As I looked around, I felt like an outsider. My parents were always busy, and our family meals were often hurried and silent. I'd watch other families laughing and chatting together, feeling a pang of sadness and resentment. Why couldn't we be like them?

My friends would invite me to parties and movies, but I'd hesitate, feeling like I didn't quite fit in. I'd see them posting photos on social media, smiling and happy, and I'd wonder why I couldn't be part of that.

This cycle of jealousy and guilt haunted me for years. I'd beat myself up for feeling envious, wondering why I couldn't just be content with my own life.

But everything changed when I moved to Vizag for college. My friends surprised me with a goodbye party, and it was like they'd read my mind. They'd planned a quiet, intimate gathering with all my favorite foods, music, and books. For the first time, I felt truly seen and loved.

As I looked around at my friends, I realized that they'd been trying to include me all along. They'd known I wasn't comfortable with big parties or loud gatherings, so they'd made time for me in their own way.

That moment was a turning point for me. I realized that I'd been so focused on what I didn't have that I'd forgotten to appreciate what I did. My parents, though busy, had always provided for me and supported my dreams. My friends had been there for me, even when I felt like an outsider.

As I boarded the train to Vizag, my parents and sister hugged me tightly, and we all cried together. It was a bittersweet moment, but it was also a moment of clarity. I realized that home wasn't just a physical place; it was the people and relationships that made life worth living.

From that day on, I made a conscious effort to cultivate gratitude and appreciation for the people and experiences in my life. I learned to cherish the moments that truly mattered, rather than getting caught up in jealousy and comparison.

As I look back, I realize that my journey was never about finding perfection; it was about embracing the beauty of imperfection.

Home, I learned, is wherever love and gratitude reside.

The stability of any complex society relies on a very basic principle - the society and it’s structures must protect, validate and sustain all individuals that are components of that society. However, when a system prioritizes the preservation of their “cultural values” - which are the most misunderstood derivations that deviate from the original idea built for social harmony -weaponized for political hunger.

In account of Men’s mental health Awareness month and Pride month, let’s look at these vile patterns. These rigid social structures that are supposedly designed to protect it are tearing it to shreds in all its glory and we just witness the horror and do nothing.

I. The Horror

May 28, 2026

A cozy city in South India, settling into a blissful evening. Then my phone rings. It’s my friend, his voice fractured by panic: “This guy I met on Grindr… he came to my home and now he is demanding money that he apparently lost in my room. He is demanding money or else he will disclose my sexuality, and cause a fight in the apartment. Papa will kill me. I can’t go through this right now… and that guy is right outside my door, banging and shouting. I don’t know what to do, Pranav. Please help, I am scared!”

His words hit an unhealed wound. In a reflex born of survival, I dialed the police and called his apartment’s watchman. Moments later, that guy was taken into custody. But the horror did not leave with him.

The next day, I asked my friend, “Was he shouting at you?”
”He was trying to choke me”, he replied, shivering. “He threatened to call his friends and beat me up. I was alone, and I couldn’t call Papa.”

Talking with him, my mind drifted back to my own horror back in the cold of January. What I thought was a blissful date ended up being a nightmare. I remember his dirty, greedy face as he slowly asked if I had money. In a desperate search for the comfort and love I feared I'd never find, I tried dating for the first time. The moment I met him, I instantly regretted it. Already unnerved, I said no- in a firm, high tone. He glared at me and then slapped me. He shouted, calling me a whore. He threatened to wait until my father arrived to demand the money he claimed he “lost“ in my home (all my gay friends have experienced this dread at least once), accusing me of stealing. Helpless, I called my dad, spinning a desperate lie to get the money. After that monster left, I called my dad back and told him the truth, hearing the devastation of his trust being broken again.

I was supposed to be the easy kid, the perfect kid, how did I end up such a disappointment and disgust to so many?. Alone in my room, as the bruises on my neck burned , and my throat itched from the desperate begging. I didn’t blame that predator. I slapped myself. I cried through the day, and all I could repeat was, “It’s my mistake. I am at fault. I was too idiotic, too naive. I thought I could have a dreamy day. How idiotic.”

And now, months later, I was hearing my friend mirror those exact words:

“It’s all my fault for existing this way. I thought it would be safe.”

II. The lost Cause

In India alone, approximately 5.32 lakh (532K) sextortion cases are reported annually to the Cybercrimes wing. That is nearly, 1500 individuals targeted every single day. 55% of these victims are teenagers, spanning both male and female demographics.
Note: These figures represent only the fraction of victims who find the agonizing courage to report. Millions of untold, unheard tales remain internalized as personal faults , buried under the weight of stigma.

December 23rd, 2025

A month before my own horror unfolded, my phone chimed with a message from my best friend, X: “I need to tell you something.”
I replied, “Hey luv, everything okay?”
A long pause. Then: “I don’t know how to tell you this, but last week when you were in the hospital… Y molested me in the hostel dorm in my sleep.”

X and Y were both my best friends. In utter disbelief, I texted, “Is this a prank?“
”I wish it was”, X replied. And then came the words: “Maybe I led him on. Maybe my silence felt like consent. Maybe I am at fault.”

The justification for our abuser. We decide we aren’t “worthy” of being a victim. We have heard things where they say, “these people” are all creepy, they ask for it and then they regret it. So our safety is basically forsaken because we are clubbed with the predators. We anticipate the baseline judgement from the society , we hear the whispers: You wanted it. You asked for it. And if you are queer, the isolation is absolute. In a system where the body of justice consistently fails women, what consideration is left for the marginalized?. We feel , inherently like a goner.

III. Self blame for Control

In social psychology, we observe closely how people explain the causes of various events. While the “Fundamental Attribution Error” usually drives us to blame an individual’s character rather than situational factors, victims of trauma invert this lens inward- self-blame and finding flaws in their existence.

Psychoanalyst Anna Freud documented how the ego deploys profound defense mechanisms to protect oneself from mental distress, especially when the environment becomes hostile. When the collective system discards a person, leaving them to feel like an Outcast, the mind turns to self-blame as a desperate attempt to regain understanding and control over their own narrative.

Admitting that , “I am completely innocent” — would mean accepting a reality far more terrifying that, we live in a chaotic , unpredictable world, where we can be violated any moment, completely helpless. By framing it as a personal mistake, the brain rationalizes the haphazard situation to buy back a fragile illusion of safety: “If it was my fault, I can prevent it from happening again.”

IV. The World’s Hypocritical Just World.

When a community encounters a victim of assault or digital blackmail, their immediate , subconscious defense is to locate the victim’s “errors“ (Why were they on that app? Why did they invite people over?). They do this to protect their own fragile sanity, reassuring themselves:

“Because I am not like them, and I do not do that, I am safe.”

This my reader is Melvin’s “Just world Hypothesis“ - where it’s a bias that world is inherently fair, where people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. (Little do some people realize they are the bigger victims of other things. They are in denial themselves)

The victim absorbing these norms, applies these rigid judgements to themselves. “I deserved it”. They can’t be expressive in a society that prioritizes public modesty over predator accountability. They experience what is known as “secondary victimization” - an internalized trial in the courtroom of their own mind— before anyone has even said anything about them.

V. The costs of Perfection

“I am supposed to be the easy child, I am supposed to be the perfect son, How did I end up being such a disappointment to so many and myself?”, were the words I remember clearly , I said that holding my face in my hands, ashamed in front of my father. “ I am never careless, how did this happen?”

I was in a state of cognitive dissonance- a painful incongruency between two realities staring at me, “I am a smart , cautious , dignified human” this core belief collided with the dreaded reality in front of me, “I have been exploited and was played”. Since the past event cannot be altered, the mind bridges the cognitive gap by declaring, “I must have been careless, I am the culprit.”

The sense of psychological safety was gone. “I know I am at fault”, became a shield before anyone else could condemn me for what has happened. I needed help, but I feigned accountability; I needed the illusion of control to bring back a sense of balance.

Despite the heavy toll of constantly questioning our right to exist, we keep overcompensating to fit in. We pour endless energy into trying to be 'normal' just so our presence is acknowledged, even though every support system—from our families to our friends and our institutions—have failed us.

And we are expected to still contribute to the society , and we do. We still wish well for a society that wants us dead. But when we express our agony, all we receive is ignorance. In response we resort to a heart breaking trade: trading our true selves to become the ideal the society expects us to be. We are told to be silent, to forget, to forge ahead, carrying wounds soul-deep, forever wondering where we went wrong.

Nobody was there to take action, to embrace us, or to say: “No. You were only hopeful, as any other human is allowed to be. Your hope, your desire for intimacy , and your love were exploited for a twisted motive by a predator. It is not on you.” Instead what do we get?— A heavy silence to drown in, mind anchoring us to the ocean floor in that storm, rationalizing our own destruction.

But hope for life somehow prevails. Perhaps the world has been cruel, but we choose to be kind so that others don’t have to sit alone in such darkness.

Thank you for reading:
Bea :)

Subscribe now

References:

Durkheim, É. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology (J. A. Spaulding & G. Simpson, Trans.). The Free Press. (Original work published 1897).

[Used for the concept of anomie and systemic normlessness resulting from a fracture in the societal contract.]

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

[Used to explain the painful incongruency between the core belief of being cautious/dignified and the reality of being exploited.]

Freud, A. (1937). The ego and the mechanisms of defence. Hogarth Press.

[Used to support the ego’s deployment of internal defense mechanisms—such as turning against the self—when navigating a hostile environment.]

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into distress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1798–1809. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1798

[Used for the foundational distinction between characterological and behavioral self-blame as a mechanism to reclaim cognitive control.]

Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0448-5

[Used for the Just-World Hypothesis, explaining why onlookers search for a victim’s “errors” to protect their own sense of safety.]

Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674

[Used for Minority Stress Theory, addressing the chronic psychological strain and hypervigilance forced upon marginalized individuals by an unyielding social structure.]

Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3

[Used for the Fundamental Attribution Error, contrasting society’s usual character flaws bias with the victim’s inverted internal bias.]

Symonds, M. (1980). The second injury to victims. Evaluation and Change, Special Issue, 36–38.

[Used for the concept of secondary victimization, illustrating the internalized psychological trial a victim undergoes anticipating social judgment.]

I. The Contextual Anchor: Nietzsche and the Vacuum of Privilege

While Friedrich Nietzsche’s1 concept of the Übermensch (the “Overman”) was a clever psychological response to 19th-century European Nihilism2, the modern media somehow promotes it in all the wrong ways. In his remarkable book “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” , Nietzsche viewed “self-overcoming” through the embrace of hardship as the ultimate answer to a world stripped of absolute meaning. He urged individuals to transcend herd morality and say a resounding “yes” to existence, pain included, though this acceptance was never meant to justify or glorify unnecessary suffering.

However, the modern “self-help” influencers frequently ignore this nuance, completely forgetting the material, socioeconomic, and class realities that define human suffering. Suffering is not a monolith; its definition and experience shift radically across different sects of the population. A holistic view must acknowledge a stark divide: what one privileged class views as an aesthetic opportunity for “existential growth,” another experiences as sheer, unadulterated “systemic exhaustion.” Nietzsche was talking about the psychological liberation of the spirit—modern grind culture has twisted it into a cruel justification for burnout and feelings of inadequacy.

II. The Fallacy of "Pressure as a Necessity"

The modern saying that “pressure is a privilege” or a strict “necessity” for self-growth is frequently a projection of our own deeply internalized inadequacies. When we take narrow psychological or sociological constructs and turn them into universal norms for “grit,” we actively ignore societal balance. Rebranding systemic pressure as a spiritual requirement risks two dangerous psychological detours:

• Intellectualization as a Defense Mechanism: Distancing ourselves from the raw, messy reality of systemic or emotional pain by wrapping it in abstract, high-minded logic.

• Sublimation: Using lofty philosophical concepts to justify lingering feelings of inadequacy, rather than addressing the root causes of that pressure.

Nietzsche had his reasons for normalizing suffering in an era that was barely aware of modern psychological realities, trauma, or systemic contexts. But that doesn’t mean we have to own that suffering today. True individuality means refusing to anchor your identity to either extreme—suffering or pleasure—for external validation, because both originate from the same seed of unhealthy attachment to a construct of desire . 3Why hide behind a philosophical construct to feel adequate when you can train yourself to be an individual who is whole by self?

III. The Psychoanalytic Trap: The "Imitation Game" of Grind Culture

When we look at this phenomenon through a psychoanalytic lens, the obsession with the “necessity of suffering” reveals itself not as strength, but as an unhealthy psychological defense mechanism.

Neo-Freudian and classical Freudian theories offer a valid explanation for why we pick up philosophy in such a toxic way. When an individual harbors deep-seated, internalized inadequacy, their inner critic—the judgmental Superego4—demands an impossible standard of perfection (the Ego-Ideal). Grind culture hijacks this vulnerability. It turns “Suffering is a necessity” into a tyrannical “should.”

As Karen Horney5 pointed out, when we distance ourselves from our True Self to chase an Idealized Self, we begin a journey toward slow psychological demise. Modern media has turned self-actualization6 into an imitation game. People adopt the aesthetic of the tireless, unfeeling flawed warrior to mask a profound disconnection from their inner worlds. They use the vocabulary of the Übermensch as a shield against the vulnerability of their own human experience. If you cannot talk about your hardships without retreating into these intellectual defense mechanisms, you haven’t mastered the concept—you are simply hiding behind it.

IV. Beyond Duality: True Transcendental Growth

Real human growth does not require suffering or pressure as a mandatory fuel source. Psychologically, both suffering and pleasure stem from the exact same root: an unhealthy attachment to a construct, an outcome, or an object of desire. Too much attachment to anything is fundamentally harmful.

Why fixate on polars when you can go completely beyond them? True transcendental growth involves cultivating a dispassionate nature—not an unfeeling one, but one that refuses to be enslaved by the dualities of pain and reward, failure and success.

By exploring our inner worlds and weaving the internal and external realities together, the world of duality loses its tight grip on us. We stop using suffering to feel brave, and we stop using pleasure to feel validated. Pressure doesn't need to be internalized as some compulsory ritual of passage. The healthier path is far simpler: acknowledge its existence as a basic part of reality, and get over it.

V. Conclusion: Choosing Real Growth Over Demise

If your path to growth requires you to continuously suppress your vulnerabilities, ignore your limits, and romanticize exhaustion, it is a path that harbingers demise to your existence. It shuts you off from finding who you are.

Suffering is neither inherently “good” nor “bad,” and labeling it a strict necessity is a narrow, blatant ignorance of the profound variations in human experience. True growth should bring you closer to yourself, not force you to wear a philosophical mask. What aligns with your authentic journey stays; what does not - should be discarded without the need for defensive justification. It’s time to put down the shields, release the attachments, step out of the imitation game, and dare to be whole on our own terms.

“We survived by learning to conform to the expectations of others. … What would you like me to be? A great student? … The first-chair violinist? … How would we love ourselves when everything around us told us that we were unlovable?”

~Alan Downs in his book “The Velvet Rage“

Those lines are the inner monologue of every gay kid burnt out after years of overcompensating and overachieving to pave a path toward acceptance and love. In the process of “making it up” to balance out the perceived “flaw,” and to avoid confronting their own truth for fear that embracing it would make fitting in a luxury, many trade self-love for the futile comfort of being called “normal.” After years of living a lie—hoping that all the glamour and grandeur they built would somehow counter the world’s disgust—they end up sacrificing themselves for a hollow approval.

Contemporary social media adds a strange dimension: it glorifies gay people as “divas,” “successful divas,” “the perfectionist,” “the easy-to-go friend,” “bestie,” or “the most amazing human,” creating an unrealistically ideal persona—almost a standard—for someone who is gay. To my surprise, these baseline traits are not only expected but also observed across much of the queer population. The label “the gifted gays” captures a niche expectation, but are they truly gifted? Or are achievements, relentless hard work, and perfectionism simply distractions from self-knowledge? Why has knowing oneself become so scary?

Call it “the superego-driven life.” As much as I resent Freud’s rigid views, I have to concede that he might have been onto something: the extreme need to be perfect, to excel at everything, to let others walk over them in pointed heels, to be the people-pleaser, the girl’s girl, the nice friend, to occupy the top ranks—all so that the brilliance of the glass castle they build blinds others to the fact that they were made to see themselves as a “flaw.”

The Currency of Acceptance:

“So, all the shiny trophies and straight A’s are for acceptance. Acceptance can’t be that important, right? Why make a big deal out of it?”

Tell that to a 19-year-old gay guy who, instead of going on trips with friends over the summer, has 17 projects due, two internships, a strict workout plan, and a regimented diet. Still, at the end of it all, he is left with one nagging thought at the back of his mind: “Am I not enough?”

“You are my easy kid, I never had to worry about you.”

That status is the only leverage these kids have with their parents. They become fiercely hyper-independent, using the title of the “easy kid” as a shield to feel safe amidst the uncertainty of the truth. They do it to protect the love they are supposed to receive unconditionally. Yet, more often than not, they lose that love the moment they dare to embrace who they actually are.

“Do not go on boasting about your sexuality, our relatives shouldn’t know.” To please the family and preserve harmony, the only choice is to hide away. The cost just to exist is unfathomable. Why would they dare to be themselves when acting as someone else, or owning a lie and living it, is so much easier? The world simply makes it impossible for them to just be.

That is when the burnout hits. At the crossroads between the struggle for authenticity and the pressure to be perfect lies a choice: choose yourself, or choose the world over yourself. To feel a sense of belonging, they most often choose the world. They own the lie, forget themselves, and hope that somehow, things will eventually turn their way.

To the Best Little Boy:

My dear “best little boy”—as Andrew Tobias called it—always choose yourself. That is the biggest favor you can do for yourself and the world. You don’t owe the world anything. You don’t have to make up for a single thing! You don’t have to fit into a canvas of grays when you are the brightest shade of life.

You should be accepted for the essence of who you are, not for what you can offer or what you can do. You don’t have to prove your worth. You don’t have to comfort the world with the words and actions you wished you had received at some point in your own life. I know you are tired. Just open your arms to the ones who actually value and love you simply because you exist, not because they get something precious out of you.

The people around you should deserve you. Don’t read the room all the time. Don’t constantly try to anticipate the perception others have of you. You existing is enough. Trust me, there are people who will love your true essence. Knowing your truth doesn’t mean you will be loved any less; if people walk away, it just proves they weren’t meant to be in your life. You will be loved through your lows, your breakdowns, your failures, your tantrums, and your irritations. You will be loved for the whole of it, not just the parts you refined for the world.

You are a rose that is loved for its thorns as much as its alluring petals. You are not imperfect, nor are you perfect—you are whole. And my best little boy, you are love incarnate. Don’t search for it outside. In your endless search for love, you forgot that you are the essence of love.

Yes, I know love seems like something you have to “earn.” That is a bunch of internalized bullshit, my love. Every human has a claim to be loved. I know it feels unfamiliar to be loved or to love, and it feels like a game of slim odds, but trust me, you are the recipe for love itself. Look at your kindness, your care, your warmth, and the way you built a version of yourself that heals the world just by existing. You merge yourself with others, learning everything about them. When you can go to that extreme for other people, just imagine what you could do for yourself once you finally drop the act.

Finding a home within yourself and a significant other can seem impossible. Maybe you truly regret the “mistakes” you made just to feel loved. My love, those were no mistakes at all. You were just trying to find warmth in a world that threw you into a cold desert—and then you blamed yourself and pushed away everything you actually deserved.

Dropping the Act:

With a shudder of revulsion I shut the final door … letting no one touch me for the next five years. I was sure I could live without it. … I grew more invisible every day. I buried myself in books.

~ Paul Monette in his book “Becoming a Man”

You don’t have to be scared of the soothing touch of love. The truth is, my love, you have never even felt it yet. You were only used by vile creatures as an object of desire. You don’t have to be invisible anymore. You don’t have to dissolve into your sea of achievements.

In your attempt to feel whole, you cast away everything that makes you who you are. In your pursuit of perfection, you forgot why you even set out on this journey. In your desperate attempt to find a home, you abandoned the child in you a long time ago. It is time to go back and get him.

I would like to thank . He, as a person, and his content were my source of comfort and a catalyst for a lot of self-reflection. For all the lost “best little boys”: someone who knows your struggle does exist, and the knowledge that you are not alone in this struggle is the greatest relief.

References:

1. Downs, A. (2006). The velvet rage: Overcoming the pain of growing up gay in a straight man’s world. Da Capo Press.

2. Monette, P. (1992). Becoming a man: Half a life story. St. Martin’s Press.

3. Pachankis, J. E., & Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2013). The social development of contingent self-worth in sexual minority young men: An empirical investigation of the “best little boy in the world” hypothesis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2013.764304

4. Tobias, A. (1987). The best little boy in the world: Images and issues in gay men’s lives. William Morrow.

5. Kartikeyan, V. (2024). The good boy syndrome: A peculiar feature of being a man in the Indian context.

[*Note: There is a lot more materials I wanted to cite and the express even more, But then I would prove myself as another gay over achiever - 😅]

Let me walk you through a conversation between me and my friends [considering us as a good enough representative sample for most friend groups.]

November 20, 2025 [Thursday]

P1 was scrolling through reels on her phone during the break, and she comes across a reel

P1 : My entire feed at this point is about those Epstein Files. It’s so creepy.
P2 : I know, right? It’s so concerning what’s happening around the world.
P3 : Every app I open, it’s either those wars or that Epstein drama.
Me : Yeah, surprisingly how half the world’s leaders aren’t impeached yet.
P1 : It’s annoying—all this ‘headache’ on my feed. My entire day is ruined.
P3 : Yeah, opening the phone itself feels scary to witness those horrors.
P4 : On top of that, these feminist and gay people are voicing whatever they want on this situation.
P5 : Yeah, these people just throw their hands everywhere and the drama, dude.
P3 : Yeah, they just make everything about them and the ‘system.’
P2 : I mean, they’re not wrong—it is the ‘system.’
P1 : Guys, we don’t need this political thing early in the morning. Talk something else.
Me : I will pretend I didn’t just hear this conversation.

Given , everybody has the liberty to have their own ideologies and their ideologies really don’t define them, but the collective of my friends sound extremely tired of what they’re witnessing. Being tired is one thing , but attributing something that is so inherently sensitive along the lines of ‘nuisance’ is something worth looking into. And I am sure you, my dear reader , have come across conversations of similar fashion. We live in times where being human feels extremely burdensome. But is the numbness justified?

I agree there are many internal and external factors at play when my friends make this kind of commentary. Yet this theme of dialogue is not limited to the breakroom banter of teenagers; it slips into the highest halls of power in some of the world’s most prominent nations.

Leaders, their subjects, and entire nations now comfortably stake out their positions on these global, non‑normative events—and they stand by them, often as a way to survive amidst rising tensions. However, an important question emerges:

“How long will denial and hypocrisy shield anyone in this world?”

In today’s episode of “Psych Contemplations” we will be dissecting this very ‘numbness’ that stares right into our soul and questions the very integrity of human existence.

II. Shifting sands of Perception:

“Define world in your own words”—sounds simple, right? Many might answer: Earth, the Universe, Creation. Some wiser souls might distinguish between an internal world and an external one, or even between worlds of matter, spirit, and energy. Others might define “worlds” as collections of beings rather than a mere rock in space.

Yet, somewhere along the way, in an attempt to rationalize the infinitesimal nature of the “world” into confined, structured frameworks that we can fathom and imagine, we do so precisely so that we do not feel the full weight of our own inferiority and the terror of confronting the need for rules that make no sense on the grand scale of things. In trying to define the infinite as finite, we have already lost the first battle against the lump of gray matter in the bony box [🧠]—we have limited what the world is or what it could be. (Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1986)1.

If the brain was busy in experiencing the whole at all instances it would easily go into the state of cognitive overload, being aware of the whole is near impossible. The puny lump of neurons can’t handle being constantly bombarded with everything and process all of it in‑order to be aware of it. Hence the little trickster (the brain) developed a few ways to ‘quantify’ what it witnessed—by dividing what it is subjected to. (Turner et al., 1987; Tajfel & Turner, 1979)2.

The catalog of information we maintain to make sense of the world stays healthy only as long as it serves its basic function. But when these catalogs of “us,” “them,” “this,” and “that” grow so absurd that we hurl threats at whatever that doesn’t fit our boxes—desperate to preserve our ego integrity as our rigid frameworks crumble—”schemas”3 morph into divisions, disputes, hierarchies, and structures of control, empowering forces that poison the essence of being human: awareness itself. (Piaget, 1923; Bartlett, 1932).

III. The World of hierarchies

The rise of orders, structure, and hierarchies is essentially a by‑product of our inability to perceive the world in its absolute state. But does that justify the “existence” of this world of hierarchies? Absolutely not.

Since we are very good at putting everything in a 'box' based on our mortal wisdom, we've reduced humans—and the world at large—into categories with checklists to meet the criteria for belonging. But when we take fluid human existence and reduce it to catalogs, life becomes a tad bit miserable to live. (Murphy, 2003; Tajfel & Turner, 1979)45.

The very existence of feminism, queer advocacy, and other social‑justice movements is a testament to this rigid perception of the world as an unchanging narrative. We have fixated on norms, rules, and the “inherent” order of things— these “permanent” orders that were normalized under certain circumstances at some point in time, completely forgetting that there was a forever before the “normal” was established. This order, conceived by the human mind, stands only because of choices that were made and are still being made by the entire collective. Nothing is ever justified as “it is how it is supposed to be.”

Think of it this way: there is a perfectly healthy child, and the very first time he sees an ice‑cream he asks his mom to buy it—but his mom tells him that he will die if he eats ice‑creams. Does that mean ice‑creams should be banned everywhere? Does that mean eating ice‑creams is a sin? Before his mom stated the rule, did the rule even exist? But the moment it entered his field of awareness, he abides by it. If our subjective version of reality is taken to be the ultimate testament of reality, that would be stupidity. Even if all moms scare their perfectly healthy children the same way, that still does not mean ice‑creams would kill you. The fact and the perceived rule over the fact are different. The rule was set up with some motive; the order was conceived with an agenda, and the majority was persuaded to accept it because, in their reality, at one point there was nothing that said otherwise. If the child had eaten an ice‑cream before, he would argue with his mom. But she set a rule for his first time, and it became a norm (Rogers, 1959).6

Yet we are no children; we are grown human beings with 86 billion neurons actively firing—couldn’t we beg to differ with this so‑called reality?

IV. Agony

The system at large, too, once was conceived in the cognition of a mind that wanted to achieve something, and it then grew into a system when minds of a kind made their way to exploit humans for their own benefit in the name of efficiency. They created a system where one is so busy chasing low‑level needs such as survival, money, and security that an instability is created so that the collective doesn’t have time to think beyond the self—hence snatching away their ability to look at the “game” that is being played.

Even if the exploiters died, their methods were internalized as a standard to live by (Maslow, 1943)7. And the enemy wasn’t just someone’s cognition; it is with the self that has learned things that limit self, and the guilt of limiting self musters a justification by means of denial, saying, “Yeah, those people can’t be over‑powered, they are that way,” or “These lowly beings should be there; they are abnormal, they don’t follow norms like us.”

When we reduce people to 'resources' or 'deviants' to fit our societal agendas, we aren't just hurting them—we are eroding our own humanity. The system thrives on an 'Us vs. Them' narrative that acts like a local anesthetic; it numbs our ability to care until we no longer see a fellow human, but a mockery or a statistic. We’ve internalized these categories so deeply that we don’t even realize we’ve stopped looking at faces and started looking at labels.

The various social justice movements of our era are not mere "disruptions"; they are pleas for the minimal cognitive flexibility required to acknowledge the humanity of those marginalized by rigid societal frameworks. At their core, these movements ask us to forsake structures that prioritize the "normalcy" of the few over the well-being of the collective. We cling to a "world of constants" for comfort, yet we must recognize that this world is a shared inheritance. Its trajectory is not dictated by a single group, but held—often precariously—in the hands of us ALL.(Foot, 1967; Thomson, 1985)8

It is easy to fall into the psychological trap of seeing a new perspective as an existential threat. We hear the echoes of this fear in common refrains: “They only think of themselves,” or “They want to erase us.” Yet, if the expression of a new perspective were truly an attack, human civilization would have stagnated long ago. Progress has always relied on the ability to listen, to integrate, and to promote mutual harmony over tribalism.(Strauss & Howe, 1997)9

If humanity were perfectly contained within the "boxes" of the past, there would be no distinction between the vibrancy of the living and the stillness of the dead. Each generation must question the questionable choices of the past to build a future that avoids the same pitfalls. This does not require us to reduce our history to rubble; rather, it requires us to mindfully exist across all three passages of time—past, present, and future—extracting wisdom from the "silver linings" of our history while correcting its "grey hues."

V. A letter to those transcending the system

To those whose lives have been reduced to mere resources by the “twisted ordains” of systemic exploitation: your agony is valid. However, the target of your defiance must be precise. Your struggle is not with those living in the “bliss of ignorance,” unaware of the systems they inhabit. Your struggle is with the underlying structure itself.

Loudness without self-awareness serves little purpose. When we adopt reactive schools of thought (misandry , straight-phobia etc.)—mirroring the hatred of the system with new forms of exclusion—we simply give-in to the very framework we seek to dismantle. We risk shattering an already broken world.

Your awareness places a heavy burden upon you: the responsibility to make choices that speak for the entirety of humanity, not just a single sect. To defy a system, one must build a new one within the womb of the old—one grounded in a higher level of integration.

True systemic change requires the “Whole” to engage in the difficult work of accommodation. It is an arduous task to integrate the existence of the “Other” into our own without losing our sense of self. While hate is a natural response to witnessed hypocrisy, we must remember that those who uphold the system are often suffering under its limitations as well—they simply lack the awareness to name it.

For a future in which we all prevail, the narrative of the “I” must evolve. We must move toward the “Us.”

…

…

9

The Fourth Turning: W.Strauss & N.Howe

After every time this cycle repeats, we often rebuild new walls. But every society has failed at preserving its wisdom through these cycles, because each new generation tends to forget why their new world actually exists (Strauss & Howe, 1997). Strauss and Howe’s generational cycle (often called the “Fourth Turning” model) describes a recurring pattern of roughly 80–100 years, composed of four distinct “turnings” or stages:

1. High – A period of strong institutions, collective confidence, and relative stability, usually following a major crisis.

2. Awakening – A cultural and spiritual upheaval in which values, identity, and individualism are re‑examined, often through social movements and religious or moral revivals.

3. Unraveling – A time of declining trust in institutions, rising individualism, and weakening social cohesion, with growing cynicism and fragmentation.

4. Crisis – A major catalytic period of upheaval (war, revolution, economic collapse, or systemic breakdown) that redefines the society’s institutions and values, eventually setting the stage for a new “High.”

Each of these four stages is shaped by a distinct generational “mood,” and the entire cycle repeats, yet the lessons of the past are rarely fully remembered—so the new generation inherits the structures of the old world without fully understanding the reasons they came into being.

Parenting (Dictatorship):

The first words the majority of teenagers hear—at least in the Indian context—are: “Build a stable career.” But what do they mean by “stable”? In what sense? Do they refer to stability in capability, skillset, and passion to pursue the career, or stability as in choosing the path that comes with this “perceived” guarantee of economic security?

Unfortunately, the herd behavior kicks in here. Young minds need nurturing to realize their inherent tendencies, to recognize their potential, and then identify their passions and talents—refining them into valid skills and forging a skillset that can be put to use in a compatible career. All of this, ladies and gentlemen, HAPPENS organically, at its own pace. Trust me: the child has their own mind. All you need to do is give DIRECTION.

But rather unfortunately, out of some “perceived” rush for economic growth, rises an urge to rise faster than the world, and parents rush these young minds. Instead of Direction, my dear reader, there is DICTATION. These young minds are pushed into a mechanism of herd behavior where they waste their lives acquiring skillsets and forging careers that don’t even align with their core values, interests, or passions (Suleman, 2022).

And the result? Who bears it, might I ask? The parents? Absolutely not! It’s the unfortunate soul that bears this dreadful reality—slaving away their life to do something they possibly hate, bound to it by the shackles of “responsibility” and “independence.” They are forever stuck in a loop until every ounce of energy is drained.

The ROI - Return on Investments:

Even more twisted is what happens when that “unfortunate soul” finally sees through the fog. When the child recognizes their true calling after navigating the maze of imposed ambitions, they often find themselves forced into a double life just to feel a spark of vitality. They work the “stable” job by day and chase their soul by night.

And the moment they decide to bridge that gap—to actually pursue their calling and defy the script—they become an internal enemy and what does society call them? A FAILURE. An imposter of sorts in the eyes of the family for the “crime” of defiance. The most tragic part? The moment that child faces a natural setback—a single flaw or a temporary failure in their chosen path—the parents pounce. They take that one instance, that one human occurrence, and make it their entire point of defense. Their ego and their desperate need to be right override the child’s need for support.

Have we reached an age where parents are no different from a corporate entity? It seems they are no longer looking for the well-being of the child, but for an ROI—a Return on Investment. This is the height of hypocrisy. Parents sugar-coat their control with phrases like, “I am only concerned for the best of my child’s career,” yet they don’t trust their own offspring to navigate their own life.

This isn’t protection; it’s a projection. When a parent’s ego-integrity depends on their child’s “perceived” success, they are essentially toying with the identity formation of the very human being they brought onto this planet (Erikson, 1963). To provide the basics—food, shelter, education—and then use those as leverage to victimize yourself and dictate a human life? That is a double standard of the highest order. Either pick the side of truth or stay in your denial, but stop treating a human soul like a financial asset.

You are a failure:

And this Dictation—yeah, it drags along a whole lot more baggage than we’ve already discussed—relentlessly pushes the individual into a vortex of confusion, a gnawing sense of lacking, and a numbing drift through life. It slowly sucks the very essence of joy and vitality out of them.

This often culminates in the phenomenon we call a Mid-Life Crisis. This is where someone, often still considered a “youngster,” finally summons the courage to make a risky move. They abandon the rigid rulebook of parental dictation to desperately try and figure out their own authentic path, hone their unique skills, and ultimately build something that genuinely resonates with their soul (Robinson, 2023).

“Stability, in its purest form, is often an illusion.”

Life ain’t supposed to be Mainstream:

Career, job, nine-to-five, whatever label you slap on it—THAT’S not the entirety of life. A career isn’t fundamentally supposed to just earn you riches, nor is its sole purpose to ensure a flimsy sense of stability.

Instead of relentlessly doing what you dread, mindlessly wasting your precious life, and contributing little of your authentic self to the world and to your own growth, it’s high time for a fundamental change. It is documented that alignment between personal values and professional roles leads to significantly higher life satisfaction and lower rates of burnout (Hagmaier & Abele, 2021).

It’s time to stop the drift. It’s time to courageously build something that feels truly real.

P.S. A Note to Dear Parents: You have your life. If you have the capacity, build something of your own. But disturbing the growth of another human being to achieve your ends—and sugar-coating it—isn't going to work. By all means, stay in denial of the pathetic hypocrisy you hold toward yourselves, but do not project it onto your child. If you don't trust your child with their own life, you might as well have never had them. They are not your "project" to perfect; they are a human being you birthed who needs guidance and assistance. It’s time to retire the inner dictator and start behaving more human.

References

• Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). Norton.

• Gallup. (2024). State of the global workplace: 2024 report. Gallup Press.

• Hagmaier, T., & Abele, A. E. (2021). When reality meets expectations: The role of value alignment in career satisfaction. Journal of Career Development, 48(3), 255–270.

• Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (Rev. ed.). Harper & Row.

• Robinson, O. C. (2023). A theory of crisis episodes in early- and mid-adulthood. Developmental Review.

• Suleman, F. (2022). The herd effect in career choice: Social influences on professional pathways. Educational Research Review, 15(2), 88–104.

POST SCRIPT: 2:

Society tells you that once your “Basic Needs” are met, you should sit down and be grateful. But Abraham Maslow realized his original five-stage model was incomplete. In the 1960s and 70s, he expanded this into an eight-stage hierarchy (Maslow, 1970). Beyond the standard “Self-Actualization,” he added:

• Cognitive Needs: The hunger for knowledge, curiosity, and meaning.

• Aesthetic Needs: The search for beauty, balance, and form.

• Transcendence Needs: Helping others achieve self-actualization and connecting to something beyond the self.

If you are stuck in a career that only feeds your physiological needs but starves your Cognitive and Aesthetic hunger, you aren’t “stable”—you are stagnant. Motivation and passion are not just “nice to have”; they are the engine of a career that makes you feel ALIVE.

Money is a product of passion. If you build an empire you wish to rule, why would it not enrich you? If you can mold your craft as per your will—whether you are a painter or a coder—and reframe it in a way the world buys that idea, the wealth follows. This is the ultimate combo of intrinsic reward and external incentives. This isn’t about privilege; it’s about the primal need to pursue the hunger you feel.

DISPOSE OF THE NARRATIVES. Obligations are only important when you accept the scripts written for you. It’s time to write your own.

I don’t want loose another friend to death-

Reading is a lifelong habit that evolves with us, sharpening our ability to understand and adapt to the world while fueling the pursuit of knowledge and excellence. In the contemporary era, reading has transcended its traditional role as a mere vessel for knowledge accumulation or niche entertainment. Technological evolution—particularly the internet—has reshaped it profoundly. Many linguists lament this shift, arguing it erodes deep comprehension in favor of fleeting visual distractions, stifling creativity and imagination in today’s youth.

Yet, every coin has two sides. Far from dooming reading, savvy readers have harnessed the internet to sustain and democratize it. Once a privilege of the elite, confined to dusty libraries and exclusive book clubs, reading is now accessible to anyone, anywhere. Platforms like Project Gutenberg, Libby, and Kindle Unlimited offer millions of free or affordable titles, while global communities on Goodreads, Reddit’s r/books, and Discord servers connect curious minds across borders. This tailors reading experiences—think AI-powered recommendations on Goodreads that match your mood or genre preferences—turning passive consumption into an interactive journey. No longer elite or static, reading has woven seamlessly into daily life: bite-sized insights flood Instagram Reels and LinkedIn posts, while niche Substack’s and Twitter threads deliver specialized content on everything from neuropsychology to poetry.

This democratization, however, casts shadows when left unguided. Cognitive overload looms large; bombarded by endless feeds, our brains crave low-effort alternatives like videos or memes, fostering an avoidant relationship with sustained reading. Attention spans have shrunk—studies from Microsoft (2015) pegged the average at eight seconds, down from 12 in 2000—exacerbating “doom scrolling” fatigue. Blue light from screens disrupts sleep, with research in Sleep Medicine Reviews (2020) linking late-night e-reading to reduced REM cycles, mirroring the trade-offs of “reading on the go” via apps like Pocket.

Statistics illuminate both edges of the blade. Pew Research (2021) found 75% of U.S. adults read a book in the past year, up from 2019, thanks to audiobooks and e-books surging 20% during the pandemic (Audio Publishers Association, 2022). Yet, deep reading declines: the National Endowment for the Arts (2022) reports literary reading among young adults at a historic low of 37%, correlating with screen time exceeding 7 hours daily (Common Sense Media, 2023). Technology amplifies access but fragments focus—users sacrifice depth for breadth.

Ultimately, technology doesn’t dictate reading’s fate; we do. Your needs, demands, and motives shape the experience, dearest reader. Approach it mindfully—curate feeds, set screen limits, blend digital with print—and reading remains a transformative force.

This essay essentially demonstrates that technology has revolutionized reading by democratizing access and integrating it into daily life, while posing risks like cognitive overload and shortened attention spans—evident in rising e-book adoption (Pew, 2021) juxtaposed against declining deep reading (NEA, 2022). These claims hold firm: reading thrives when users wield technology intentionally, flipping potential pitfalls into advantages.

That said, limitations temper the analysis. Data skews Western (e.g., U.S.-centric stats), overlooking global variances like India’s booming digital reading via apps like Pratilipi amid low literacy rates. Longitudinal studies are scarce, capturing pandemic-era spikes but not post-2023 trends, and subjective metrics like “imagination” evade quantification. Future research could explore neuropsychology—e.g., fMRI scans of digital vs. print readers—to quantify comprehension depth.

Despite these gaps, the essay stands true: reading’s essence endures, adaptable and empowered by technology. Embrace mindful habits, and let this evolution propel your own literary journey forward.

Sources:

1. Abang Yusof, D. A. (2021). Reading habits among students in the digital era: Changes of trends and behaviours. Journal of Academic Library Management. https://aclim.uitm.edu.my/article/article/view/5aclim.uitm

2. Loan, F. A. (2009). Impact of new technology on reading habits: A glimpse on the world literature. https://www.academia.edu/73454282/Impact_of_New_Technology_on_Reading_Habits_A_Glimpse_on_the_World_Literature

3. Audio Publishers Association. (2022). Audiobook sales survey. https://www.audiopub.org/data (Used for pandemic-era audiobook growth data (20% surge), quantifying access boost via digital formats.)

4. Common Sense Media. (2023). The common-sense census: Media use by tweens and teens. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research (Provides screen time stats (>7 hours daily for youth), linking to attention fragmentation and “doomscrolling” risks.)

5. Microsoft Canada. (2015). Attention spans research report. https://advertising.microsoft.com/ (Consumer survey + EEG on 2,000+ adults showing attention drop to 8 seconds, evidence for cognitive overload from multitasking.)

6. National Endowment for the Arts. (2022). Survey of public participation in the arts. https://www.arts.gov/ (Tracks literary reading decline to 37% among young adults, contrasting breadth vs. depth trade-off.)

7. Pew Research Center. (2021). Who doesn’t read books in America? https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/09/21/who-doesnt-read-books-in-america/ (Reports 75% U.S. adults read in past year with e-book rise, supporting democratization claims.)

8. Sleep Medicine Reviews (2020) blue light claim approximates studies like Chang et al. (2015) in PNAS on e-readers reducing REM—used for sleep disruption evidence; precise match elusive, consider Harvard summary.

[This is the assignment that I did for my Academic writing coursework and here I am publishing as promised]

Do you wanna see my presentation I made for this essay for the class ?? [I am going to put it here anyway]

Leaders are intended to be those who dissolve their egos into the greater collective, thinking as the community and making decisions that benefit all—effectively impersonating a collective consciousness. Having mastered the art of thinking beyond the confines of the ego, they should possess a transcendence that allows them to feel the emotions of everyone around them; they should be incapable of discrimination, class division, or even neglect. Once an ego dissolves into the collective, every aspect of the community becomes as visceral as the sensations of one’s own body.

One doesn’t have to be a Himalayan monk to step beyond the ego. Millions of people do it every day for “Punch”—the internet-famous Macaque. We shower a snow monkey with genuine, selfless love, transcending the boundaries of species to feel a connection. If we can find “the other” in a different animal and treat its well-being as our own, we have already proven we possess the capacity for transcendence.

So, what stops us from doing the same for the humans standing right next to us?

The barrier isn't a lack of capability; it is a choice of comfort. We retreat into "Labels" and "Aesthetic Validity"—intellectual filters we use to decide who is worthy of our empathy and who is a statistical footnote. We build our lives into glass fortresses.

These fortresses feel secure, but they are fragile. An ego built on the exclusion of others is a house of cards. When the collective suffers, the systemic cracks eventually reach the fortress. What we call “leadership” today is often just the highest-paid seat in the glass house. It is time to stop pretending that empathy is a rare spiritual gift. If you can feel for a monkey on a screen, you can feel for the person who isn’t a photocopy of you. The only thing in your way is the “cozy comfort” of an ego that is destined to shatter anyway. Remember there is no “other” — for better or worse we share a common reality and a possible common pool of consciousness that brings about the humanity in us.

The Harsh Reality

The great leaders of the contemporary world simply advance their own agendas to reap ‘perceived’ benefits. The very leaders who must defy the boundaries of ego are the puppets of their own boasted egos. In the end, we are left with discord, chaos, sorrows, and empty prayers. True leadership has vanished; what remains are merely slaves to their own egos, attempting to rule while the structure they occupy inevitably tears itself apart.

Oh, Time, hear my plea: let this world tear itself to shreds. Let nothing remain, so that a new world may rise from the ashes—one that is not hypocritical in its own existence. A world where the self of “I” doesn’t exist. A world where there is one ocean and not a trillion drops.

The Ruling Type: Insecurity in Power

We are in dire need of leaders whose authority is not a mask for personal insecurity. Too many who occupy positions of power are merely acting out an overcompensation for early feelings of inferiority, seeking to dominate others to soothe a perceived lack of inner wholeness. This is the “ruling type” of personality—a pursuit of power that seeks to validate the self at the expense of the collective. But true leadership is not a therapy session for the leader’s past; it is the purposeful commitment to the welfare of others.

So dear so-called leaders,
“We are extremely sorry your mom didn’t make you feel adequate as a child — but now is not the time for you to make-up for it, and this not the space.”

Alfred Adler’s Wisdom: Social Interest and Maturity

As Adler maintained, the hallmark of maturity is social interest (Gemeinschaftsgefühl). When you take on the role of a leader, you are not a monarch; you are the body of the collective. You must replace the “opinion of self” with a profound sense of responsibility for the whole. You exist to listen, to integrate the parts, and to serve. If you fail to do this—if you prioritize your own ego over the health of the community—you are not leading; you are merely constructing a fiction of superiority that will eventually collapse, bringing the whole organism down with it.

The Call to Courage

If you have the courage, oh leader—stop chasing power to heal yourself. Start exercising the strength required to serve the greater collective that YOU chose to represent. Choose to be useful. Choose to be human—not a hypocrite who wastes away your existence.

• References
  Adler, A. (1927). Understanding human nature. Greenberg. (Primary source introducing Gemeinschaftsgefühl, or “social interest,” as the hallmark of psychological maturity and community feeling.)digitalcommons.library.uab+1

• Adler, A. (1931). What life should mean to you. Little, Brown, and Company.

• Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Robert K. Greenleaf Center. (Seminal essay arguing that true leaders are “natural servants” who prioritize others’ needs, birthing the servant leadership movement.)wikipedia+1

• Durkheim, É. (1893). The division of labor in society (W. D. Halls, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1893). Introduces conscience collective (collective consciousness) as shared beliefs unifying society.)onlinelibrary.wiley+1

• Maccoby, M. (2003). The productive narcissist: The promise and peril of visionary leadership. Broadway Books. (Examines how narcissistic traits drive innovative leaders in politics and corporations, offering a realistic view of ego in power—productive when paired with strategic intelligence, destructive otherwise.)

Subscribe now

Share Psych Contemplations

Semiya Payasam

MY DEAR SHM...

I wish I could tell you this started with something special…

Read more

5 months ago · 4 likes · 8 comments · Semiya Payasam

Good Ol’ days of Delulu:

I obsessed over one guy with the same amount of “passion”—let’s use that word for lack of a better one—and boy oh boy, the sheer volume of emotional and mental energy I invested in that one-way road was staggering. When I was indulged in it, the experience was a total high, but the thing about highs is the inevitable fall.

Looking back through those “poetic” associations, I realized something vital: I never actually loved him. I adored him, sure; I admired him—but mostly, I idealized him as a concept in my brain. I forgot that he was human, and so was I. While it’s human to love, it’s definitely not just a game of poetic associations, though I won’t deny those associations exist.

I still remember how I used to imagine an entire lifetime with him while listening to ‘Ammaadi’ song from Hi Nanna . It was typical teenage behavior, fueled by a specific kind of cinematic hope and, frankly, some next-level delusion.

ప్రాణం అల్లాడి పోదా అమ్మాడి
అందం కట్టేసుకుంటే అమ్మాడి
ఇంకా కల్లోనే ఉన్నా అమ్మాడి
ఈ మాటే అంటు ఉంటు
రోజంత నన్నొదలడుగా

Those lines were the bittersweet soundtrack to my obsession phase. I convinced myself he was the one—a rare gem in a world of jerks, the only guy who was ever nice to me. Just Delusion? — Understatement of the century.

The Cognitive Dissonance

Picture this: Crushing for three years, confessing, and boom—he moves in. We live together for a year. But he's straight, so I kept hopes buried. Then he drops lines like, "When I think of ‘my girl’ , she's like this song," while my brain's scripting me as the pretty wife in his story. Peak wishful thinking.

Then, Pranav, what was the whiplash that woke you up? Well, dear reader, one day, post-confession, he says:

"Only if you were a woman, loving you and being loved by you would be great."

Oof. All I understood was : So you just need a woman's body, huh? Not this soul going feral over you?

Which led to me creating a fake female profile—replaying my real confession through a "girl" mask. Worst part? He fell hard for "her" (aka me). Lesson learned: Love's often a superficial game of aesthetics, associations, and facades. I hated it all—really, I hated the irrational obsessions disguised as love.

Eureka!?:

Fast-forward: I outgrew the mess (after a plethora of deserved apologies to him and explanations - and a lot of fights). Regret the chaotic teen tactics? — Absolutely. But then came a deeper shift.

I found a love that skips the dream-world highs peddled by songs and rom-coms. It’s quieter—sitting with myself, syncing the ocean’s rhythm to my heartbeat until they unite. That’s love: a path beyond self and world’s confines. No labels needed. Shoutout to Crush #1 for the unintended shove toward that truth.

I eventually outgrew that phase. I found another human who served as a lesson—and yes, I actually dared to experiment with love this time, not just obsession. Destiny, however, had other plans. Due to some unseen circumstances, they ended up closer to the “nemesis” position than the “bestie” side of the spectrum. But this realization only truly dawned on me after the crisis we weathered together. Did I end up with wisdom? I think so.

They remain a pleasant memory, mostly because they showed me how to look within and be resourceful without outsourcing kindness to myself from the world. They taught me what true kindness feels like by being kind to themselves—a stark contrast to my own “game of veils” and lies. I was overcompensating for acceptance, and it cost me. From that wreckage, I’ve arrived at a few postulates of my own:

1. On Love: The “transcendental” version I’m currently yapping about—it’s about bridging worlds, not just catching a high.

2. On Truth: Truth is uncomfortable and uncertain, but it is uncomplicatedly better. It kills the cognitive dissonance and stops you from slaving away to please the world, giving you back the time to focus on yourself.

3. On Being Humane: You must be humane enough—and keep your ego in enough moderation—to practice a mindfulness that allows you to lead by example. Only then can you transcend love beyond its contemporary, limited definitions.

So, we aren’t nemeses, strictly speaking. But we definitely aren’t besties anymore.

Summing up:

I’ve come to think that truly understanding love isn’t possible in our puny human lives until we reach a level of consciousness that bridges our inner and outer worlds. Once that happens, loving someone looks totally different than that teenage high. Yet, that high is essential; it’s the friction the soul needs to become wiser. Real love isn’t the elated high or the burning agony—it’s a force that transcends dimensions, space, and time. It unites the self to the universe. And when that happens, the universe finds a fragment of your soul in someone else, so that you—a starling who is already complete—can shine even brighter. You aren’t being completed; you’re just becoming a more brilliant drop of the ocean.

PS: By the way, this watch was the one I initially bought for Crush #1. Then after how badly we ended up, he left it with me—so it became mine, subconsciously holding onto him—until Crush #2 [crush 'cause again I can’t think of an apt term for what that was]. But they took it from me as a gift as well—which kinda broke my perception of love with a new one. Let's say this was my realization in a very metaphorical way, moderated by an object?

After all, I had to learn to love myself and others the way my parents always had: unconditionally, no matter what.

Share

What became of our shore-run birthday plans—
toppling like idiots, rolling in the sand?

What of the endless talk on New Year’s calls?
What of me at your door, awaiting a feast you promised to cook?

You promised we’d yap drama to our godchildren,
tease your future wife as you both flirted, and my future husband laughing at our mischief.

What of the unwritten letters across oceans?
What of the plans trapped in mind and thought?
What of the friendship that bloomed?
What of your vow to read all of my mindless poems & essays?

Why this cost for one missed call—
that unheard call for help, the shriek veiled
in your sudden surge of joy? How masterfully you hid it...
Silent pleas unanswered, my brother.

One unanswered call

Another letter, unsent,
for you are gone to receive it.

P.S: Happy 21st, Vicky.
I’d have called you old if we’d met again, brother.

With love,
Pranav

[The note was about how they hate gay PDA]

The aim of this article is to explore the nature of this issue from a psychological lens.

Firstly a note to the author - Hey there! , thank you for sharing this so openly and honestly—it's refreshing to see someone genuinely wrestling with their feelings and seeking understanding rather than just venting. I appreciate your self-reflection (like questioning if it's internalized frustration) and your willingness to hear other viewpoints. Let's unpack this thoughtfully, drawing from social psychology and cognition research, to explore why this repulsiveness might arise and how we can all navigate it constructively. No judgments here—just clarity.

To understand why certain public displays trigger such intense responses, we can look through the lens of Nyaya philosophy and modern psychology to deconstruct our “normative” scripts.

1. The Power of Pratyaksha (Perception) and Exposure

Your reaction isn't uncommon or "illogical"—it's rooted in how our brains process novelty. Humans are wired for quick pattern recognition: we categorize experiences as "familiar/normal" vs. "unfamiliar/abnormal" within milliseconds [ from memory of social cognition studies].

From the “dawn of our lives,” most societies constantly present heterosexual affection [or even PDA - public displays of affection] as normal and expected. Movies, television, advertisements, school stories, weddings, family conversations, and everyday public spaces repeatedly show interactions between men and women as the default form of romance. Because this exposure begins early and repeats endlessly, it becomes part of what the mind registers as “ordinary.”

• Key Concept: Mere-Exposure Effect (Zajonc, 1968): We prefer what we’ve seen repeatedly. Straight couples? Endless exposure. Same-sex? Less so, especially in conservative or less diverse settings. Your brain isn’t “hating”—it’s signaling unfamiliarity.

• Think of it like trying sushi for the first time: initial gag reflex, but repeated neutral exposure often leads to tolerance (or even liking).

This explains why “normal PDA” is bearable (somewhat familiar) but gay PDA hits harder—it’s not about hate; it’s subconscious unfamiliarity amplified by cultural scripts.

When we encounter something that deviates from this lifelong rehearsal, the mind is designed to jump to judgment. In the Nyaya framework, if our knowledge is based on limited perception (Pratyaksha), our conclusions about what “should exist” are often incomplete. What we label “abnormal” is often just “unfamiliar.”

Recognizing this difference is important. Feeling discomfort toward something unfamiliar may be natural, but deciding that the unfamiliar thing should not exist is a separate step, one that deserves careful reflection.

2. The Symmetry of Learned Tolerance

There is a profound symmetry in how humans navigate public spaces. For queer individuals, however, the situation has historically been the opposite. They grew up surrounded almost entirely by expressions of heterosexual relationships. For decades, queer individuals were taught to “pretend they didn’t see” the ubiquitous displays of straight PDA that didn’t reflect their own reality. They practiced a form of social grace—an acceptance of “your normal”—even when it wasn’t “their normal.”

In other words, queer people were taught to coexist with what was presented as the social norm. They adapted to it, often quietly and without recognition.

When viewed from that perspective, a useful question emerges:
If queer individuals have long managed to live in a world dominated by heterosexual expression, why should the occasional visibility of same-sex affection be treated as something inherently unacceptable?

If the mind is quick to judge, it is helpful to remember that the judgmental attitude is a conscious choice. If one group could handle their attitude toward a norm they didn’t share, it invites us to question: Why call their normal “abnormal”?

3. Language and the Ego’s Defense

Another small but meaningful point concerns language. Words carry weight because they shape how ideas are understood. Describing people or their relationships as things that “should not exist” may unintentionally reinforce hostility even if the speaker does not intend harm.

By choosing a more diplomatic and neutral lexicon, we can escape the bounds of social categorization—the “us vs. them” mentality—and view human behavior with more objectivity.

This is not about fragility or censorship. It is important to note that communities are rarely as fragile as they appear; a single comment rarely overturns anyone’s identity or sense of self.

The goal of this dialogue isn’t an attack, but an invitation to maintain a level of discourse that encourages discussion rather than escalating conflict. We are all navigating these spaces together, and one person’s gaze—or their decision to avert it—is a tool for their own comfort.

4. Establishing a Consistent Standard

A logical approach to PDA suggests that if a display is inappropriate for a specific setting, it is wrong regardless of the gender of the people involved. That position is consistent and understandable. If someone prefers more reserved behavior in public spaces, that preference can apply equally to everyone.

However, problems arise when two identical behaviors are judged differently based solely on who is performing them. If we find ourselves only repulsed by one specific group, it points to a subconscious battle or a predisposition that has yet to be outgrown with wisdom.

You mentioned that you tried to examine your reaction and even questioned whether it came from deeper psychological factors. That kind of self-questioning is valuable. Most prejudices persist precisely because people never stop to analyze where their feelings originate.

If gay PDA feels “inherent repulsiveness,” it might stem from:

1. Hypervisibility Bias: Minority behaviors stand out more (like noticing one red car among black ones).

2. Prejudice Pipeline: Automatic judgments (normal brain function) can escalate if unchecked, per social identity theory (Tajfel 1979).

A brief gesture such as holding hands, leaning on a shoulder, or exchanging a quick hug is widely accepted when performed by heterosexual couples (Inappropriate examples include heavy making out in imposing settings like offices or crowded trains—regardless of whether the couple is straight, gay, or otherwise.) When the same gesture between two men or two women produces intense anger or disgust, the reaction usually reflects conditioning rather than the action itself.

In principle, standards of public etiquette should be applied consistently. If excessive PDA in certain spaces is inappropriate, then it is inappropriate for everyone. If moderate affection is tolerated, then that tolerance should not depend on gender combinations.

5. Respecting Personal Comfort Without Policing Others

No one is obligated to enjoy watching romantic affection in public. Discomfort with PDA is a legitimate personal preference. But there is an important difference between disliking something and demanding that others hide it.

In everyday life, people frequently encounter behaviors they are not interested in observing. The simplest response is often the same strategy many have always used in public parks or crowded streets: if individuals are minding their own business and are comfortable in their own skin, they aren’t necessarily seeking your gaze. In these moments, we have a choice.

• Avert the gaze: The same way one might in a public park when seeing any couple being “lovey-dovey.”

• Seek Harmony: Recognize that these feelings are often remnants of social conditioning rather than inherent truths.

• Data point: In diverse cities like Mumbai or NYC, mixed PDA exposure reduces discomfort by 40-50% over time (per intergroup contact studies, Allport 1954).

Mutual coexistence works when individuals allow space for others whose lives may not resemble their own. Sometimes these reactions fade naturally as one encounters more diverse experiences. Sometimes they persist longer but become easier to manage through awareness. Either outcome begins with curiosity rather than denial.

6. Moving Toward Internal Harmony

The goal of this inquiry is not to force an emotional change, but to foster harmony within the self. Hatred is an exhausting emotion to carry. By acknowledging these visceral reactions as “subconscious predispositions” rather than “inherent truths,” we allow ourselves the space to grow.

Acknowledging a bias is not a moral failure. Ignoring it indefinitely is what prevents growth. At the end of the day, society functions best when individuals learn to share public spaces with people who differ from them. Harmony does not require that everyone feel identical comfort with every behavior. It simply requires a willingness to allow others the same freedom to exist that we expect for ourselves.

The aim is not to force admiration or approval. The aim is coexistence.

I admire the effort to explore these thoughts. Most such feelings are ignored or allowed to turn into outward hostility; choosing to ask “why” is the path of the student and the philosopher. This response is offered in the spirit of explanation, not accusation. Your question invited reflection, and reflection deserves an honest answer.

The broader point is simple:

• Initial discomfort with unfamiliar behavior can happen to anyone.

• Judging that behavior as inherently wrong is a separate step that deserves reconsideration.

• Social norms often reflect exposure rather than objective truth.

• Standards regarding public behavior should apply consistently to everyone.

Exploring these ideas is part of how societies gradually become more balanced and self-aware.

So the fact that the question was asked at all is worthwhile. Conversations like this create opportunities for understanding rather than silence, and that alone moves things a little closer toward genuine social harmony.

In Physics, we learn the universe is composed of ~5% Ordinary Matter, ~25% Dark Matter, and ~70% Dark Energy. In collaboration with my father Shiva Konduri , [a fellow enthusiast of Indian philosophy and psychological texts], we began to map this “Macro-Cosmos” onto the “Micro-Cosmos” of human experience.

What emerged is a heuristic (it’s not based on empirical data) for self-inquiry—a way to understand our “Internal Composition.”

The 5-25-70 Model of Human Experience:

🔸 5% The Physical Plane (Annamaya Kosha): The “Ordinary Matter” of our lives. This is the gross body, our sensations, and biology. It is our densest layer, yet the smallest slice. In meditation and deep recovery, we realize how much of “us” transcends this physical vessel.

🔹 25% The Prana Plane (Pranamaya Kosha): The “Dark Matter” of the soul. This is the vital energy, the breath, and the chakras that provide the invisible scaffolding for the body. It animates life but isn’t the “Self”—just as Dark Matter provides the gravity for galaxies but remains unseen.

🌌 70% The Consciousness Plane (Manomaya + Vijnanamaya + Anandamaya): The “Dark Energy” of existence. This is the dominant field of our reality—comprising our mind, intellect, and the “Anandamaya” (the bliss of the pure observer). Just as Dark Energy drives cosmic expansion, this internal field holds our infinite potential for transformation and peace.

Data in neuroscience shows a similar "Proportional Reality": our brains spend nearly 70% of their energy on internal self-referential networks (The Observer) and only a tiny fraction on direct external sensation (The 5%).

Cosmology tells us that 95% of the universe is invisible to the naked eye. My recovery taught me that the same is true for us. When the 5% (the body) is in pain, we can find refuge by shifting our identity into the 70% (the Witness)..We are not just in the universe; we are a scaled-down reflection of it. I’d love to hear from fellow seekers and scholars—how do you balance the “5% visible” with the “95% invisible” in your own journey?

Does this macro-micro parallel resonate with your understanding of reality?

More importantly this is how I approached this-

Step 1: Establishing the Cosmic Baseline (The 5-25-70 Rule)

We start with the most accurate “map” of existence we currently have: the Lambda-CDM model of cosmology. Data from the Planck satellite gives us the mass-energy density of the universe:

• 5% Ordinary Matter: The “stuff” made of atoms (stars, planets, you).

• 25% Dark Matter: The invisible “glue” that provides gravitational structure.

• 70% Dark Energy: The vast, repulsive field that drives the expansion of space itself.

Step 2: Defining the Human Equivalents (The Variable Swap)

To create the human pie chart, we identify which parts of the human experience “behave” like these cosmic components.

A. The 5% → The Physical Plane (Gross Matter)

• The Logic: Just as ordinary matter is the only part of the universe we can actually see, the physical body and the material world are the only parts of the human experience that are “tangible.”

• The Constraint: This includes your biology, your brain’s physical tissue, and the objects you interact with. It is dense, limited, and represents the “visible” minority of who you are.

B. The 25% → Vital Energy (The Invisible Scaffolding)

• The Logic: Dark Matter is invisible, yet it holds galaxies together through gravity. In the human experience, Energy (Prana/Life Force) acts as the “scaffolding” for the body.

• The Derivative: This represents the electrical impulses of your nervous system, the “vibe” or “mood” of a person, and the subconscious patterns that move you. You can’t see “hunger” or “drive” under a microscope, but they provide the structure for your physical actions.

C. The 70% → Conscious Awareness (The Infinite Field)

• The Logic: Dark Energy is a property of space itself—it is everywhere, it is “empty” yet full of power, and it causes everything to expand.

• The Derivative: This is Pure Awareness. It is the “observer” behind your thoughts. Just as Dark Energy is the background in which galaxies exist, Consciousness is the background in which your thoughts, dreams, and physical sensations occur. It is the most expansive part of being human.

Step 3: Applying the “Macro-Micro” Postulate

We then apply the philosophical principle of Universal Scaling. If the laws of physics are consistent, the “rhythm” of the large should match the “rhythm” of the small.

• The Equation:

  

By keeping the percentages identical to the universe, we create a model that suggests the human being is a fractal of the cosmos. This makes the chart not just a drawing, but a mathematical hypothesis: The density of our “physicality” is exactly proportional to the density of “matter” in the vacuum of space.

Step 4: The Visual Realization (The Pie Chart)

When we put these into the chart, the visual impact is the “Result.”

1. The Small Slice (5%): The physical world is “bright” and occupies our attention, it is tiny.

2. The Middle Slice (25%): The “bridge” is the energy that connects the mind to the body.

3. The Dominant Slice (70%): The “void” is the vastness of the internal universe.

Summary of the “Arrival”

We arrived here by treating the Universe as a Mirror. We took the “Hard Science” of the sky and used it as a “Template” for the “Soft Science” of the soul. This creates a bridge where Psychology is no longer just about behavior, but about Cosmic Proportions.

Subscribe now

Jung identified key Archetypes like The Shadow, The Persona, Anima/Animus, The Wise Old Man, The Great Mother, The Hero, and The Self.

This hit home for my fiction writing. I used to think my characters were just real-world observations reshaped by imagination. But Jung revealed they’re my un-confronted parts manifesting on the page:

The Protagonist (tragic flaw yet world-saving hero) mirrors my perfection-seeking self, flaws and all.

The Villain is my Shadow—that inner critic judging every move, stuck in an endless batlle.

The Anima is the inner counterpart (not external)—the balance of femininity and masculinity within. Once it elicited shame, like the “weaker” younger version of my lead character I rejected and suppressed. Now, I’ve accepted it, finding harmony in embracing that embarrassed self.

The Persona is the flamboyant manipulator building facades to navigate the world.

The Great Mother embodies me as the author: creator and destroyer of worlds, pure imagination incarnate.

The Wise Old Man lives in my story as mages—my wisdom channeled through fantasy.

Together, they form The Self: the real me, the quiet observer writing this!. Even in daily life, I live through these archetypes—confronting shadows, embracing my Anima, playing with Personas, drawing on inner wisdom and creative power.

It’s a beautiful phenomenon: writing isn’t just storytelling; it’s integrating all versions of myself to become whole. Jung showed me that.

We live in an era where identity, and the sensitivity surrounding identity, has progressed significantly. The presence of queer individuals has moved from the shadows into the visible structure of societies that were once governed almost entirely by rigid binaries. Our existence is no longer invisible. It is acknowledged.

But the moment did not end with visibility.

The aspiration went further: to allow queer individuals to live the kinds of lives that others take for granted—lives free from stigma, fear, and marginalization. In this regard, Pride parades and forms of assertive activism have played a profound role. They broke silence. They forced societies to confront realities they had long ignored. They gave voice to the pain, anger, and frustration that marginalized communities had carried for generations.

These methods worked.

They transformed invisibility into recognition.

Yet every coin has two sides. The very strategies that were powerful in the short term can begin to show limitations once the social landscape changes. The question that arises now is not whether these methods were justified—they certainly were—but whether they remain the most effective tools for the next phase of social transformation.

Are we aiming simply for tolerance within existing frameworks? Or are we seeking something deeper: a collective realization that human identity itself is fluid and diverse?

This question is not merely a queer question. It is a human one.

The Knowledge Behind the Reflection

Any reflection about social discourse must begin with the sources of knowledge guiding it.

The observations here emerge from several domains: direct experiences of social tension surrounding identity, observations of activism and public response across cultures, philosophical traditions that emphasize structured reasoning, and historical evidence showing how durable social change actually occurs.

Human beings learn about social reality through perception and inference. We perceive suffering and joy in real lives. We infer patterns from how societies react to change.

Across many movements, a pattern appears: protest generates attention, but understanding generates stability.

Contemporary research in social psychology often supports this distinction. Public discourse around queer identity tends to be dominated by expressions of pain, resistance, and symbolic assertion. These expressions play an important role in political mobilization. Yet studies exploring interpersonal contact and narrative empathy suggest that attitudes shift more deeply when people encounter unfamiliar identities through explanation, storytelling, and personal engagement rather than confrontation alone.

This does not invalidate earlier forms of activism. Instead it suggests that different stages of social change require different communicative strategies.

What Is the Real Object of Inquiry?

At its core, this reflection is not merely about sexuality. It is about the nature of social discourse around identity.

Two central insights guide the inquiry.

First, human identity is inherently fluid. Gender, relationships, and personal expression cannot always be contained within rigid categories. Queer discourse has highlighted this fact by revealing experiences that traditional frameworks struggled to accommodate.

Second, societies often treat heterosexual life patterns—marriage, family structures, and gender roles—as the unquestioned standard. When queer individuals seek inclusion within these frameworks, it can unintentionally reinforce the idea that these structures are the ultimate benchmark of a meaningful life.

But the existence of alternative experiences does not diminish anyone’s life. It simply reveals that human possibilities are broader than previously acknowledged.

Thus the question becomes: must queer existence be validated only by entering established frameworks, or can societies recognize multiple parallel ways of living with equal dignity?

The Doubts That Motivate the Inquiry

Even after decades of activism and progress, a number of uncertainties remain.

Has society truly understood queer existence, or has it merely learned to tolerate it?

Do expressions of identity foster shared understanding, or do they sometimes reinforce divisions between social groups?

Can deeply entrenched norms be transformed through calm dialogue, or is confrontation always necessary?

Another question concerns identity itself. When people publicly affirm their identities with pride, have they also been given space for introspection about what identity means? Or do social narratives sometimes push individuals toward performative affirmation before deeper reflection occurs?

These questions are not meant to undermine the legitimacy of queer identity. They simply highlight the complexity of how identities are communicated and received in public discourse.

From Activism to Cultural Understanding

The purpose of this reflection is not to dismiss activism. Activism has historically been indispensable in securing rights and visibility.

However, there is a difference between legal recognition and cultural harmony.

Activism can compel societies to change laws. Understanding transforms how people relate to one another in everyday life.

The deeper aim of identity discourse should be a world where:

• people can express identity without stigma

• dialogue occurs without hostility

• differences are understood as part of the human experience rather than as threats to social order

In other words, the conversation must eventually move from opinion to principle.

Instead of asking simply to be tolerated within existing structures, societies can begin exploring ways of organizing life that acknowledge diversity without imposing uniform standards.

Lessons From History, Science, and Culture

Many transformations in history illustrate a similar pattern.

Political movements often begin with confrontation but achieve lasting change through persuasion. Scientific revolutions rarely succeed through forceful declaration alone; they gradually reshape collective understanding through evidence and reasoning.

Cultural media has played a similar role in shaping attitudes toward queer individuals. Films such as Moonlight or Fire humanized queer experiences through storytelling rather than political argument. These narratives allowed audiences to encounter unfamiliar identities through empathy.

At the same time, reactions to certain forms of representation reveal another dynamic. When representation appears imposed rather than organically integrated into stories, it can provoke backlash.

This suggests that the form of communication matters as much as the message itself.

Change becomes durable when conviction is paired with clarity and empathy.

Principles Emerging From the Reflection

Several broader principles emerge from this exploration.

Human identity is diverse and fluid. Attempts to impose rigid categories often fail to capture the full range of human experience.

No single life framework is inherently superior. Heterosexual institutions may historically dominate, but they are not universal benchmarks for meaning or fulfillment.

Communication requires consent. People are more receptive to new ideas when those ideas are introduced in ways that respect their existing understanding of reality. When communication feels imposed or hostile, resistance becomes almost inevitable.

Ego intensifies social conflict. Many societal clashes arise when groups become attached to rigid identities and perceive any challenge as a threat to their existence.

Anger may ignite movements. Understanding sustains them.

Navigating Conflict and Misunderstanding

Public debates rarely remain purely philosophical. They often devolve into rhetorical competition, misrepresentation, and flawed reasoning.

Arguments about identity frequently contain logical fallacies:

Some claim that unfamiliar identities must be unnatural.
Others argue that tradition alone justifies existing norms.
Still others generalize the behavior of a few individuals to entire communities.

These arguments often persist not because they are logically strong, but because they are emotionally persuasive.

Responding to them requires patience, clarity, and evidence rather than hostility.

Another challenge arises when words are deliberately misinterpreted. Calls for dignity may be framed as demands for dominance. Requests for equality may be portrayed as attacks on tradition.

Careful communication becomes essential in preventing such distortions.

A Strategic Evolution of Advocacy

None of this reflection suggests abandoning the struggles that brought queer communities into public consciousness.

Protest was necessary when silence prevailed.

But strategies that are effective in one phase of social change may become less effective in another.

When invisibility was the central problem, loud assertion was necessary.

When misunderstanding becomes the primary barrier, explanation and dialogue may prove more transformative.

This does not mean anger has no place. Anger often reflects genuine injustice. Yet when anger becomes the dominant mode of communication indefinitely, it risks producing polarization rather than understanding.

Movements that combine moral clarity with intellectual openness often achieve the most durable transformations.

Acknowledging the Limits

This essay does not claim to resolve every question surrounding queer advocacy.

Many practical questions remain open.

How should societies balance urgent demands for justice with long-term cultural education?

How can movements maintain solidarity while encouraging internal reflection?

How can dialogue occur in environments where hostility remains strong?

These questions deserve deeper exploration.

What this essay attempts is something more modest: a structured reflection on why certain methods of advocacy may become preferable after particular stages of social change.

From Visibility to Intelligibility

Queer movements have already accomplished something historically remarkable. They have made lives that were once invisible visible.

The next step may involve something subtler but equally powerful.

Visibility announces existence.
Understanding integrates that existence into the moral imagination of society.

When people truly understand something, it ceases to appear threatening. It simply becomes another dimension of the human condition.

The future of queer discourse may therefore depend not only on how loudly identities are proclaimed, but on how clearly they are explained.

And in that process, the conversation may expand beyond sexuality itself, inviting humanity to reconsider how it understands identity, difference, and coexistence.

The goal, ultimately, is not merely tolerance.

It is harmony rooted in understanding.

Subscribe now

Share Psych Contemplations