Neutrality

"When the people say that I'm a bad influence, without question, they are reason and it's good. Bad influence sometimes is the way to change, to be happy, the voice of criticism and the thinking more than the "Status Thinking Quo". The social idea of the normality. Sure, bad influence can be painful because it causes isolation. Loneliness? I don't sure, but yes a state of incomprehension. 

Some writers are bad influences for the trapped minds. Painters, singers, filmmakers, thinkers, politicians (the true), professors, scientists, artists, friends and lovers too. The real problem may be with the love. When a lover is a bad influence, perhaps its exploits the basic instincts or because it destroys the divinity of the word love to make this "sentiment" an human sensation.  Desire? Inspiration? (Not divine).

However, to accept a bad influence you can not be weak. Because the bad influence recall our fragility. On the other hand, consequences of the bad influence will strengthen. At the end, it's a language problem derived from a perception problem.  The contradiction of our perception and the point of view of the others. The others... the social control, but in any case we are social beings as we are sexual beings.

Some people prefers neutrality. Neutrality is not itself control. Is not a position. Is only let it be, without sentiments or passion. Is better for you because the others makes the decision for you. Not responsibilities but not benefices of the experience. Say "neutrality" is easy but having in the deep of yourself is not true in all cases. Say neutrality be happy to the others. But not you in the background.

Religion speaks bad of the warm waters and neutral beings. Politics, arts, science and romance too. Band influence, in the social language are for all sides. At same time that the social controls, the social opinion (not the public opinion) can be bad personal influences, playing with words. Majority do not 've ever right position about you. Only the position of convenience".