Schizokardia

From Sex 3.0
Jump to: navigation, search

Schizokardia is defined as a long-term emotional disorder caused by the breakdown in the relation between human sexual nature and societal rules leading to faulty perception, acts of relationship duress, withdrawal from reality, subscription to a model of personal relationships that is systemically flawed (Sex 2.0), withdrawal into fear, control and deception and a sense of emotional fragmentation.

Etymology

Schizokardia comes from the root of two Greek words.

Skhizein which means "to split" and the greek word for heart which is "kardia"

Related Words

Schizophrenia also comes from two Greek words. Skhizein which means "to split" and the Greek word for mind which is "phrēn"

Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler coined the term schizophrenia in 1911. JJ Roberts coined the term schizokardia in 2013.

Forms Of Schizokardia

Schizokardia usually involves internally maintaining an emotional sexual duality that is self-contradictory in nature and / or at odds with its own purpose.

Obvious forms of Schizokardia include the following :

  • Women looking for a "bad boy" who is a "good boy" just for them.
  • Men looking for a "good girl" who is a "bad girl" just for them.
  • Men obsessing over becoming skilled at seduction and then referring to women that give them what they desperately want (sex) with relationship duress terms and slut shaming.
  • People learning how to be scared of their own sexuality and with the full support and endorsement of all the three major religions. This involved making sex "dirty" and body, soul and spirit separate and includes schizokardic beliefs like the more you fight with your own body and human nature, the more spiritual you are.
  • The simultaneous belief of "oneness" (or non-duality) combined with the belief of ownership in a relationship. It can't be both ways. Ownership involves possession of "other". Either we are one or we can own each other. Not both.
  • The belief that relationships are supposed to be difficult. The only thing that relationships are supposed to be is mutually rewarding. The belief that relationships are supposed to be difficult is no more than an attempt at the normalisation of schizokardia.
  • The idea that human beings are either mono or poly when sex has never been a binary system but has always been a system of adaptive fluidity.
  • The circle of hatred amongst women. This involves modern society (both men and women) separating women into three types - good girls, sluts or whores all of who hate each other. This hatred usually involves gossip, judging, one-upping, exclusion, status jockeying and other manipulations. Whilst this schizokardic state of affairs is maintained, there can never be a true sisterhood amongst women.
  • The 'mother wound' which involves a daughter not receiving mother's approval as an adult if she does not seem to be fully invested in the task of selling her sexuality in exchange for security (marriage).
  • The cult of purity surrounding sex. This Victorian ideal involves virginity prizing, white lace weddings and ultimately the promotion of the notion that the most ideal long term sexual partners are women who enjoy sex the least.
  • In the marriage vows, a promise of unconditional love (until death do you part) is immediately followed by a condition (forsaking all others). You cannot love someone unconditionally on the condition that it is exclusive or on any other kind of condition. Unconditional love with a condition is schizokardic.
  • 2.0 as a framework is schizokardic at its root because it is designed for fear-based-love but, as fear suffocates love, this is a fundamentally flawed design. One cannot have a high functioning framework for relationships that is designed for fear-based-love. Such a design can only promote Schizokardia, not love.
  • Cherishing the spirit of autonomy but regarding relationships as gradually "more legitimate" on a sliding scale (from one night stand though casual dating, exclusive dating, bf/gf, engagement and marriage) where increase in perceived legitimacy goes hand in hand with perceived restriction of autonomy.
  • The idea that the ultimate commitment involves legally handcuffing yourself to another person in marriage to prevent them from leaving should they wish to do so. If two people need to be legally handcuffed together how committed can they really be?
  • The death of desire in many marriages caused by the conundrum - how can one deeply desire to want something that one already has?
  • The strange contradiction in society passing laws to criminalise one form of extrinsic reward (money) in sexual relationships while the same society mandates another form of extrinsic reward (a ring on the finger, title of husband / wife and tax breaks) in sexual relationships.
  • The great forgetting. In the move to 2.0 we were forced to forget love and what love means. Why? Because love means the deep emotion need for the well-being of another person. As 2.0 has marriage as it's ultimate goal. In other words 2.0 involves saying "I love you so much that I want to bind you to a legal contract so that you cannot leave me without great penalty". This is the opposite of the need for the well-being of another. In order to maintain this contradiction we had to forget the meaning of love.
  • Forgetting the meaning of love was absolutely necessary because if we remembered that love only means the deep emotional need for the well-being of another, we could not maintain the contradictory stance of "I love you so much that I wish to cut of your chance of fulfilment even if you cannot find it with me".