u/reccaberrie

I have a very sensitive stomach and overall I’m really really sensitive, I don’t like extreme grotesque imagery or gore (I have never watched horror movies for this reason) but when I read it I don’t find myself bothered by it, however I can’t read anything that contains animal abuse but I saw the trigger warnings and it isn’t that explicit. Even though I’m sensitive I don’t close myself to new experiences and I think because of the medieval era I’ll maybe even find myself enjoying the book! So for other sensitive readers: is it really that that bad as most people describe it?

I have a very sensitive stomach and overall I’m really really sensitive, I don’t like extreme grotesque imagery or gore (I have never watched horror movies for this reason) but when I read it I don’t find myself bothered by it, however I can’t read anything that contains animal abuse but I saw the trigger warnings and it isn’t that explicit. Even though I’m sensitive I don’t close myself to new experiences and I think because of the medieval era I’ll maybe even find myself enjoying the book! So for other sensitive readers: is it really that that bad as most people describe it?

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/mjlr/article/1825/&path_info=

The phrases “sex work” and “sex worker” are problematic for several reasons. First, using the phrase “sex work” is an inappropriate attempt to legitimize a system of oppression where sex buyers commodify the bodies of their victims. According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, commodities, like corn or oil or semi-conductors, are goods or services subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market. Notably, sex buyers are predominately white men. Victims of commercial sexual exploitation are predominately women of color. The obvious comparison here is to pre-Emancipation American slavery, where the “work” of black and brown bodies could be “exchanged and exploited” by privileged white men “within a market.” We call slavery what it was; then why does the media insist on obfuscating the truth about commercial sexual exploitation by calling it “sex work?”

I thought this short quote would help people understand why this term should stop being used. Quote from: https://cseinstitute.org/media-must-stop-using-the-term-sex-work-it-inappropriately-legitimizes-an-industry-sustained-by-gender-based-violence/

I think Burroughs may have proved one of Neville's goddard's theories. I’m not fully sure if this idea holds, but I want to articulate it clearly and see what others think.

For context:

Neville Goddard taught what he called the “Law of Assumption.” His main idea was that imagination creates reality. According to him, if someone fully assumes something to be true the external world reflects that assumption.

Now, William S. Burroughs had a very unconventional perspective on drug use and addiction. He framed addiction as a kind of biological cycle involving breakdown and regeneration. He even suggested that this constant cycle of “shrinking and growing” could potentially extend life.

I quote: ''Most addicts look younger than they are. Scientists recently experimented with a worm that they were able to shrink by withholding food. By periodically shrinking the worm so that it was in continual growth, the worm's life was prolonged indefinitely. Perhaps if a junky could keep Perhaps if a junky could keep himself in a constant state of kicking, he would live to a phenomenal age. Junk is a cellular equation that teaches the user facts of general validity. I have learned a great deal from using junk: I have seen life measured out in eyedroppers of morphine solution. I experienced the agonizing deprivation of junk sickness, and the pleasure of relief when junk- thirsty cells drank from the needle. Perhaps all pleasure is relief. I have learned the cellular stoicism that junk teaches the user. I have seen a cell full of sick junkies silent and immobile in separate misery. They knew the pointlessness of complaining or moving. They knew that basically no one can help anyone else. There is no key, no secret some- one else has that he can give you.”

At the same time, Burroughs lived to 83, despite having a long-term heroin addiction. Statistically, this is unusual. Many people with similar patterns of use die earlier, either from overdose or long-term health complications.

This leads to the idea I’m trying to explore:

Is it possible that Burroughs’ beliefs about drugs influenced how his body responded to them?

If we look at it through Goddard’s framework, Burroughs may have consistently assumed that drugs were not inherently harmful to him, or even that they had regenerative aspects. If the “Law of Assumption” is taken literally, then that internal conviction could have shaped his physical reality in some way.

Of course, this doesn’t mean he avoided consequences. He experienced withdrawal, dependency, and other effects. But his overall trajectory doesn’t fully match the expected outcome.

And so Neville Goddard believed that our thoughts created reality, the most concienced you are of something, your reality shapes and makes it the truth. You can manifest anything trough it. So maybe Burroughs believed so hard that drug was good for him and that it exabded your life and cells he never became affected from it asides from withdrawal symptom and whatnot and that’s why he lived so much. This is a crazy idea and it may seem non related, it probably is lol, but anyway I’d like to share, I’m a big fan of this two!

I’ve been seeing so many people here in Reddit calling him an incel but i genuinely do not understand why or how is he an incel. I’d say the only incel thing he did was take a girl to watch a porn movie… you could argue that it means he dosen’t respect her, that he only sees her as an object etc etc etc. based on this scene, but in the rest of the movie he dosen’t seem to resent or hate women, he even helps Iris, a vulnerable girl get out of prostitution (though I’d say maybe it was a fantasy of him to become a hero and she was just a project) but I haven’t watched the movie more than once and i haven’t really analyzed it enough to understand. So could someone explain pleaseee???