the questions of our experience. For example, people have dreams when they go to sleep, but scientists are still unsure about the nature of dreams. Hume argues that science is still an important task to engage in. So even if we never come up with an exact scientific explanation of dreams, Hume thinks science is still worth engaging with.

On the other hand, when many people encounter the edges of scientific understanding, they often choose to believe things that are hard to prove. This is not necessarily a bad thing because religion often is one of these hard-to-prove things on the edges of scientific understanding. Yet, some people see the edges of science and choose to believe things that go against scientific understanding. For example, when people learn that psychologists and neuroscientists are still learning about Autism, ADHD, and other forms of neurodivergence, many people choose to simply believe that things like Autism are not real. People use real questions in science to justify their denial of science.

Even worse, people often see the flaws of science and then choose to doubt all science because of their own experience. For example, many flat-Earthers (people who believe the Earth is flat) often argue that the Earth is flat using their sensory perception. They will say, “The Earth is flat because if it were curved, you would be able to see its curvature when standing in a field.” Or they will ask, “Why doesn’t the Earth look curved when you fly on planes?” You can inform these people that it is hard to tell that the Earth is curved from the human eye, because we are on the Earth. They will not care because they are using their own senses to overrule you. As Hume states, this is because it is hard to understand what you are perceiving/ sensing. People just rely on their intuition and assume things about the world based on their perception instead of doing the hard work of piecing things together logically. But as William James states,

James argues that humans do not have the ability to understand everything about the universe. Nor do we have the ability to correctly assume (use intuition) things about the universe. Our view is limited, and we need to understand this. We cannot know everything because our ability to understand is deeply limited. I understand that this is disappointing to most. Many people desire to know everything themselves. Yet, on the bright side, we can try our hardest to understand a set few things. We can each become experts in a limited number of things. As experts, we can help others understand our fields. Yet, we have to rely on others to educate us about their fields. Knowledge requires community. Science requires community. As Hume and James state, our ability to understand things is limited. We cannot prove or explain our experiences. However, society can come together and explain things together, or at least try. I will end with another Hume quote,

The Advanced Experience

Sources and Resources

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: With A Letter from a Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh. And Hume’s Abstract of A Treatise of Human Nature. Second Edition. Edited by Eric Steinberg. Hackett Publishing Company, 1977.

James, William. The Philosophy of William James: Selected from His Works. The Modern Library.

Although this is not exactly true. I could not start this series in March because it would be way past Christmas. People would question why I started a series called The 12 Days of Philosophy in a month unrelated to Christmas. Some people might go as far as to express frustration with this choice. All confusion and frustration with this choice would be rooted in the fact that I went against the norms of society. I basically made an Advent calendar using philosophy. It would have to break social norms to make an Advent calendar for the month of March. This breaking of social norms and the possible ridicule for breaking social norms would likely stop me from doing this series any other month but December.

This demonstrates that our sense of freedom is affected by our society. Society has some type of power over us, and often causes us to limit our freedom. We often find ourselves yielding to the social authority of the mass populace. People are often afraid to step out of line or do something out of the norm because they fear what the masses will say about them. The ability people have to keep other people in line using social norms, cultural expectations, and cultural taboos is social authority. Similarly, government authority and political authorities have a similar effect on freedom. This is because, as the political philosopher John Stuart Mill states, there is an ancient struggle between liberty and authority. Or in simpler terms, there is an ancient struggle between freedom and power.

This struggle between freedom and power has been discussed by philosophers. Usually, the discussion is political and on a much larger scale than I want to address here. I want to reflect on in this essay is what I have chosen to do. I chose to start The 12 Days of Philosophy late simply because I was tired and needed to push it back. I used my own free will to do this. Even though I was aware that people might question this. Yet, I had to wrestle with whether the possibility of these questions mattered in comparison to my free ability to push things back. In this case, my free will won.

Or did it? In all honesty, I did not have to write anything at all. I had the free will to not do the series at all. Yet, in my mind, I felt that I had to do it because I had done it for the last two years. I felt like there was a social pressure encouraging me to do it. Except there was no social pressure to do it. The pressure was in my mind. Similarly, there is no real pressure that forces me to do the series in December as opposed to March. The pressure is just in my mind, but has not manifested in reality at all. Oftentimes, this pseudo-assumption of social pressure also affects our free will. The assumption that there will be social pressure alone can cause us to put limitations on our free will.

This fact has led some philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer, to argue that the will is never free. Other philosophers, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, say that society has to put limitations on people’s willpower or else they will use their freedoms to deny other people’s freedoms. Rousseau argues for what he calls a “general will.” General will, sometimes called “the will of all”, is the sum of what each person thinks is good for themself. A common example is, if half of the drivers on the highway want to go 90mph and the other half want to go 40mph, then the general will would be to make the speed limit 60mph. Rousseau thinks this can still allow both types of people to have a level of freedom without impeding on the freedoms of the other person. Rousseau still believes that this allows for free will. Although figures like Schopenhauer would argue that the general will replaces free will, and therefore causes free will to not exist.

This is the philosophical dynamic between personal freedom and social affect. It is ridiculous to ever argue that freedom and society do not have a complex relationship. Freedom (free will) and society (social authority) have a natural push-pull dynamic. A dynamic that is often under-discussed but clearly seen. This binary is what often causes most modern political issues. There are some people who are willing to limit people’s freedom to create a greater social, political, and governmental authority. While there are other people who are willing to expand personal freedoms even if it destroys society, governments, and politics. It is important to ask where you stand on this issue. Not just where you stand on this issue politically, but how this issue affects your day-to-day life.

Sources and Resources

Davis, Angela Y. Freedom is a Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the Foundations of a Movement. Edited by Frank Barat. Haymarket Books, 2016.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. Vintage Books, 1995.

Law, Stephen. The Great Philosopher: The Lives and Ideas of History’s Greatest Thinkers. Quercus, 2013.

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty and The Subjection of Women. Edited by Alan Ryan. Penguin Books, 2006.

Schopenhauer, Arthur. The Essential Schopenhauer: Key Selections from The World as Will and Representation and Other Writings. Edited by Wolfgang Schirmacher. HarperPerennial ModernThought, 2010.

Regardless of Blyden’s context, this quote is powerful to me. Imitation is not discipleship, nor is it education. Imitation is imitation. People assume that certain children are disciplined or intelligent because they imitate adults. Just because a child imitates an adult and adult behaviors does not mean that the child is more intelligent. Children naturally imitate the behaviors that they observe, but they do not always understand the behaviors they are imitating. So, it is important to remember that parenting should never be an attempt to get children to merely imitate adults. Parenting should be an active attempt to get children to learn how to live, so that they are not figuring it out when they are adults.

Similarly, teachers often make the mistake of teaching children to imitate. As the philosopher Paulo Freire points out in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, many teachers use something called the banking model of education. The banking model holds that students’ brains are empty mind banks and that the teacher’s job is to deposit information in those mind banks. Under the banking model, education is about memorization, imitation, and impressing the teacher more than it is about learning. The worst part is that many teachers desire this outcome. Many teachers seem to want a classroom full of students who can’t think critically but can regurgitate information, despite not even knowing what the information they are reciting even means.

Imitation is not discipleship. Imitation is not parenting. Imitation is not education. Imitation is just imitation. It robs people of autonomy and forces them to attempt to be things that they are not. Imitation convinces people to deny themselves and become someone else. Imitation is rooted in self-hatred or an attempt to get one to become self-hating. Despite all of this, our society desires imitation. Our society wants people to be carbon copies of one another. Why? Simple, imitation is not education. People who spend their lives trying to imitate others never have time to understand themselves. They never have time to question their society, their government, or their world. Societies that center on imitation exist for the people to control themselves with little effort from the government. So I encourage people not to be imitators but to be innovators, curators, freedom fighters, artists, creatives, and critical thinkers. I encourage people to find ways to truly embody themselves. Do not just imitate … just be.

The Advanced Experience

Sources and Resources

Blyden, Edward W. Christianity, Islam, and the Negro Race. Second Edition. Black Classic Press, 1994.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 50th Anniversary Edition. Bloomsbury Academic, 2018.

The first philosopher I want to cover is Aristotle, because he appears first chronologically. Aristotle, in his work Nicomachean Ethics, argues that friendship either is a virtue itself or comes alongside virtue. For Aristotle, the basis of his moral philosophy is something philosophers have coined “virtue ethics.” Virtue ethics is a moral framework that centers on the process of becoming virtuous (becoming a good person) more than it centers on rules, laws, and punishment. To further explain, for Aristotle, the work it takes to better yourself and to become a better person is more important than creating laws and punishments that stop people from doing bad things. The end goal for all people is to reach what Aristotle calls Eudemonia (Greek for human flourishing). Eudemonia refers to the state one enters when one becomes virtuous. It means a person has fully grown as a person and has lived a good life spent helping others, helping oneself, and helping the community.

Therefore, in this larger framework, friendship is an important aspect of life. Aristotle does not believe one can reach Eudemonia without friends. More extreme, Aristotle is not even sure if one can truly live life at all without friendship. Friendship is a key aspect of living and thriving as a human. Aristotle even thinks friendship is a key aspect of society, and argues that societies do not work without people being friends. Therefore, the goal of a governmental body should be to increase friendliness and friendships.

Soren Kierkegaard is a Christian philosopher who is considered the founder of existentialism. This means Kierkegaard was more focused on questions about human existence, like why we exist, rather than questions about how we exist. Kierkegaard, while religious, inspired many philosophers who came after with his ability to ask deep questions related to human suffering. Alongside this, Kierkegaard often talked about love. For Kierkegaard, true love is the ability to love God and then one’s neighbor. This is clearly an idea rooted in the Bible. Yet, Kierkegaard, in his work Works of Love, explains that he believes “Love thy neighbor” means that God wants people to love each other equally. Any form of love rooted in exclusivity or preference is not true love. Kierkegaard believes that friendship and romantic love are forms of exclusive love that are less focused on loving people equally and more focused on helping an individual become whole. Kierkegaard does not think romantic love and friendship are bad things. He just thinks they are self-serving forms of relationships. True love, for Kierkegaard, is about loving all people equally and serving all people equally. Love does not distinguish persons.

On the flipside of the philosophical spectrum lies Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche hated the philosophy of both Aristotle and Kierkegaard. For Nietzsche, philosophy should be centered on “becoming.” Becoming, for Nietzsche, refers to the endless process of growing better, growing stronger, and achieving freedom. To do this, Nietzsche often expressed the belief that people should avoid the “herd.” The herd refers to the average person who lives in every nation and society. Nietzsche thinks most people are weak people who use things like philosophy and religion, not to become stronger, but to enslave the strong with pity and enslave the weak with fear. … It suffices to say that Nietzsche does not have a positive view of humanity. So, it would make sense that he does not have a good opinion of friendship.

Nietzsche thinks most friendships are at best useless and at worst exist to coddle someone else’s weakness. It is important to understand that Nietzsche hates pity. He believes that pity is when one person looks down on another person and arrogantly assumes they can solve someone else’s problems. Pity, according to Nietzsche, usually causes the one expressing pity to eventually resent the person who is being pitied and causes the one being pitied to resent themself. So, Nietzsche thinks friendships often exist due to people having pity for those they see as weaker than themselves. And if friendships are rooted in a power imbalance, then no pair of friends truly knows each other. The weaker friend will either hide their struggles in fear of being pitied, or they will over exaggerate their struggles in order for the stronger friend to do things for them. The stronger friend, on the other hand, will not tell the weaker friend about their struggles due to the assumption that the weaker friend cannot handle it. Therefore, Nietzsche argues that friendships do not truly work because they do not inspire the weak or the strong to become stronger. Enemies, however, do inspire people to become stronger. Therefore, Nietzsche states that the only friend one needs is an enemy.

The last philosopher I want to cover is bell hooks (no capitalization). As a Black woman, hooks often expresses important ideas not adequately discussed in philosophy. This is why I wanted to include her in this essay. She argues that friendship is a communal form of love. For hooks, love is not hierarchical. Love is about choice and action, not hierarchy. Friendships, familial bonds, and romantic relationships fulfill different needs. She directly denies the belief that the needs of family and romantic partners should always come before friends. Friends provide something that cannot be found in most other forms of relationships. This is because, according to bell hooks, making friends is the first time people are learning to choose who they want to bond with. Friends create a sense of community and often exist to pour love into you. Friends help you love other people better. They pour into your cup when it is empty, which allows you to pour into other people. For hooks, friendship is not a matter of virtue. It is not a lesser form of love, nor is it a form of pity. For hooks, friendship is an important aspect of love’s life cycle. Friends teach people how to love, how to spread love, and how to receive love. Without friends, other relationships, such as familial and romantic relationships, become harder to manage.

In conclusion, philosophers have very different takes on friendship. This was just the surface. Plato, C.S. Lewis, James Baldwin, Zadie Smith, Martin Luther King, and many others have also commented on the nature of friends. Friends are mentioned in many major religious scriptures and texts. Yet, what I want the reader of this essay to walk away with is the understanding that, despite whatever friendship is … friendship is valuable nonetheless.

The Advanced Experience

Sources and Resources

Aristotle. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Robert C. Bartlett and Susan D. Collins. The University of Chicago Press, 2011.

hooks, bell. All About Love: New Visions. William Morrow, 2001.

Kierkegaard, Soren. Works of Love. Translated by Howard and Edna Hong. HaperPerennial ModernThought, 1962.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Translated by R. J. Hollingdale. Penguin Books, 1961.

There is an ancient Buddhist parable about blind men being asked by the King to feel and describe an elephant, without being told that it is an elephant. As one man feels its ear, he assumes it is a winnowing basket. As one feels its trunk, he assumes it is a plow. As another feels its tail, he assumes it’s a brush. So on and so forth. The blind men, disagreeing on what they think the elephant is, start to argue and fight. The king is delighted by watching the blind men fight. The blind men do not understand that the thing that they are feeling is the same elephant. Nor do the blind men know that the thing is an elephant at all. The theme of the parable is that people, when exposed to the same phenomenon, will interpret things completely differently. People will come to different conclusions about the nature of things simply because they cannot fully understand the phenomenon they are perceiving or experiencing.

This parable is called the blind men and the elephant and is often used to describe how people make claims about truth and religion. The parable implies that people can perceive truth differently when not given all the information or when they lack the ability to acutely understand the information. This is how the Jainist priests and scholars have interpreted the parable to be able to understand the nature of truth. On the flipside, the medieval Muslim Sufi mystic Rumi gives a version of the parable, but in his he describes men encountering an elephant in the dark. He states that the men cannot figure out what the elephant is by touching it on their own. The only way to fully understand the elephant is by combining everyone’s candle lights to see the full picture. For Rumi, this means that people cannot understand the whole picture of truth unless they combine their religious perspectives together. Rumi also once stated;

Despite being a muslim himself, Rumi believed that ideas such as religion and nations exist to divide us. Rumi believed that everyone was connected and that everyone was experiencing the same experience, but that humans choose to divide ourselves into categories. This is why when Rumi died in 1273, it is said that representatives from every major religion came to his funeral to pay respects.

This is the major theme of the parable. The idea is that humans, either on purpose or by accident, often divide ourselves into different religions and schools of thought that all react to and try to understand the same phenomena and experiences. The parable encourages us as people from different religions and philosophies to come together and try to work together when attempting to find the truth. The parable encourages us to understand ourselves as blind finite people trying to observe and understand something much greater than ourselves. As blind finite beings, are quest for truth is somewhat useless on its own, but together the quest for truth becomes more manageable.

The Advanced Experience

Sources and Resources

Rumi. The Essential Rumi. New expanded edition. Translated and Edited by Coleman Barks, John Moyne, et al. HarperOne, 2004.

Rumi. The Soul of Rumi: A New Collection of Ecstatic Poems. Translated by Coleman Barks, John Moyne, et al. HerperOne, 2001.