Love, Sex, and Atomic Death

[Buzz]

Manning, some say that if we were created by the gods, then we are destined to re-live their story.

gelfer, ever seen a Hersheys "Kiss"? A little mushroom cap shaped chocolate. Anyhow, that's my story and i'm stickin' to it.

daniel, i think i get your drift about Christianity. Something definitely has to change from the current model though. But i do believe sometimes it's all together less bothersome to tear down the old house and build a new one rather than remodel. I've come across at least two sources that believe that there was an ancient "Christian-like" religion. And who was that? Well, i think it was Edgar Cayce and John Major Jenkins. But i didn't take good notes.

Checked out the Bioneer site. Bookmarked it will have to read later. But at post-50 years, i'm looking to disengage from society, off-grid is where i'm happier. I'll engage on my own terms if that seems necessary. For the mean time, it's all about keeping up with health & wealth. Both of which are in a decline and need tending to. Spring Break ends today and it's back to work, slave of a system that basically retired me before i ever got started.

Did a search for the Cthulhu myths. The mythical race of solar system aliens who pose as gods? The HP Lovecraft Cthulhu's? He based his research on the Sumerian, Egyptian, & Greek mythology. Sounds like Zecharia Sitchen territory. I used to discount his stuff as way too bizarre, but now they have discovered Sedna. Though they don't know its orbital cycle yet, what if it ends up being 3600 years (or whatever the Sumerians wrote)? If its passing caused the cataclysmic flood of 13,000 years ago i'm guessing its still a 1000 to 1500 years away, given the current position. Astronaut Gordon Cooper is on record as stating that there are human beings on other planets in our solar system. It's all very curious.

And what if there is actually no seperation of the stories, early Christianity and gods on other planets?

[ March 13, 2005, 06:05 AM: Message edited by: Buzz ]

[tana]

One man, one woman, one (love) story?

[whitewave]

I recommend the book Love Without Conditions, by Paul Ferrini for those interested in reframing the teachings of Christ.

Also, I wanted to elucidate something I mentioned in a post a while back on this thread. I noticed that there was a gap of many months between postings. I was the last person to post on May 1, 2004, until Nanouk resurrected this thread on Dec. 3, I believe. I meant to ask if anyone had any theories about why this post came back to life with such vigour at that time. In the meantime, I came up with an idea based on e-letter I subscribe to by a woman named Karen Bishop. www.whatsuponplanetearth.com. It is totally unscientific, but to me has the ring of truth. She gives updates on the energy vibration of earth as she receives them, and I remember her writing that early December was the time when the old energy vibration of earth was finally gone, which was experienced by many as a time of cloudiness and disorientation as we let go of old thoughtforms which were now unsupported by the new, less dense vibration. Anyone else experience this around that time?

[dragonfly]

Originally posted by whitewave:
...early December was the time when the old energy vibration of earth was finally gone, which was experienced by many as a time of cloudiness and disorientation as we let go of old thoughtforms which were now unsupported by the new, less dense vibration.

I had an experience about that time that may relate.

In early December, I attended the 40th birthday party of an old friend. We had drifted apart over the years and had just begun to drift back together, and I was very happy to be there to celebrate.

I arrived at the party, where everyone was gathered in the backyard around a bonfire. I sat down on a tree stump and struck up a conversation with a young man I didn't know; he immediately started talking about wanting to start an urban farm, which has long been a dream of mine.

A little while later, a friend and fellow writer arrived at the party. He had just returned to town from a months-long journey out west that began with his pilgrimage to Burning Man. He immediately began talking about how we needed to set up a network of urban farms.

Later that night, as the party was winding down, the guest of honor approached me and talked about how he had long wanted to start a commercial vegetable garden, and the only people he was interested in doing it with was my husband and me. (A landscaper by profession, my friend has long helped us with our personal gardening projects.) Of course I said I'd be thrilled.

Since then we have found a piece of land for the project, readied the soil and built a retaining wall. We'll soon begin planting.

So December for me was definitely a time for new vibrations, new energies. I had the definite feeling that a new era of my life had begun. Could it be that I was picking up on new earth energies?

[Gift Horse]

Hmmm.

I haven't figured out the whys and hows of this forum.
Some of my posts from last year are gone. Yet some of these posts are from 2003.

Daniel? Do you know why?

In the ayahuasca thread for instance, it says there are 50 topics, yet when you cllick on that forum, only 6 topics come up.

Where are all the previoius ones?

[MidnightDreary]

Gift Horse,
When you first enter the forum, there is a drop-down menu above the list of topics that is, I guess by default, set at "Show topics from last 45 days." When you click it, you can choose from a variety of time frames. If you click "show all topics," you will see all 50 (or however many) topics. Hope this helps.

[Gift Horse]

OHHHH.

Thanks!

[daniel]

wanted to add this story to the mix of this topic... i may have posted it before, but i dig it so much that i don't really care.

One of the Buddha’s disciples went to him and asked to be shown Heaven. The Buddha said, "If you want to see Heaven, you will have to see Hell first." The disciple agreed. The Buddha took them to Hell, where an enormous banquet table was set up, piled high with fabulously delicious food. Unfortunately, all of the diners had, instead of hands, enormously long forks on the end of their wrists, and they kept trying to get the food into their mouths, but could not reach them. They wailed and gnashed their teeth in misery. The Buddha then took his disciple to Heaven. Heaven was exactly the same situation – diners at a sumptuous banquet table, with long forks on their wrists instead of hands. The only difference was that, in Heaven, everybody was feeding each other.

[tana]

Thanks Daniel...for me, that story goes hand-in-hand with the Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj quote you posted in Maya/Shakti/Kali.

[tana]

Not sure if this post belongs in this thread, or the Maya/Shakti/Kali one...

I recently read an online article about Tantra (http://www.dhushara.com/paradoxhtm/tantra.htm) ...it seemed to give a good overview, and it was super interesting...bits and pieces were familiar, but most of it was completely new to me. I don’t yet have a full grasp of all that i read, (and am not even sure of the article’s accuracy, since i’m not knowledgeable enough to tell), but i really enjoyed reading about the mythological/cosmological aspects of Tantra. I also liked the article’s portrayal of the concept of unity...the idea that each of us are simultaneously both an expression of the entire universe and an expression of an individual aspect of it...like the wiccan “as above, so below”, but a more complete presentation of this concept.

The following paragraph was especially difficult for me to fully grasp...i’m wondering if anyone can comment on it, so that maybe i can understand it better...i don’t understand how a “person’s store of memories and responses can be awakened and re-converted into the pure energy from which they all originated”. Could this be similar to the idea of recapitulation? Is this even accurate? (If not, there’s no need to understand it!)

(article excerpt): “Most conventional Indian traditions hold that the way to return to the wholeness of Truth is to repress ferociously, by asceticisms and will-power, all the faculties of the body and mind which participate in the process of projecting the mirage of separate persons inhabiting separate worlds. Tantra regards that sort of uphill struggle as absurd. Instead it says that all the faculties - the senses, the emotions and the intellect - should be encouraged and roused to their highest pitch, that the person's store of memories and responses can be awakened and re-converted into the pure energy from which they all originated. Feelings and pleasures thus become the raw material for transformation back into enlightenment.”

Anyone? Thanks much!

[ March 16, 2005, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: tana ]

[silentwolf]

It's talking about unhinging yourself emotionally so that you're moved away from your normal perspective of "within" and "without." Tantra achieves this shift by indulgence, whereas Yoga achieves it be suppression.

Osho said something along the lines of Buddha using annihilation to achieve this state, whereas Tantra uses complete unfolding...this is why Buddha says, "When sound reaches soundlessness, then enlightenment is attained;" but Tantra says "When sound reaches soundfulness, enlightenment is attained."

Two different paths which run up the same mountain are still meant to take you to the pinnacle.

[tana]

Thanks, silentwolf...i still have not yet wrapped my brain around this one, so i'm going to just continue to read about it...heading out to the library now to pick up some books i ordered on the subject (including more Osho...love him!).

I'm really chewing on the all-encompasing tantric concept of Unity...a much broader view of Unity than i had previously understood...also dig how this discipline emphasizes enjoyment and embraces physical pleasure. (If i have to spend so much time in this body, i certainly want to enjoy it!)

Here's a silly little quote: “When authorities warn you of the sinfulness of sex, there is an important lesson to be learned. Don’t have sex with the authorities.” - Matt Groening

[nanouk]

*lol* matt groening is a genius, i am sure he is stephen king's long lost twin...

i agree tana, it is difficult wrapping one's head around things, as the alcoholic says: "i had a brief moment of clarity".

those moments are treasures, i feel lucky that i get them at all. i have spent the past week finding out that even some of the cleanest living and thinking people don't even touch the truth, in fact, some people go through life wondering why they can't see the joy of life, can't see the electric spark of the Creator, at all...

[tana]

(Nanouk i have spent the past week finding out that even some of the cleanest living and thinking people don't even touch the truth, in fact, some people go through life wondering why they can't see the joy of life, can't see the electric spark of the Creator, at all...

For sure, "clean living" may lead to societal acceptance, but it certainly does not lead one to truth! A fear-and-guilt-driven pursuit of clean living will completely obscure the "electric spark of the Creator". (i like how you put that, Nanouk.)

Osho on self-love:

"Love makes you rebellious, revolutionary. Love gives you wings to soar high. Love gives you insight into things, so that nobody can deceive you, exploit you, oppress you. And the priests and the politicians survive only on your blood — they survive only on exploitation. They are parasites, all the priests and all the politicians.

To make you spiritually weak they have found a sure method, one hundred percent guaranteed, and that is to teach you not to love yourself — because if a man cannot love himself he cannot love anybody else either. The teaching is very tricky. They say: Love others — because they know if you cannot love yourself you cannot love at all. But they go on saying: Love others, love humanity, love God, love nature, love your wife, your husband, your children and your parents, but don’t love yourself, because to love oneself is selfish according to them.

They condemn self-love as they condemn nothing else — and they have made their teaching look very logical. They say: If you love yourself you will become an egoist, if you love yourself you will become narcissistic. It is not true. A man who loves himself finds that there is no ego in him. It is in loving others without loving yourself, in trying to love others that the ego arises.

A man who loves himself respects himself, and a man who loves himself and respects himself respects others too, because he knows, ‘Just as I am, so are others. Just as I enjoy love, respect, dignity, so do others.’ He becomes aware that we are not different; as far as the fundamentals are concerned, we are one. We are under the same law: Es dhammo sanantano

Slowly the ripples start reaching farther and farther. You love other people; then you start loving animals, birds, trees, rocks. You can fill the whole universe with your love. A single person is enough to fill the whole universe with love, just as a single pebble can fill the whole lake with ripples — a small pebble.

That’s why people are such great fault-finders. They find fault with themselves — how can they avoid finding the same faults in others? In fact, they will find them and they will magnify them, they will make them as big as possible. That seems to be the only saving device; somehow, to save face, you have to do it. That’s why there is so much criticism and such a lack of love.

Socrates says: Know thyself, Buddha says: Love thyself. And Buddha is far truer, because unless you love yourself you will never know yourself — knowing comes only later on, love prepares the ground. Love is the possibility of knowing oneself. Love is the right way to know oneself.

Create loving energy around yourself. Love your body and love your mind. Love your whole mechanism, your whole organism. By love is meant: accept it as it is, don’t try to repress. We repress only when we hate something, we repress only when we are against something. Don’t repress, because if you repress how are you going to watch? We cannot look the enemy eye to eye; we can look only in the eyes of our beloved. If you are not a lover of yourself you will not be able to look into your own eyes, into your own face, into your own reality."

[ March 18, 2005, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: tana ]

[daniel]

Sunday NY Times piece on "modern hook-ups." I find the language used to describe relationships, as well as the emphasis on quantification, to be indicators of the problems - the sadness, really, in the current situation.

I was just reading a book on "The Fisher King Myth" and "the wounded feeling function" in modern men (and women). The author notes that our language expresses our problem - in other languages there are numerous words for love. Apparently, ancient Persian had 80 words for love, while Sanskrit had more than 90. I would like to see a lexicon of all of these words and what nuances they express that we have lost (I asked a Persian friend and she said one word for love meant "spaciousness").

The shopping-like mentality in this article indicates our contemporary soul-loss, where one's erotic life is based on societal prejudices and received morals.

Is there some secret progress in this modern situation? Or is it bland and empty conformism (what Marcuse called "repressive desublimation")? Are the women executing wisdom and judgement or are they just "preconditioned receptacles of long standing," as Marcuse put it, acting according to the prescripted plots of television comedy-dramas?

April 3, 2005

Casual Relationships, Yes. Casual Sex, Not Really.
By ALEX WILLIAMS

OR the young and the single in New York dating has always been a numbers game, whether it is tabulating the guy-to-girl ratio at a bar or guessing at the bank balance of the quarry across the dance floor. Still, it is not every night that a group of unattached young women in low-slung jeans sit around pondering questions that might stump a mathematician at Caltech, questions like can one plus nine ever equal just nine?

"I know a lot of people who will go home with the same guy they have before just because it's not going to raise their number," explained Jennifer Babbit, 26, a publicist.

"A lot of my friends will say: 'I started having sex with this guy, but it only lasted a minute. I don't know if it counted,' " offered Beth Whiffen, a former associate editor at Cosmopolitan.

The number in question is the total number of men that a woman has slept with, and the question is on their minds because they were among two dozen or so young Manhattanites who dropped by One Little West 12, a restaurant and club in the meatpacking district of Manhattan, on Tuesday to discuss "The Hookup Handbook: A Single Girl's Guide to Living It Up" by Andrea Lavinthal and Jessica Rozler, published last month (Simon Spotlight Entertainment).

The book's title and many of its guidelines ("Getting a room isn't just polite, it's a necessity") suggest that a new sexual revolution is afoot among a fast-and-loose generation nurtured on the wisdom of "Sex and the City," who see boyfriends as passé, dating as dated and the idea of commitment laughable. But an evening spent in the company of Ms. Lavinthal, Ms. Rozler and their friends suggests that mating rituals of the much-celebrated hookup culture, at least as practiced by young professional women, seems to owe as much to Doris Day as to Samantha Jones.

Yes, they take pride in having thrown off the shackles of earlier generations of single women. They are not waiting on Friday night hoping "he" will call. They make the first move. They happily see two or three guys simultaneously. Spontaneity is crucial, but even more is a good clean exit strategy from any guy who turns out to be Mr. Not Exactly.

"It's not that people aren't dating," explained Ms. Rozler, an editorial assistant at Allworth Press when she is not practicing nightclub anthropology. "It's that there's this weird gray area. People still want to be in relationships, but they don't want to be settling."

But even as they raise pink drinks in the air and roll their eyes at the absurdity of commitment, these are not women embracing sexual abandon. The courtship rites of this generation of urban singles seem to borrow from the mores of their grandmothers in the 1950's (date lots of boys; smooch, spoon, nuzzle or neck to your heart's content, but hold out for that pledge pin from Mr. Right) as much as from those of their mothers' love-the-one-you're-with 70's.

"Most girls don't have one-night stands," Ms. Whiffen said. "They might have one or two in their life."

Take the number discussion, for example. Yes, there are conquests, but there should not be too many of them. So among this group of women with three-inch heels tipping out of their $200 jeans what is the right number, that is, the last number before you hit the wrong one? Few women would want to go over 20, or even 15, Ms. Babbit said, because they would "think of themselves as big sluts."

"Ten at the most," Caroline Homlish, 24, summarized in a tone that brooked no dissent.

"A lot of girls are not having casual sex," explained Ms. Lavinthal, an editor at Cosmopolitan, even as she conceded that the title of her book had racy overtones.

It might come as a surprise that anyone under the age of 29 would need a definition for a term that has grown as ubiquitous in youth culture as customized ring tones. Still, the back cover of "The Hook-up Handbook" makes a stab at it: a hookup is "anything from making out to doing the nasty, generally with no commitment or plans for said commitment." But as Ms. Lavinthal and Ms. Rozler explain it, a hookup has less to do with what happens between people than with the surrounding circumstances: specifically, that the meeting is unplanned and even unexpected. "Nobody's waiting by the phone," Ms. Lavinthal said. "For one thing, you can take the phone with you."

Most women at the club expounded happily on what a hookup meant for them. "Late-night grinding on the dance floor, maybe a little groping" was one version, said Kate Kilgore, who is in public relations at Victoria's Secret Beauty. The few men who spoke up seemed to find the elastic nature of the term somewhat tiresome. "There are so many definitions," said Corey Zolcinski, a commercial real estate representative and disc jockey. "Some people think that it means meeting for a drink."

The age of the hookup certainly does not seem to mean a new era of free love. "I wish it were because my sex life would be much better," said Greg Kiely, 26, a former investment banker who is now applying to business graduate schools.

While men are obviously central to the "The Hookup Handbook" ethos (do you want to hook up with a Metroman or a Himbo tonight?), boyfriends are most definitely not. "A relationship isn't the easiest thing to maintain, but swearing off boys isn't a viable option either," the chapter on "Defensive Non-Dating" states. "The result of this epiphany: You refuse to put yourself out there. Instead, you just put out." As for the crowd assembled at One, where a party for Stolichnaya thundered in the background, the prospect of a serious relationship before the age of 25 seemed to hold all the appeal of a promotional party with a cash bar.

"It's not about courtship and the chase," Ms. Kilgore said. "It's not that it's a free-for-all like the 60's, but it's about independent women staking their claim, making their mark and doing what they want."

Ms. Kilgore estimated that out of a random group of 10 women her age, only two or three will have a steady boyfriend, and the pressure that existed even a decade ago to be seen having a boyfriend had lessened. That, she said, is liberating. "I'll go through phases where I'm hooking up or making out with a guy a week," she said matter-of-factly, "but then go a month" without.

She guessed that on average she probably hooks up 10 or 12 times a year, something that can mean "lots of vodka, feeling the connection," but not always sex.

"It's all about fun," Ms. Lavinthal added of her approach to dating. "It's not the death of romance. It's like relationship light. No one's going to say no to making out with a cute guy on a Saturday night."

But while the language of the hook-up culture sounds debauched ("Drink Till He's Cute" is one chapter heading), most of the women who will plunk down $14.95 for the book are children of the 80's. These girls grew up just wanting to have fun but knew not to have too much.

"We've had so much sex ed," Ms. Lavinthal said. "With strangers, we are really cautious of the disease thing."

And merely willing that age-old standards no longer apply does not make it so. "Girls are becoming more like guys, but there is still a double standard," Ms. Homlish argued. "You are told you can do everything, but you can't. If a girl is dating three guys at the same time, she's looked down upon."

Dig deeper and it turns out that most of the hookup aficionados assembled that night do not see hooking up as a seemly way to approach their 30's.

While most women agreed that serious dating is being delayed at least a bit these days, they also said they don't plan on living a "Sex and the City" life when they are anywhere near as old as the women on that series.

Ms. Whiffen said she has seen many examples of women who insist they are going to keep hooking up with no thought of having a serious boyfriend until they are at least 25. "But the second 'he' comes along," she said knowingly, "it's done."

And while "The Hookup Handbook" explicitly forbids its readers to mistake a hookup for a potential boyfriend, not everyone thought that was realistic. "People who are hooking up are trying to get into a serious relationship," insisted Caitlin Gaffey, 24, a beauty assistant at the magazine Shop Etc. "On the girls' side, that's almost always true."

"You can't just hook up with anyone," added Ms. Gaffey, a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "You have to learn a lot about him before you hook up. Guys are not picky. We're the ones who are picky. It's kind of like shopping."

Even Ms. Lavinthal said she is "more of a boyfriend girl than a hookup girl, to be perfectly honest." As she sees it, hooking up is more what you do between boyfriends, and it is often the only option for busy young women trying to juggle career, friends and romance. "It's almost like attention-deficit disorder," she said. "There are just too many things going on."

For Helen Gurley Brown, for 31 years the editor of Cosmopolitan and the author of perhaps the original dating manual, "Sex and the Single Girl," which was published in 1962, the lives and concerns of Ms. Lavinthal and her friends show that not much has changed in 30 years, except perhaps the verbs.

"I think it was sort of established in 1962 that you didn't have to be married to have a good life," she said. "I think these young women are probably a living example of what was said at that time."

[silentwolf]

They sound confused, and dropping myself into that sort of environment would probably lead to the same thing happening to me...

It's like dancing around and cheering about how much freedom you have when you're chained to the wall.

[Humming]

It's really disgusting to see how most people, especially females it seems, equate the game of sex with the game of consumer capitalism. The power of the magic is deadened when abused in such a way.

[Manning]

Does a group of twenty-something women in a cafe in New York City really define the sexual mores of an entire culture? How would the picture change if the same questions were asked of a group of 16 year-old males in Kansas? Or a group of 60 year-old women in London?

For the sake of balance, here's a different perspective...

Passion and Love
by Paula Payne Hardin, Ed.D.

As we made love for the third day,
cloudy and dark, as we did not stop
but went into it and into it and
did not hesitate and did not hold back
we rose through the air,
until we were up above
the timber line...
...it is a
place from which no one has ever come back.

— Sharon Olds

In this poem, "Ecstasy," we see how our passions push us and pull at us: noisy, calling, insistent. From early childhood on, themes of passion and arousal, shouting and whispering, often profound and often misguided, weave through our lives. Sexual desire and the search for a sexual partner dominate most of our personal histories. Love stories are always compelling — witness the popularity of the bestselling book and film The Bridges of Madison County or the idealized The Sound of Music. In the film Shadowlands we are shown the beautiful and profound story of someone learning to love. These fantasies of idealized love carry enormous emotional power, calling to a deep yearning in each of us for fulfillment, completion, union.

Psychologists tell us that all human connection is at its root passionate, though not necessarily sexual. We are aroused to become involved with others because of powerful biological drives that seek gratification. Beginning with our first love connection — our parents — the dynamics of passionate desires, rivalry, and hatred begin to evolve. Early sexual desires arise, often in inappropriate situations. Labels such as "Oedipal Complex" are an attempt to catalogue these early sexual desires, childish wishes that often are frustrated. Our relatedness in its early forms and many facets is often a compromise between instinct and frustration, desire and prohibition.

Our childhood sexuality is a normal and essential precursor to the development and character of our adult sexuality. However, we can carry much negative shame about some of our youthful explorations and wonderings. Shame can be destructive, leading us to feel defective, exposed. Often we absorb shame unconsciously — shame about natural physical functions, sexual urges and longing, or sexual experiences. Our secret shames can linger into adulthood, creating "hang-ups" that block our happiness and development. Finding a safe place to disclose some of our "shameful secrets" can lead to healing.

Sexuality and Soul
Our culture usually associates sexuality with genitalia, but the expressions of our sexuality can be far more profound than that. Physical love is an aspect of relatedness — it is sexual desire fused with tenderness, mutuality, and commitment, which leads to a feeling of union or oneness. At its highest, sexuality is no longer limited to the genitalia but is transformed into our total and loving response to the whole world. Such love engenders soul. Soul is that mysterious, positive, powerful force at the core of our being that calls us to delve deeper into life, to discover who and what we really are. We need to ponder what the soul's purpose is when we are attracted to another, when we long for a deeper love. As we open ourselves to a greater reality, a deeper purpose, we invite the gift of love, love that opens body and soul to the eternal.

In this kind of loving sexual interaction you feel the body, the pulsing life, the beating heart. Beyond lust, it is a surrender to the spirituality between you, to the primordial yearning heart, to the dance of opposites, to balance, to wholeness, to the ancient rhythms. Once you've had this kind of sexual meeting, you don't want anything less. To accept less is to betray yourself.

The opposite of this experience is casual sex or genital sex, in which, after discharge or orgasm, the partner is of little further interest. Here sex is reduced to the satisfaction of a nagging appetite or an addictive impulse. In the film When Harry Met Sally, Harry remarks: "You have sex and the minute you finish, you know what goes through your mind? How long do I have to lie here and hold her before I can get up and go home?" That is the epitome of genital sex.

Sex Versus Sexuality
A good friend of mine, Roberta Hanson, specializes in teaching human sexuality in the Seattle area. In her classes she separates the words "sex" and "sexuality." Sex is defined as a three-letter word and is concerned with anatomy, function, and behavior. Sexuality, on the other hand, implies so much more — including the intellect, emotions, personal history, spirit, and the capacity for love. Our media emphasize the three-letter version of sex and take an adolescent, immature approach. The conversations between people in film, television drama, and popular novels consist mostly of where, when, and how. Our adolescent culture is driven by the question, "How can I put tab A into slot B? The "who" of sex is not addressed.

Contemporary American sexuality has been banished from the sacred places and relegated to "how-to" machine shops and technical manuals. Mechanized prescriptions for sexual fulfillment line the bookshelves and feature positions, tools, and formulas for successful orgasms. This orgasmic emphasis trivializes the whole meaning of sexuality as a sacred gift to be shared on many levels, not just the physical. When purified, sexuality is a sacred power with an incredible potential to bless and heal. When misused, sex becomes deeply polluted — manifesting itself as addictive sex, compulsive sex, abusive sex, angry sex, neurotic sex, and controlling sex.

We need a redefinition of sexuality today. The best sex happens when there is caring and loving and, yes, laughter. We are beginning to understand this more and to realize that the "who" of sex is essential — it is everything! Who is this unique, one-of-a-kind miracle I am with? Who is this being in all of her or his complexity and beauty?

Fostering Soulful Relationships
It is not easy or natural to foster soulful relationships. How does one heart open to another? How can we educate ourselves in the all encompassing possibility of love? The Irish poet, W.B. Yeats observed: "Hearts are not had as a gift but hearts are earned." How do we earn our hearts? How do we become a pilgrim of love, the kind of love that provides the essential foundation from which to live life and taps into a storehouse of treasures, warming the coldest night and healing the broken heart? Such a powerful reality asks us to study it, to learn from it, to honor it. It will serve us in our greatest need.

Healthy relationships are very challenging and call us to acknowledge our own depth, our own shadow. It is in relationship that we are exposed to the raw material or soul of life. This essential material is often unpleasant, despised, and few of us willingly embrace it.

W.B. Yeats wrote the following shocking lines about 70 years ago:

But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement;
For nothing can be sole or whole
That has not been rent.

Love is messy, irrational, and initiated by soul. When confrontations with love force the courageous to engage with the raw material or soul of life, the possibility of radical transformation presents itself. The wound of love, the "rent" of love is an essential part of the great mystery — the mystery of two becoming soul mates, one whole greater than its parts, yet still unique, individual beings.

Where is Passion in Mature Love?
Right now, in my maturity, I wonder about many things. I enjoy my singleness and the richness of solitude, I love my family and friends, and I love my very rewarding work. Yet sometimes I feel a yearning — what is it for? This yearning is not the same frenzied intensity of my youth, that almost unbearable insistent passion that pushes so hard and demands so much. This is gentler, rather like an ache. I know I yearn to learn more about others, God, and love. Do I also long for intimacy with a special other? Companionship? Someone with whom to share my mature self, my full heart?

On the television show 60 Minutes one Sunday evening, an interview with French actress Jeanne Moreau, now in her sixties, showed her to be deliciously honest. Interviewer Mike Wallace asked her about her private life, and if she was involved with anyone right now. She responded no, and that she didn't mind a bit. Mike pushed further. "There's a feeling that passion in a woman of a certain age is unseemly."

Jeanne responded: "They're right."

Mike: "Passion is unseemly?"

Jeanne: "Oh come on. Passion — when you get to be 60 — by then you know about love — but love is not passion. I would hate passion; I would hate to be still overcome with passion, I've done that! I have passion for life now. And now I know about love. Love and passion don't go together. Passion is destructive. Passion is demanding.

"Passion is jealous. Passion goes up and down. Love is consistent. Fidelity, that's what love is about. Compassion, you give even more than you receive. That's what love is about. I'd hate to still be a victim of passion — I would think, God! I've lived all these years and I've learned nothing?"

Love, not passion, is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence, says Erich Fromm in his beautiful book, The Art of Loving. This loving is not easy, it's risky, and yet it is the only way to salvation. C.S. Lewis remarked on the riskiness of love when he said "hell is the only place outside of heaven where we can be safe from the dangers of love." No matter what the dangers, it is riskier not to be a lover. Here is May Sarton's testimony of love and why she "keeps at it." It is hunger and hope that keep her a pilgrim of love.

Love
Fragile as a spider's web
Hanging in space
Between tall grasses,
It is torn again and again.
A passing dog
Or simply the wind can do it.
Several times a day
I gather myself together
And spin it again.
Spiders are patient weavers.
They never give up.
And who knows
What keeps them at it?
Hunger, no doubt,
And hope.

Paula Payne Hardin is a teacher, lecturer, and the director of Chicago's Midlife Consulting Services. She is also the author of What Are You Doing With the Rest of Your Life? Choices in Midlife and Love After Love: Stages of Loving. This article is excerpted from the latter.

Source: www.consciouschoice.com

See also (from the same e-zine):

</font>

• Rediscover Love!</font>
• Sex and Relationship</font>

[ April 05, 2005, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Manning ]

[satori69]

I'm new to this forum. Thanks to Daniel for providing it!

Regardin the recent threads on female/male dominance/submission, etc. I agree with Daniel. Women tend to get off to easily blaming everything on men. It takes two to tango. While men tend to resort to brutal force to get their way, woman resort to their sexuality. Either way its manipulation. I have a low regard for feminists because they have gone off the track: men and women are not the same! Yes, the laws should be applied equally to both, but that's not the same as saying they have the same interests, abilities, etc. A recent study in a hospital found differences among male and female babies upon their reactions to stimuli, disproving the notion that males and females are whay they are because of socialization.

It's been my experience that for all the talk by feminists about equality blah blah, they still expect men to perform certain roles:warrior, leader, etc. Two women I dated before getting married were feminists who actually told me they wanted me to dominate them...to be in charge of the relationship.

Daniel is right when he points out that women make poor choices when they choose men. Why do they choose a drunk, a woman beater, a slob? In some cases, because the guys is filthy rich (money is power, the strongest aphrodisiac for women); where money is not the reason, I suspect women tend to be masochists. By sticking with a man who treats them bad, they can say to themselves, "I'm a good girl because I suffer so much."

[jezebelle]

I think people choose significant others because of chemistry, the right smell, a sort of primitive brain choice. Once that's sorted out, it goes next (from another part of the brain) to picking someone that was wounded in the same developmental stage you were, in childhood; but reacts to it in an opposite way from you. Hense you get your typical polarities, the clinger with the iceman, bimbo with the proffessor (stuff like that).
Spirit uncarring, will make you face your demons from your past and you will pick a partner who will give you that opportunity to heal. Running away from your issues will only bring you to the same type of person again, but with different clothes.

[Manning]

Running away from your issues will only bring you to the same type of person again, but with different clothes.

Ain't that the truth. A truth worth pondering for those who find themselves repeating relationship patterns. Meantime, here's an old link I restumbled across tonight...</font>

• Individuation is accomplished through a conscious encounter with the unconscious, which is symbolized by contrasexual symbols: the male achieves individuation by confronting his unconscious, personified as a feminine anima and the female meets her unconscious personified by male figures.
  This process is usually understood intrapsychically, but it is generally influenced by encounters with persons of the opposite sex in the external world. In this view, a loving encounter is often the occasion for an intensification of the individuation process.
  
  From this traditional Jungian perspective Eros can be seen as either Psyche’s inner masculine side or as a figure who transcends (is outside of) her own mind—either as a person in the external world or as a god in a transcendent reality.
  
  The action of the archetype of anima/animus means that we project our unconscious idea of the All-Woman or All-Man onto an individual in whom we see this ideal essence. No single person can be the carrier of all the divine attributes or qualities we project onto them. When they fail to live up to our unconscious expectations, the process of consciousness raising begins. The Venus function is a lens which can magnify or distort. The story of Eros and Psyche reveals a process of deep metamorphosis and renewal where all the values of the feeling function, emotional life, and moral standards gradually gain new significance and purpose.
  
  There is a "change of heart." Eros moves from sexual objectification toward soulful love; Psyche from projection of her masculine qualities toward empowerment. Emotionally, they act out the dynamic of the puer/puella immature relationship in the meantime. This naturally leads toward active introspection on the mental level, which results in spiritual consciousness raising--a renewed sense of empathy and compassion.
  
  This myth resonates with the Tarot trump, THE LOVERS. The Crowley deck shows an exalted version of the sacred marriage. But more mundane decks generally show a man flanked on either side by two women competing for his attention. He is in an unconscious relationship with both the more maternal, motherly type and the young sensual counterpart who probably represents an immature anima or soul image. These female figures are sometimes polarized as light and dark anima figures. If we view the young man as the maturing ego, this card can also represent a woman with a split between the physical and spiritual aspects of love. Sometimes this dynamic becomes concretized, "acted out," in life through a love triangle.
  
  The ego must bear responsibility for any action it takes in response to the conflicting figures. In the psychology of both men and women, male figures usually represent consciousness, intellectual attainment, and spirit; female figures symbolize aspects of the body, emotions, and soul. The polarity is between sexual passions, secret feelings, and spiritual strivings which exert a definite hold on the ego.
  
  Each is compelling in a magical, magnetic way. The ego cannot detach itself from either of them in outer reality since each belongs to its inner reality. If the ego stands its ground, and endures the tension of conflicting desires, it can become free of the spell of unconscious projection in either direction. We must come to terms with both instinctual draws to gain full stature. This is a step toward individuation.
  
  The challenge is to connect our spiritual and emotional life, through passionate involvement in all of life. Then we find ourselves in a new relationship with others and in harmony with ourselves, facing each individual conflict and suffering through it to its resolution or transcendence. By facing our fears and pains--becoming conscious of our conflicts--we can find peace. These decision points become either our life's path or roads-not-taken.
  
  For those who are interested in learning more (and there is so much more to learn), read the complete article here: Eros and Psyche</font>

[whitewave]

Satori69,
Your analysis of women's behaviour doesn't consider at all that women's choices and men's as well, are motivated by what the soul needs, something that I have stressed at length in this thread. While I respect whatever part of the process you are in in regard to dealing with what I perceived as your issues of anger, I think your "low disregard for feminists" is only something that will perpetuate the victim/victimizer mentality that has kept men and women imprisoned by identifying with these roles. This is a very long thread that delves deeply into the consideration of the power dynamic between men and women, ranging from the individual to the cosmic level. Of course you have the right to take whatever you want from it, but I would encourage you to go back and read through the whole thread if you haven't, in the hopes it will help you be less reductive and dismissive in your interpretation of why women do the things they do. Why do I suggest this? Because I think this is a great thread that has the potential to really educate and transform.

[daniel]

Satori,

I second whitewave. If you are really interested in this subject, I would take some more time with this thread and the nuances we are discussing.

I recommend Ken Wilber's comments on the subject from "Eye of the Spirit" (or was it "Brief History of Everything..."). What has gone on is a long history of complicity between men and women to create the current somewhat unfortunate circumstances. When matriarchal tribes gave way to patriarchal civilizations, the underlying values shifted and this led to a perversion of instinct in subtle and unsubtle ways. Both men and women are still programmed to look for mates based on these old patterns, which - if our society is in the process of moulting into something else - are in the process of changing radically.

It is by bringing the whole matter up to a much higher level of conscious evaluation that we can begin to move towards a solution - and I do think this is happening right now in very interesting ways.