Article: "Re-patterning our Sexuality"

[CFTraveler]

The submission just mimicks the real trusting act of exposing yourself to a loved one, but it is not the real thing, IMO.

In fact, psychological studies have shown that most 'submissives' are actually in charge, since they have transcended abuse issues and have changed them to 'badge of honor' type of thing. Because they 'can handle it'. Ego doubled.

And, before anyone asks me to source this, anything written about sado masochism in any psychological journal says this. I read this in college, (many years ago, before the internet was invented ) so it shouldn't be hard to verify.

[Zak]

I enjoyed reading that channeling very much!

The matriarcle socities existed so fr back that we don't have as much evidence from them as we do from the closing patriarchal socitie we're currently finishing up. I would assume there would be similar types of abuse way back then as there was during the last patriarchal "phase".

Think amazonian women keeping men locked up in cages and used only for procreation. Lol maybe it wasn't that extreme all over. Come to think of it Egypt was a very patriarchal society and they existed as far back as 5,000 b.c. which was when this said matriarchal society existed.

The "new earth NOW" shift is all about embodying the truth of universal balance NOW so that shifts occur outside of ourselves. It's not about sitting around waiting for someone else to do it and then you can go join in. We ALL have to be part of creating the change we want to see, from conscious living and farming to conscious communities and governing systems. This all starts with the individual and all the aspects of your life need to be sorted out. This includes your health and diet, your spirituality, your sexuality and relationships etc.

BDSM is something I've been pondering about lately. IMO it's not so much about n issue with dominance or submission. These two ways of being are natural, like yin and yang. It would be unhealthy IMO to be overly attached to one or the other but both these ways of being exist in our society around us. Take for example a boss at work who is dominating his workers who are submissive. This is the way it has to be because the boss is the one overseeing all the work everyone else is doing and has to have that control to make things function properly.

What IS unhealthy is wether the boss abuses that dominance. For example he yells at his employees to make them work harder.

In regards to inflicying pain on another person with their consent, I'm not sure on that one. My gut reaction is this is unhealthy. It's not the act of dominating someone that is unhealthy it's abusing your body. Pain to your body damages meridians causing them to break up. Same as anything like tattoo's and piercings, this will damage the meridians in that area.

This then gets into iffy territory again because we look at some cultures that used these things (piercing and tttoo's) in a spiritual manner and they have very ornate and artistic stuff done to their body. Again this is another thing that I am not sure about...

The body knows best. Pain is a response from the nervous system telling you that your body is being breached in a certain area. Don't ever listen to the saying "no pain no gain". Any athlete know sthat if they push through a pain they are having is going to result in a worse inury which will affect them lter on in their career.

[Smoxes]

Yello, Korpo

It is happening *right now*.

I've noticed changes, sure, but I'd like to live long enough to witness the full effects, that we all are in tune and are spiritually at peace with each other and the earth. That, I don't think will happen for a long time. I know it matters not whether I'm alive to see it, just so long that it happens. But I still wanna see ^_^

As for BDSM, I am not a part of its lifestyle and really shouldn't speak for it. I'm mostly curious what's thought of it and other lifestyles which aren't typified as normal. As for it, I'm on the fence about the issue but I wouldn't judge people who practice. As with any act, sexual or otherwise, people do emulate their desires in confusing ways, yes, but who's to say whether or not it's healthy except for the individuals themselves (assuming they're emotionally in control)? We all perceive differently, anyway.

What CFTraveler wrote as for submissives transcending their abuse issues, and I'd like to add becoming fully open towards their partner, is another way they experience the totality of their love or of being open for it. It's still love, it's just expressed differently. I hope I didn't botch that up @_@

Like I said, I'm on the fence about it, not a spokeswoman of the culture, but I like being open to differences and hearing what people think ^_^

I don't want to be unkind, but I cannot agree with you on this. (If I understand you correctly) The underlying assumption you implicitly express that "consenting adults" are actually emotionally mature beings. You will find that is rarely the case. Becoming an adult is comparatively easy to, else we would not have billions of them.

I kinda have this poke-fun belief that 99.9% of people, all ages, are not emotionally mature beings. So, no, not what I meant ^_^ I wasn't too clear on it, sorry, but I was just wondering that BDSM might be thought of as distorted and out of balance even though it's (assuming it is) between consenting adults within the BDSM culture, emotionally mature or otherwise.

Mishell wrote:

I think Celia Fenn is being ambiguous as to sexual orientation for a reason. It is not important.

I know. I just like knowing more. And so I can ponder on it. ^_^ Even though that article had delayed my sleep pondering about it for quite a while, I'd still like more!

[Caelrie]

I don't agree with this at all, and I find glaring contradictions within it. For instance, it starts off talking about how everyone needs to balance the inner masculine and feminine, which sounds great. But soon it devolves into a rant against feminism and voicing support of traditional gender roles which were just oppressive in the first place.

Which is it? Should we all be balanced or should we all stick to traditional gender roles where the men are MEN! and the wimminz are wimminz? Why be so hung up on it? Let people be masculine or feminine if they want. What difference does it make if it's the men who are more feminine or the women who are more masculine? Why does that even matter except as a completely artificial and arbitrary system of conservative "family values"?

It seems to me to be a traditionalist conservative trying to hide in the skin of a new ager.

The "New Earth" and "Old Earth" stuff leaves me cold, too. What's supposed to bring this about? Why would all of humanity suddenly be different? I can't think of any time in history that happened, so why would it now? Isn't it better if we work for it ourselves instead of believing it'll magically happen for everyone?

And finally, where's the evidence that humanity started in matriarchies? As far as I know, those theories were abandoned in the last century after fieldwork continually failed to uncover evidence of such societies.

I know it's just my opinion, and I hope no one is offended, but I think this is an example of what Robert was talking about in his writing about the blatant deceptions of many spirits who contact new age mediums. The spirit seems to be constrained by the new age system of beliefs of the medium rather than being honest.

[Korpo]

Which is it? Should we all be balanced or should we all stick to traditional gender roles where the men are MEN! and the wimminz are wimminz?

I think you are over-interpreting something here. A man can be as totally out of touch with one of the energies of the duality as a woman, regardless of which energy. Both genders are advised to embody both qualities, nowhere is it said anyone should revert to previous gender roles. That's a very big difference.

There is a difference between equal rights for women and a feminist movement, including both female and male feminists, that suddenly lets itself be instrumentalised for the war in Afghanistan, for example. Suddenly the role of the Afghan women became a veritable reason to go to war... Not realising however that this was just another excuse for going to war by people who don't even know what equality is.

I think nothing is won if a woman has to totally emulate a man to be make a career. In my eyes then not women have succeeded, but the male role model again. Therefore ironically strengthening the partriarchical model again.

The balancing of energies is described that way that human beings should be complete in themselves to go beyond roles. And then bring that balanced aspect into relationships. And to everything else. Like in a career where it should not even be of any importance whether you are male or female, and also the only accepted model for success should not stem from a model that is traditionally seen as patriarchal and "male".

Nowhere in the article anyone demands that women or men fit in old roles. However, from my point of view, the "softie" and the "radical feminist" are just shallow templates, too. Women and men should feel free to be who they are within and not feel pressured to struggle. This involves removing the mental models, not celebrating them. Neither career woman or house wife, softie or macho, and so on - all these dualities are shallow and imbalanced. But even now people are living unbalanced, unauthentic lives on such stereotypes, and even are required by their partners to be like that, even if both sides are not happy deep down with all these stereotypes, because they *always* limit your possibilities as a being.

Oliver

[Caelrie]

I think you are over-interpreting something here. A man can be as totally out of touch with one of the energies of the duality as a woman, regardless of which energy. Both genders are advised to embody both qualities, nowhere is it said anyone should revert to previous gender roles. That's a very big difference.

It's possible you're right and I'm over-interpreting this. I'll have to think about it some more. It just pings my intuition though when I see someone decrying feminism as causing women to "become men" because it's so incredibly similar to the traditionalist family-values organizations that wholeheartedly believe a man's place is a man's place and a woman's place is a woman's place.

I realize I have a... errm... unique perspective on this issue and that makes me see things differently than almost anyone I know, but "male" and "female" energies make no sense to me whatsoever. We all pretty much accept that at some level in the hierarchy, everything is without gender, right? I mean, most of us here don't believe "god" is a man or a woman. Why then would energies flowing out of that being be divided by gender? What would the purpose of that be?

To me it's like the distinction George Lucas makes between the light and dark sides of the force. To me that was always a silly distinction. It seemed like all there should be is The Force and your intention in using it is what makes it seem like or dark.

I see gender energies the same way. There is only energy. This whole stuff about assigning certain traits to be feminine and certain traits to be masculine is just humans getting hung up on sexual roles. It's so completely arbitrary when seen from the outside. If we had three sexes, we'd no doubt believe the energy of the universe was split into 3 types instead of two and assign "characteristics" to all 3 of them . My point there is that it's not real. It's literally assigning entire categories of qualities to energies based on nothing more than who's usually on top during mating.

On the other hand, maybe labeling them as such is the only way for a non-balanced person to realize which traits he or she needs to develop. I have no idea if that's true or not, but if it is I guess there would at least be a little value in doing so even if it's excessively awkward and has the downside of pinging the stereotypes and biases of the people involved.

[Caelrie]

The submission just mimicks the real trusting act of exposing yourself to a loved one, but it is not the real thing, IMO.

In fact, psychological studies have shown that most 'submissives' are actually in charge, since they have transcended abuse issues and have changed them to 'badge of honor' type of thing. Because they 'can handle it'. Ego doubled.

And, before anyone asks me to source this, anything written about sado masochism in any psychological journal says this. I read this in college, (many years ago, before the internet was invented ) so it shouldn't be hard to verify.

I would agree with that. Being the type of person I am (wanting to explore EVERYTHING), I did a stint in the BDSM community for a little while before moving on. What you said above matches my experiences.

[Korpo]

I guess the human mind needs some reference points, and this male and female energies is something people on average can relate to. There is a tendency in humans to see things bipolar and complementary. You're right - in the end only the qualities matter - living them fully. Good point.

Oliver

[Pneumaphor]

Nowhere in the article anyone demands that women or men fit in old roles. However, from my point of view, the "softie" and the "radical feminist" are just shallow templates, too. Women and men should feel free to be who they are within and not feel pressured to struggle. This involves removing the mental models, not celebrating them. Neither career woman or house wife, softie or macho, and so on - all these dualities are shallow and imbalanced. But even now people are living unbalanced, unauthentic lives on such stereotypes, and even are required by their partners to be like that, even if both sides are not happy deep down with all these stereotypes, because they *always* limit your possibilities as a being.

Well spoken Oliver! *applause* Hey everybody, forget the article, did you hear what Oliver just said?!?

[anotherone]

There is a difference between equal rights for women and a feminist movement, including both female and male feminists, that suddenly lets itself be instrumentalised for the war in Afghanistan, for example. Suddenly the role of the Afghan women became a veritable reason to go to war... Not realising however that this was just another excuse for going to war by people who don't even know what equality is.

I'd enjoy a bit of clarification on this paragraph, if you have the time and the inclination...?