Since the human being is a relationship, it is not surprising that he is also biologically oriented towards the relationship with a sexual partner in every fiber of his being.
Physicality he is a relationship to oneself and to others. Like any relationship, this one is difficult, but it also has the claim and the inner goal of realizing love as the highest rationality of relationships.
We all face each other first as bodies and thus objects in their respective bodily appearances. However, the human being is a subject and therefore this individual, completely individual corporeality is always an integral part of every person, which requires a deep acceptance in the relationship with himself. However, it is precisely here that the relationship with oneself seems to be difficult.
Take as an example the breast of a woman, whose difference in size can be significant. For simplification, a difference from very small to very large of about 1000% is assumed after some doctors have been asked. From this, we form an average value of 500%. The distance between very small and very large would therefore be +500% and -500% from this mean value in the full range.
Normality is a mental construct of a frequency in society. Such an accumulation curve runs up on an x-axis in the middle top range and at the respective edges with less and less accumulation to lower values.
It is now the social and individual question of which deviation from this mean value can still be regarded as so frequent that it can be integrated into the idea of “normal”.
If you take the models in the model agency once founded by Donald Trump, the deviations in physical characteristics are probably rather small and we assume a + or – of 10% of such an average value completely arbitrarily and by way of example.
Donald Trump will have considered the exclusionary criteria in the assessment of women very carefully in the assessment and probably also looked very closely at the women for their physical characteristics.
So, this would be the theoretically assumed exclusive club of acceptance and all those who do not have these ideal body shapes would be pushed into the feeling of inferiority in their relationship to their own body and, in case of doubt, suffer from it.
Exclusive means excluded (Latin excludere = to exclude) and means a state of social exclusion.
This state of a relationship with one’s own body is captured in the little word “too” and then refers to all kinds of physical features with a too small and too tall, too fat, too thin, etc…
There is probably a great dissatisfaction with one’s own body among all people and here exemplarily and especially among women.
Especially in the USA, women often feel pressured by the guiding principles of the media and not only adolescents are in danger of building up a lower appreciation for themselves, if one only allows small deviations to be derived from an elitist exclusionary ideal value of model agencies, which probably excludes 90 – 95% of women.
In case of doubt, women undergo all kinds of procedures, surgical interventions, etc., in order to realize what we all seem to be born with as a longing: to be part of a community in loving acceptance.
However, nature does not set the ideal of a very small minority as a particularly common manifestation, but a very wide range, which in turn was set to a +- of 500% as an example. What nature sets as normal is not the small minority of exclusive “top models”.
Socially, however, it is about how much we want to exclude others or whether, in the sense of the highest rationality of our relationship with ourselves, we should simply accept in love what is given by nature.
Should all women, if they don’t look like the exclusive models of Trump’s former modeling agency, be excluded from society and henceforth feel inferior?
And where do we start? Maybe +-10% deviation is too generous, and we need more pressure and coercion in society to build up more anxiety?
The clear answer should probably be “no”, since the highest rationality of relationships is love and it exerts the least coercion and pressure and at the same time realizes the greatest freedom.
To accept and accept oneself in love in relation to one’s body what nature and not an arbitrarily narrow definition of a narrow-minded and “unnatural” policy has set as normal, is without a doubt not easy and requires constant practice.
But this is exactly what constitutes the structure of relationships as the highest rationality and can be called love.
This is what is required of a society that sets out towards this goal without fear and thus free of constraints.
No human being should allow himself to be inappropriately imprisoned in a world of ideas and allow himself to be locked up in it, because he imagines that his ears, nose, etc. are too big and everyone is staring at him.
Everyone is interested in whether he is a loving person, and no one is interested, quite contrary to his possible fixation, in his physical form, which nature has given him. Perhaps he is a very extraordinary person who first makes the task of integrating his physicality clear and inevitable from an increased level of suffering.
Perhaps, however, he can then transform this pressure of suffering into a special sensitivity, an extraordinary empathy that brings joy. Perhaps he learns to pay attention to connections that others miss and develops a subtlety that amazes others. Perhaps he develops a depth of soul that is much more difficult to access for those who are always admired. Perhaps even others will discover before him that in this very wide range of nature, he represents the miracle of the enrichment of a community, which makes diversity its strength.
Joy in the encounter with such a person depends on his ability to love, because those who love are happy and reflexively make others happy.
Then a person can feel free from the anxieties of being excluded in the loving acceptance of others and himself.
Therefore, a human being can experience his existence as so much more, as if it consisted only of pure corporeality. In this assumption, people can unfold for what they are and can shape their relationships with themselves and others in love.
A society oriented in this way does not impose oppressive coercion on women and thus promotes love and mutual trust.
But such a society also does not build up oppressive coercion against others.
The range of nature, or one can also say the God-given form of a human being, does not put this corporeality under social pressure to conform, but gives it to people with the task of acceptance.
A society that sets out to increasingly realize the highest rationality of relationship, i.e. love, also sets the individual free in acceptance by himself, so that man takes care of himself in love in exactly this form and shapes his life in love.
This range of nature includes not only external characteristics, but also the different forms in which people want to shape and live their relationships with each other.
If it is the case that we want to have a society that is as free of anxiety as possible, in which everyone is welcome and accepted in love, i.e. the “greatest reflection on human nature” (James Madison) is translated into politics, then the wide range of human existence that nature itself produces must be accepted.
Therefore, it is also within the framework of love as the highest rationality of relationship that people who are homosexual are accepted and tolerated just as much as all other people who are now referred to as LGBTIQ.
The extent to which a society is geared towards the realization of love is also shown by the ability to integrate and the acceptance of marginalized groups, which in the specific case of the LGBTIQ group probably make up about 4-8% of the population in both the USA and Europe.
It is not the exclusive, few models from Trump’s former modeling agency that set the range of what nature produces, but nature itself.
Politics should also be guided by this. Stirring up absurd anxiety and thus creating an imaginary world in which LGBTIQ would pose a threat to American society is downright grotesque, but sometimes very effective, like anything that reinforces people’s generally existing anxieties of life and creates additional fears.
Furthermore, it is also a question of love and mercy when circumstances arise that place an abortion as a decision alternative for a woman in the free decision-making horizon of this individual fate.
Every abortion is one too many, because it is always a human drama with a lot of suffering and tears.
No one forces anyone to have an abortion in states where it is allowed but puts every special and always very individual case of fate in the decision of the women who are faced with such indescribably torturous decisions.
If a woman decides against an abortion in the weighing of her own physical or psychological survival against a newly emerging life, this is to be respected just as much as the opposite decision.
America does not need a totalitarian state that exerts state coercion on all areas of personal life and thus anchors anxiety.
The pressure to conform to “cat ladies” proclaimed by J.D. Vance is only part of a larger pressure to conform that has been devised by Trump/Vance for the future “America of anxiety”, as it sounds from various speeches and can be seen in the recently written policy program.
Perhaps they could also manage to turn the people of the USA into “rhinos”, which then not only trample cats.
