What price (to males) for the absence of a deified feminine in Mormonism & the West? [Archive]

Born Free

9th July 2006, 05:16 PM

Guys, this is a question primarily for you.

As a Mormon, you regularly spoke of God (as a man), the Godhead (as all masculine), and Jesus Christ (as the male son of God on earth).

All that Divine testosterone excluded any room for the development of a Mormon or even Christian concept of 'the feminine'. That concept was considered so important that after the development of feminism, when some Mormon women wanted to start raising consciousness off 'the feminine', and in particular that of a feminine God or Goddess, they were stomped on from a great height and fast. The result is that within Mormonism 'the feminine' has for the most part not only been an idea gone missing, but 'that thing so terrible, that thou shalt not utter its name'.

So we are not speaking here of some omission, but apparently an act conscious reaction, where all the organs of the Church are focused to shut down that paradigm before it sends down roots.

Now, we have kicked around the impact that absence has had upon women, but us guys have not put much effort into exploring what impact that may have had on us. I think we may have touched on it a few times, but with the global search facility of Post-Mo on the blink at present, I cannot locate the relevant threads.

So, what price do you see for the sublimation or even obliteration of 'the feminine' in:

Broader society and civilisation
Your personal life and relationships

And, if you have a sense that that has moved somewhat since leaving MoInc, please talk to that, maybe even with some examples.

Daryl

PS: The thread hyperlinked below covers just one aspect of this, particularly at the beginning:

http://www.postmormon.org/forum_vb/showthread.php?t=617

Here's another:

http://www.postmormon.org/forum_vb/showthread.php?t=580

Note that the theme in many of these is that when a person is shamed in and disconnected from their core (of which sexuality is a part) then they become disconnected from other human beings, and hence at risk of being abusive. and arrogant.

helemon

9th July 2006, 10:12 PM

Guys, this is a question primarily for you.

As a Mormon, you regularly spoke of God (as a man), the Godhead (as all masculine), and Jesus Christ (as the male son of God on earth).

What I find most interesting about goddess myths is that they are not all motherly, kind, nuturing, wise etc. Many if not most were also associated with warfare, hunting, chaos, and promiscuity. So while I agree that it would have been interesting to have been taught to worship both a male and female God (which the Catholics preserved through the worship of Mary) I don't think we can say that civilization would necessarily have been better off following the dictates of a the female dieties that they had conceived of. Still I found this information on Kali very interesting. The description sounds a lot like the concept of the Tao that was explored recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali
Popular form of Kali

She has 4 arms and hands. 2 of these (usually the left) are holding a sword and a severed head. This means that in the end she will kill everyone -- no one can avoid her as mortal death. The other 2 hands (usually the right) are in blessing, which means her initiated devotees (or anyone worshipping her with a true heart) will be saved as she will guide them here and in the hereafter. She is wearing a garland of 51 heads, which represents the Varnamala, or the Garland of Letters. This represents the 51 letters of the Devanagari or Sanskrit script. Hindus believe Sanskrit is a language of dynamism, and each of these letters represents a form of energy, or a form of Kali. Therefore she is generally seen as the Mother of language, and all mantras. . She is depicted as naked with Maya as her only covering and is shown as very dark, as she has no permanent qualities -- meaning she continues to exist even when the universe doesn't. And, so it is believed, that the concepts of color, light, good, bad don’t apply to her -- she is the pure, un-manifested energy, the Adi-shakti.

Born Free

9th July 2006, 10:42 PM

lunaverse

10th July 2006, 10:08 AM

What I find most interesting about goddess myths is that they are not all motherly, kind, nuturing, wise etc. Many if not most were also associated with warfare, hunting, chaos, and promiscuity. So while I agree that it would have been interesting to have been taught to worship both a male and female God (which the Catholics preserved through the worship of Mary) I don't think we can say that civilization would necessarily have been better off following the dictates of a the female dieties that they had conceived of.

As opposed to our currently dominant male-god who states he is a God of Love, but history seems to portray him as a God of War. ;)

i.e. just because you have a God/Goddess of X doesn't mean the followers will emulate the behavior.

Also, stating that there were some Goddesses of Bad Things is a little unfair, considering there were at least as many Male Gods of Bad Things... :/

Here are some Goddesses not of war/hunting, and I have to also ask: What's so wrong with chaos and responsible promiscuity? ;)

Isis:

Wikipedia: Isis is a goddess in the Egyptian belief. She was most prominent mythologically as the wife of Osiris and mother of Horus, and was worshipped as the archetypical wife and mother.

Her name literally means (female) of throne, i.e. Queen of the throne, and the emblem worn on her head was that of a throne. However, the hieroglyph for her name used originally meant (female) of flesh, i.e. mortal, and she may simply have represented deified, real, queens....

In the Book of the Dead Isis was described as She who gives birth to heaven and earth, knows the orphan, knows the widow, seeks justice for the poor, and shelter for the weak. Some of Isis' many other titles were Queen of Heaven, Mother of the Gods, The One Who is All, Lady of Green Crops, The Brilliant One in the Sky, Star of the Sea, Great Lady of Magic, goddess of magic, fertility, nature, motherhood,and underworld Mistress of the House of Life, She Who Knows How To Make Right Use of the Heart, Light-Giver of Heaven, Lady of the Words of Power, and Moon Shining Over the Sea.

Sophia:

http://www.thaliatook.com/sophia.html: Sophia ("Wisdom"), also called "the Sophia" with the article, is the Gnostic Great Mother or in Greek, meter. She is the Goddess of Heaven and the Mother of the Stars and the Hebdomas, the Seven powers who created the world. They are sometimes called "angels" but are of ambiguous character, since in Gnostic belief this material world is thought to be a lesser emanation of the divine world, filled with hostile and evil powers. The Seven find their antecedants in the seven "planets" of Babylonian belief...

Sophia is considered one of the Aeons, Angels of Manifested Thought, who created all things. She is the mother of Sophia-achamoth (who represents astral light), Enthumesis ("Consideration" or "Esteem") and the Elohim ("the Gods"). With Phronesia ("Purpose" or "Practical Wisdom") and Dynamis ("Power") She created the Angels and the Principalities (the Higher Angels). Called the Spirit of God, She is also sometimes said to be His mother, and some call Her the Bride of Christ...

Hagia Sophia, the Church of Holy Wisdom in Constantinople, now Istanbul (not Constantinople--it's been a long time gone), was built by the Emperor Constantine in honor of Her and remains one of the most beautiful buildings in the world.

Sophia in a reading indicates wisdom and creativity, intelligence and divine inspiration. This kind of wisdom is able to understand and listen with compassion to differing viewpoints, and sort out the truth between them. This divine knowing is also able to comprehend paradox and the idea that two opposite points of view may both be the truth.

And speaking of India, Lakshmi:

Wikipedia: In Hinduism, Lakshmi or Laxmi (Sanskrit: लक्ष्मी lakṣmī) is the goddess of wealth, light, wisdom and fortune, as well as (secondarily) luck, beauty and fertility. Representations of Lakshmi (or Shri) are found in Jain and Buddhist monuments, in addition to Hindu temples.

In Puranic Hinduism Lakshmi is the Mother of the Universe and Vishnu's Shakti. Lakshmi is married to Vishnu, and also married his incarnations Rama (in her incarnation as Sita), Krishna (as Rukmini) and Venkateshwara (as Alamelu). Lakshmi has a son named Kama. Lakshmi may also be referred to as Narayani (Sanskrit: नारायणि), which is the equivalent of "The wife of Vishnu".

Demeter:

Dêmêtêr (or Demetra) /dɛ'miː.tə/ (Δημητηρ, "mother-earth" or perhaps "distribution-mother", perhaps from the noun of the Indo-European mother-earth *dheghom *mater) is the Greek goddess of agriculture, the pure nourisher of youth and the green earth, the health-giving cycle of life and death, and preserver of marriage and the sacred law. She is invoked as the "bringer of seasons" in the Homeric hymn, a subtle sign that she was worshiped long before the Olympians arrived. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter has been dated to sometime around the Seventh Century BC.[1] She and her daughter Persephone were the central figures of the Eleusinian Mysteries that also predated the Olympian pantheon.

The Roman equivalent is Ceres.

Brigid:

Wikipedia: Brigid was the goddess of the Sacred Flame of Kildare and one of the goddesses worshipped by the Celtic peoples, including the druids. She was the goddess of all things perceived to be of relatively high dimensions such as high-rising flames, highlands, hill-forts and upland areas; and of activities and states conceived as psychologically lofty and elevated, such as wisdom, excellence, perfection, high intelligence, poetic eloquence, craftsmanship (especially blacksmithy), healing ability, druidic knowledge and skill in warfare. In the living traditions, whether seen as goddess or saint, she is largely associated with the home and hearth and is a favorite of both Pagans and Christians.

Shekinah:

Wikipedia: The Shekinah is held by many to represent the feminine attributes of the presence of God (shekhinah being a feminine word in Hebrew), based especially on readings of the Talmud and the Kabbalah. The word 'Matronit' is also employed to represent this usage. Comparative Religionists suggest a comparison to shakti, the female energy of Hindu gods, and to the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit.

Kwan Yin:

Wikipedia: Kuan Yin (觀音; Pinyin: Guān Yīn) is the bodhisattva of compassion as venerated by East Asian Buddhists, usually as a female. Kuan Yin originated as the Sanskrit Avalokiteśvara, which is her male form. Commonly known in the West as the Goddess of Mercy, Kuan Yin is also revered by Chinese Taoists as an Immortal. The name Kuan Yin is short for Kuan-shih Yin (Py.: Guānshì Yīn, 觀世音) which means "Observing the Sounds of the World".

This list wasn't hard to compile. :)

Luna

lunaverse

10th July 2006, 10:14 AM

Not, of course, to derail the current topic, which is: How does the lack of the feminine diety affect male Mormons and Western men in general? :)

Based on Helemon's post, I'd add my outside female perspective that it tends to make men blind to the effects the lack of such a diety has on women, making them think a Goddess figure isn't needed. ;)

Luna

miss taken

10th July 2006, 10:33 AM

Another woman, chiming in here!

Actually you ask a really interesting question. I hate what orthodox christianity, Judaism, Islam and LDS doctrine has done to women, and 'some' mens view of women.

Lots on the evils of female promiscuity.

'silly women laden with divers lusts'
'the 'whore' of Babylon'

1Timothy 2:11-15 women are not permitted to have authority over men and that they must be silent because Adam was formed first then Eve.

I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing... Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you." Genesis 3:16. (ostensibly because Eve partook of the fruit first)

"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. … If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days..." Leviticus 15:19-32.

Women unclean, defilers.

“Man born of woman…Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!” Job 14:1-4

Numbers 5:11-31. Men could divorce their wives on a whim - Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Women's main role was to bear male children and infertile women were scorned. In the bible it was always the women who were sterile, never the men.

“…If however the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death..." Deuteronomy 22:13-21.
For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head;" 1 Corinthians 11:9, 10.

“…women should remain silent in churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission...” 1 Corinthians 14:34

“Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting to the Lord.” Colossians 3:18

REVELATION
14:4...they did not DEFILE themselves with women but kept themselves pure.

etc, etc, etc, etc.

The bible really does take a grim view of women, particularly promiscuous women.

Sigh,.....where are the men... Is it really all the women's fault??

Anyways. What is interesting to me, was that on Big Love the other day, a teenage girl says to Paxman's son, ...please don't become like the LDS guys I've dated...they are arrogant,...they think because they have the priesthood....etc etc.

I don't know, it just made me chuckle, not that all men in the church were as she described. There were truly humble men in the church who treated women as equals, but they were few and far between.

I told my husband that I hoped he would never become LDS because I felt it would ruin him (when we first married).

He's lovely as he is, and I can't see that the LDS faith would make him a better man...

but that's just me...

Mary

Apologies if I have rambled....

Anyway.

Basically,I think the christian view (including LDS) was mostly inherited from the Judaism that has been presented to us in the Old and New Testament. The orthodox view of the woman taken in adultery and brought before Jesus for condemnation was telling, (where was the man?) as was Jesus' response actually. I'd like to think that the apocryphal works might indicate how he viewed men and women, which seems a bit closer to my own viewpoint on the matter!!!

lunaverse

10th July 2006, 10:58 AM

Basically,I think the christian view (including LDS) was mostly inherited from the Judaism that has been presented to us in the Old and New Testament. The orthodox view of the woman taken in adultery and brought before Jesus for condemnation was telling, (where was the man?) as was Jesus' response actually. I'd like to think that the apocryphal works might indicate how he viewed men and women, which seems a bit closer to my own viewpoint on the matter!!!

Actually, the evidence I've been seeing lately is that the Judaism of the time of Christ was actually more favorable to women than we think. The concept of Shekinah was talked about more frequently, there is evidence there was a female Priestess order, etc. It's interesting to think about. ('course they still supposedly stoned women, and all that...)

I blame the Romans. :)

Luna

miss taken

10th July 2006, 02:03 PM

miss taken

10th July 2006, 02:11 PM

OOOh, just found a brilliant web page from Lampeter (my friend is studying religion there at the mo), all about women in the ancient world. It's a really good read.

http://www.lamp.ac.uk/~noy/women.htm

peter_mary

10th July 2006, 03:30 PM

Funny how we can read the same thing, but hear it differently.

I didn't read Daryl's question as "what would have happened if we worshipped a Goddess in our liturgy," but rather, what have we lost as a result of not valuing the feminine?

So here's how I thought through that question (briefly). For me, the emphasis on the masculine and the minimizing the feminine has left men rather unbalanced. Women are forced (to a degree) to come to terms with the balance, because they ARE the feminine, yet they have to operate amid the masculine. They understand both worlds better, have better access to the strengths and power of both the masculine and the feminine, and are, well...more balanced as a result.

Men are denied access to the feminine powers by virtue of the culture that doesn't value those powers beyond their ability to produce more male offspring. By valuing only the masculine, men have never felt comfortable in egalitarian roles. They can never see a woman as truly equal, and therefore never take advantage of the strengths of femininity, and subsequently bumble about the business of "leading the world" with half a brain (read: George Bush...badda-bing! :) )

In the absence of embracing the feminine, men in the church never get to know the beauty and power of a truly egalitarian partnership with a woman. They never get to appreciate the mystery and strength, the gifts and virtues of knowing the yin to his yang. (Dogzilla is at this very moment picturing a "yang" and having carnal thoughts about it...) Instead, they only ever come to know her supposed role, and limit his own experience to that of "having" a wife and mother to "his" children.

Ultimately, therefore, without access and appreciation to the feminine, a man is alone. He is all he knows...all others are competition or incubators.

With access to the feminine, he can become a partner in the truest sense of the word, and know another human being in ways he never dreamed. If there is any wisdom in the creation story of the Garden of Eden (and it is scanty at best), it is simply this...without the feminine in his life, Adam was alone...and always would be. With the feminine in his life, Adam could become all that God was.

In other words, (and taking the Mormonics out of it...hey! That's a damn good word! "Mormonics..." Tuck that in your hip pocket for later use!).

Where was I? Oh yeah...If men and women value equally the masculine and the feminine gifts and powers and energies, then they avail themselves to the creative impulse of the universe, and understand creation at it's deepest level.

Mormon men (and MOST religious men), miss that, and the world suffers for it.

Side note: I don't think that this is in ANY way exclusive of same-sex relations. Gay men and lesbian women will be far more successful in their relationships, too, if they value both the feminine and masculine elements that they each bring to their relationships. "Femine" does not EQUAL "female," it just happens to be a tad more abundant in the female half of the species. Likewise for masculine and male...they may have overlapping traits, but they are different ideas.

helemon

10th July 2006, 04:24 PM

As opposed to our currently dominant male-god who states he is a God of Love, but history seems to portray him as a God of War. ;)

My point not that male Gods were better, but that female gods were not all peace, love and harmony either. It was not a jab at the goddesses but questioning whether any of the dieties male or female that humans have created are beneficial to humanity or worthy of worship.

helemon

10th July 2006, 04:31 PM

Funny how we can read the same thing, but hear it differently.

I didn't read Daryl's question as "what would have happened if we worshipped a Goddess in our liturgy," but rather, what have we lost as a result of not valuing the feminine?

Saying what have we lost by not valuing the feminine is very different than saying what have we lost by not worshiping the female dieties humanity has created. My point was simply that if we are going to trash attributes of the male dieties society has created we should not give the female dieties a free pass or that their impact on society would be completely positive.

lunaverse

10th July 2006, 04:32 PM

Lunaverse, any more info on that??
I think it makes sense that the bible as we have it today, has been influenced by a strongly patriarchal system. (don't know too much about Roman society in terms of male/female role) That's why I like some of the apocryphal and gnostic writings.

My sources are vague. :) Bloodlines of the Holy Grail talks about Hebrew Priestesses, and that this was very common, particularly in the Essene order.

Mary Magdaleine and Mary the Mother of Jesus were both powerful Essene Priestesses according to that author.

Also, the idea of Shekinah existed, so unlike Christianity, Judahism wasn't totally devoid of positive female influence and divinity.

Also, I saw a documentary on early Christianity a few years ago, and in pre-Constantine churches, often times women ran the Christian meetings, because they were held in homes.. and once in the home, it was the woman's domain. :)

I don't have much else to back up my claim. :) And I'm not saying Hebrew women at the time were totally liberated, I just think they were more than most people believe.

Luna

helemon

10th July 2006, 04:33 PM

Actually, the evidence I've been seeing lately is that the Judaism of the time of Christ was actually more favorable to women than we think. The concept of Shekinah was talked about more frequently, there is evidence there was a female Priestess order, etc. It's interesting to think about. ('course they still supposedly stoned women, and all that...)

I blame the Romans. :)

Luna

How else could Moses' wife performed the circumcision of their son?

lunaverse

10th July 2006, 04:58 PM

Saying what have we lost by not valuing the feminine is very different than saying what have we lost by not worshiping the female dieties humanity has created. My point agains was simply that if we are going to trash attributes of the male dieties society has created we should not give the female dieties a free pass or that their impact on society would be completely positive.

Helemon, I'd like to share my perspective on being a woman raised in a culture with only a male deity -- and then abruptly leaving that culture -- and how simply leaving that culture didn't really help shake the patriarchal burden that culture left on me.

Sure, I dumped the Male God. However, that doesn't heal the fact that for 27 years I looked up to that Male God and he served as my only All Powerful Role Model. Now all I have is this memory of once having had that Male Role Model, but never having had an All Powerful Female Role Model, there is nothing to balance that. That "place" where the idea of God still sits in me is still very Male, and now I'm just an ordinary human Female in an ordinary world with no belief in any diety.

This is difficult to express, but I'm going to try, since I'm supposed to be writing an article on it.

Even if you don't BELEIVE in a literal female deity, it helps to know that such a deity exists in human minds, even if just as an idea in my own mind. It validates the concept that yes, women can be Powerful too. Even if it's just human women being powerful in human ways, the mythology of a female deity is the symbol the the ultimate extension of that power.

So without a Goddess, in the back of my mind, the most powerful being I've ever conceived of is... still.. quite male. That keeps males as still the most powerful beings conceivable.

When I pretend to believe in a Goddess, and meditate on that pretended belief, it replaces that void, makes me feel like I'm someone too, like my half of the human race can also be powerful. Now there is something as powerful as God the Father, in a female form.

It doesn't change anything out here in reality, but it does wonders for my inner world. Even when I disbelieve in both male and female gods, thinking of the IDEA of the female god validates my abilities as a female woman.

And billions of women around the world are missing that. The most powerful being they've ever thought of is still... a man. What does that do to them? How does that limit them, psychologically? I think it limits them quite a lot.

I think it might sometimes be difficult for a man to understand that (though P_M I think gets it).

Helemon, I wonder what would happen if you suspended disbelief for a 15 minute mediation, and just closed your eyes and imagined conversing with a goddess of your choosing -- even one of your making. Pretend she is real only for those 15 minutes, and talk to her, see what happens. :) As a thought-experiment, I would be very interested to see what happens, and I think Daryl would too, because it relates to his question. I'm super curious.

Luna

helemon

10th July 2006, 05:20 PM

Men are denied access to the feminine powers by virtue of the culture that doesn't value those powers beyond their ability to produce more male offspring.

I appreciate what you are saying here PM, but can you please elaborate on what exactly you consider "feminine powers" and "masculine powers." I think Big Ed talked about female energy and I was always confused by what exactly he meant by that.

Born Free

10th July 2006, 05:55 PM

Funny how we can read the same thing, but hear it differently.

I didn't read Daryl's question as "what would have happened if we worshipped a Goddess in our liturgy," but rather, what have we lost as a result of not valuing the feminine?
<snip>

Well said P_M (as always),

Your reply creates a dichotomy that I believe does not actually exist, although might be a helpful deconstruction, in wrapping our heads around the Big Picy.

P_M, you may have let women off a little lighter than I would, though. I see many women who react so strongly to the abusive male, that they fail to delve into what healthy balanced masculinity might look like. Sadly they tar all masculinity as toxic on the strength of the observation of some pathological examples (all be it they are too common). One example is how many women abuse anger; how rather than being clean about it, they seep it out under the table in a passive-aggressive manner.

A mentor of mine said he was in a large gathering for men's and women's work in the US over 20 years ago, when a leading woman elder, responded to a quip about men's domination and abuse of outer space , to which she replied 'as some women dominate and abuse inner space'.

So I am heartily in endorsement of what P_M said. It seems to me that as men reign in their external excesses, and commence nourishing and nurturing their own inner world, then they will find a far more satisfying and sustainable relationship with women, who are as busy finding wisdom and balance in their feminine and masculine components.

And I see the two so very intricately connected. Part of the reason men find strong women scary, is because they have memories of many, many manipulative women who won't put their agenda on the table. And women have good reason to be wary and circumspect, because of all the shabby treatment they have received.

But what I find useful in this Goddess concept, is its transportability from the macro down to the micro. What us men cannot respect, appreciate or even begin to grasp at the conceptual level, we cannot respect or begin to relate to down at the interpersonal (IMO). The concept of Gods, carries with it great forces deserving of respect at minimum, and in some cases, emulation.

I feel that I have missed something important from my life by being blind to the uniqueness, beauty, wisdom and strength of 'the feminine' as a young man, and wish I had come to an appreciation much earlier in life. I got one of the first big look-sees at the home-birth of our eldest child, but I know that I failed to consolidate and build on that for decades, in part because of the widespread cultural blindness to the virtues of 'the feminine'.

Daryl

PS: Loved Mormonics. Definitely worth retaining!

helemon

10th July 2006, 06:25 PM

As a Mormon, you regularly spoke of God (as a man), the Godhead (as all masculine), and Jesus Christ (as the male son of God on earth).

While Mormons speak of God as a man there is very scant information about him beyond that. Everything in the Bible was Jesus not God. And growing up I always knew he was married that there was a man and a woman God. Mormons teach that it is impossible to become a God with a woman. So yes while I agree that there was not much discussion about Mother in Heaven I don't feel like I really knew much about Father in Heaven either.

helemon

10th July 2006, 06:57 PM

Born Free

10th July 2006, 07:13 PM

While Mormons speak of God as a man there is very scant information about him beyond that. Everything in the Bible was Jesus not God. And growing up I always knew he was married that there was a man and a woman God. Mormons teach that it is impossible to become a God with a woman. So yes while I agree that there was not much discussion about Mother in Heaven I don't feel like I really knew much about him either.

Helemon,

You might want to edit that whilst you still can.

Daryl

Born Free

10th July 2006, 08:08 PM

<snip>

Helemon, I wonder what would happen if you suspended disbelief for a 15 minute mediation, and just closed your eyes and imagined conversing with a goddess of your choosing -- even one of your making. Pretend she is real only for those 15 minutes, and talk to her, see what happens. :) As a thought-experiment, I would be very interested to see what happens, and I think Daryl would too, because it relates to his question. I'm super curious.

Luna
Luna (& Helemon),

It is midday here Tuesday, so my end of the experiment will have to wait, and possibly even until Wednesday night, as I have men's group tonight. But, I like the idea of attempting to do it more experientally using a meditation. But I had already been trying to get into that space, using raw thought processes.

If I take on board the idea that God is a construct we project, we get an explanation why the Gods of black races are black, Indians have Indian Gods and Asians, Asian Gods. And we tend to create Gods at or somewhat leading our level of evolution. So the Old Testament God is very tribal, big on vengeance, low on forgiveness. By the era of Christ, leading thought was already well beyond there, so we start to see a more compassionate God and a universalist.

So how does that apply to Gods and Goddesses?

I have said before that one of the discernible steps in my rejection of Mormonism was when I did tertiary management studies in my early 20s. In a leadership module, a lecturer asked who were our leadership models, inviting us to consider wider than formal leaders. My list included sporting coaches and teachers. I then realised that my ideal leader led through influence and example and never by force. But they were all male.

At that point I came headlong into conflict with many elements of the God I had been sold as a youth.

But as I look back, that was all an exercise in males. I (then) did not have any female leaders as my ideals. And I certainly did not compare anyone with a female God. Nowhere in my mind-map was any sense of the attributes of a Goddess.

(Hey, Luna, this could be leading me into some more therapy!!!! I know now that I nearly destroyed my marriage projected my mother-baggage onto my wife, so God knows what I might have projected onto a Goddess, both directly and inverted. I had enough problems with the notion that God was up there with the Big Daryl Ledger, studiously tracking how many times I had lust-filled thoughts and masturbated. How the hell, would have I dealt with the notion of a Goddess as voyeur to my obsession with my fiddleybits?)

Even the above sidesteps that most Eastern traditions assign earthy sexuality to the feminine. If I had been exposed to that idea earlier, I might have started to have a far healthier relationship with myself and real females. Instead I got caught up in the trap of believing that God was on side with my Mother and Father in being obsessed with my sexuality, as a major potential stumbling block to my Eternal Progression.

Back over a year ago Eddy pointed me at David Dieda's work, and I certainly got a lot out of his works about the masculine and feminine energies, and how they might relate. That offers such a rich (albeit more complex) model of sex and gender, of energies and the need to search for balance. It even explains people with low sexual energy, and helped my make sense that I was not one of them, and therefore they had little to offer me by the way of wisdom.

Luna, I will return and report.

This issue is a real Pandora Box, and I am really enjoying not only opening it, but exploring what lies within!

Daryl

helemon

10th July 2006, 08:12 PM

Helemon,

You might want to edit that whilst you still can.

Daryl

Ok, I edited it but the sentiment still stands. I don't feel like I had a good understanding of God the Father or God the Mother. I think Mormon theology is pretty weak in its building out the character of the Gods we are supposed to emulate. God is a law giver and judge but he is not much of an example. Even the Christ story provides very little day to day material on how to deal with life. Personally I find the polytheistic religions such as Hinduism much more interesting in their exploration of the divine forces of the universe.

I worry that by trying to define GOD according to gender roles artificially limits our ability to understand the universe. We simply end up projecting an idealized image of gender which can alienate people who do not identify with either of the "idealized" set of characteristics and so again there is a group of people who are isolated and shut out just as you claim happens to women when there is not a strong female diety taught in a culture.

Futhermore gender is not black and white in nature and it is not even present in all life forms. So trying to claim that certain qualities of the universe of the human psyche are inherently male or female I think is not neccessarily useful. Males can be nuturing, cooperative, collaborative, artistic, and chaotic, just as women can be aggressive, domineering, aloof, competitive, and rule driven. By stating that certain traits are the domain of a certain gender we may be building walls that cause people to be even more likely to stay locked within those culturally defined gender roles or wonder why they do not fit those roles.

Ok go ahead and tear it apart.

helemon

10th July 2006, 08:22 PM

By the era of Christ, leading thought was already well beyond there, so we start to see a more compassionate God and a universalist.

Does Christ represent an evolution of thought or a recognition that the OT God is not the Bad Ass we made him out to be since we keep getting our butts kicked by the bigger kids on the block so we might as well try compassion and forgiveness and move the butt kicking of God to Judgement Day. The God of Christianity is not a more compassionate God. He just exacts his vengance at the judgement bar. I don't think you can look at Michaelangelos depiction of Hell, or read about the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition and think, 'Gee, now there is a compassionate God!'

Born Free

10th July 2006, 08:27 PM

The reduction of women to 'whores and Madonnas' really grates on me.

One of the steps in my evolution was coming to observe my own partners response in a few settings. She shared with me her sexual arousal in response to the lead artist at various concerts.

It was one area I was mature enough to be OK with, so we were able to explore it. I came to conclude that this was probably a remnant of historically very viable female attraction to the Alpha male deep in genetic programming.

I might have done a dummy-spit and wondered 'what' I had married. (She might have decided to shut down and never communicate honestly with me again, after observing my response). Instead I came to see the complex and delightfully rich woman who is my partner. That became just one step along a road of us taking ownership of our sexuality back from Mormonism.

I find that refusal to see human beings in all their rich complexity is so impoverishing. There is an old joke that goes along the lines 'When I married I thought I had got a lady in the living room and a whore in the bedroom. In time it became apparent the woman I married was a whore in the living room and a lady in the bedroom'.

How sad. How tragic that we can't see a way to be all that we might be, both as males and as females, rich in our complexity and diversity, and amused at the apparently incongruous bits.

I have my own twister variation on the above. I have the philosophy 'Life is too short for bad wine, bad coffee and good women'. Fortunately, I can live my philosophy at home.

Daryl

helemon

10th July 2006, 08:52 PM

The reduction of women to 'whores and Madonnas' really grates on me. I find that refusal to see human beings in all their rich complexity is so impoverishing.

And yet the main aspect of the femine that seems to pervade much of your comentary on women is related to sex. Where is the complexity in that? So women get aroused by powerful men. So women have sexual desires too. Where is the complexity if the main revelation you have become aware of is that women are sexual creatures? Sorry Daryl, not trying to be harsh here just wondering if the complexity you see in the opposite sex extends beyond the joys you find in what sounds like an open marriage?

I think that reveling in a sexually open relationship ignores the potential of sex to also cause great emotional harm. Sex is powerful 'magic' and should be treated with care and respect. I personally think there is some wisdom in the idea of restricting full sexual expression to committed monogamous relationships. The complexity of human beings is in all the other emotions that are tied up in sex beyond pure physical arousal.

Sorry if I seem to be in a pissy mood today.

helemon

10th July 2006, 09:29 PM

Helemon, I wonder what would happen if you suspended disbelief for a 15 minute mediation, and just closed your eyes and imagined conversing with a goddess of your choosing -- even one of your making. Pretend she is real only for those 15 minutes, and talk to her, see what happens. :) As a thought-experiment, I would be very interested to see what happens, and I think Daryl would too, because it relates to his question. I'm super curious.

Ok, here goes.....Ooooommmmmm.....

H: Why did you create men?
Gs: To protect women and provide them with food and shelter. Men are expendable.

H: Is that why men are more likely to die as children and to die in battle?
Gs: Yep.

H: Why did you create the universe?
Gs: I was bored.

H: Why is there suffering, and disease?
Gs: So that you will have a motivation to learn about how you are made.

H: Is there any purpose for life?
Gs: Nope, it just is.

H: Why is nature so cruel and vicious at times?
Gs: Those are human interpretations.

H: Are humans the highest life form on earth?
Gs: Not even close! :D

papa

10th July 2006, 09:58 PM

helemon

10th July 2006, 10:48 PM

I feel balance is key to spiritual understanding/living. What we call gender balance-Shiva/Shakti, YabYum, yonilingam, mellow tantra.

Pure spirit unites with creative energy-balance leads to oneness.

While I can appreciate the insights provided by these spiritual models for understanding the universe I can't help but wonder if we are not projecting onto the universe this artificial dicotomy of attributes based more on human physiological differences and emotional characteristics which naturally seem to ring true since they are a reflection of ourselves rather than a true understanding of the universe. How would a diatom, virus or prion describe the universe? Would an organism that does not have gender distinctions create such models of their world?

Born Free

11th July 2006, 01:56 AM

While I can appreciate the insights provided by these spiritual models for understanding the universe I can't help but wonder if we are not projecting onto the universe this artificial dicotomy of attributes based more on human physiological differences and emotional characteristics which naturally seem to ring true since they are a reflection of ourselves rather than a true understanding of the universe. How would a diatom, virus or prion describe the universe? Would an organism that does not have gender distinctions create such models of their world?
Helemon,

Personally I run with the idea that to a very large extent God is what we make of Him or Her. No dispute there.

But our projections can tell us something of ourselves; they can have value at different levels.

So it follows that the 'mere' absence of a female God tells us something very valuable about humanity, or at least some parts of it. That we, as a civilisation can conceive of a male deity, but not of a feminine deity surely raises some interesting question for the inquisitive. If an anthropologist went into a society were all children's dolls were males only, surely they would consider asking 'why?'

So, the absence of a female deity could be likened to 'the sound of one hand clapping'. That no image is reflected back to little girls or even women, must at the very least be disconcerting. Your argument seems a little like saying ' I know I exist, so what does it matter that when I look in the mirror, that I see no reflection?'

Daryl

helemon

11th July 2006, 08:10 AM

So, the absence of a female deity could be likened to 'the sound of one hand clapping'. That no image is reflected back to little girls or even women, must at the very least be disconcerting. Your argument seems a little like saying ' I know I exist, so what does it matter that when I look in the mirror, that I see no reflection?'

Daryl

Nope, my issue through this whole thread is not that women do not need strong cultural role models but questioning whether there is any benefit from creating a diety male or female to help us understand the universe. Why must we continue to create God in our image? Why can't we just appreciate amazing complexities of the universe without trying to anthropomorphize it?

Why can't we recognize that we are all a mix of characteristics we love and hate, we create and destroy, we nurture and ostracize. Is there really a benefit from saying this set of personality traits are male and this set are female? Doesn't this just perpetuate the dichotomy you are complaining about? Isn't the goal of what you are trying to achieve a more integrated personality for both males and females or at least recognize that we need a variety of personalities in order to have a strong and vibrant society?

peter_mary

11th July 2006, 08:46 AM

Further up there somewhere you asked me to define feminine and masculine. In a sense, you were getting there with this observation:

Futhermore gender is not black and white in nature and it is not even present in all life forms. So trying to claim that certain qualities of the universe of the human psyche are inherently male or female I think is not neccessarily useful. Males can be nuturing, cooperative, collaborative, artistic, and chaotic, just as women can be aggressive, domineering, aloof, competitive, and rule driven. By stating that certain traits are the domain of a certain gender we may be building walls that cause people to be even more likely to stay locked within those culturally defined gender roles or wonder why they do not fit those roles.

See, as I said before, I personally don't equate "feminine" with "female", nor "masculine" with "male." I see all of us on a continuum, with men TENDING to clump a little further along the masculine scale, and women TENDING to clump a little further along the feminine scale, but MOST of us having some degree of access to both the feminine and masculine.

The problem is when we misunderstand those "powers and gifts" or when we fail to value them. See, I agree with Daryl and you when you note that women at times misuse the "power" of masculinity. Masculine power has been literally worshipped now for millenia, and everyone is painfully aware that the natural strengths of masculinity rule the earth. Not by virtue of superior reason, but by virtue of the fact that Masculine powers include the willingness and desire to dominate. Feminine powers less so. So Masculinity tends to rule the day. (By the way, I'm just spouting off here, so anyone is free to jump in with their own take at any time). The natural predilictions of masculinity include, however, the focus and drive (often at the expense of other matters) to achieve "dominion" over the natural environment, which has been one of the main reasons human beings are so successful as a species (to the extent of being a plague on the planet! :rolleyes: ). We have benefited from the masculine energy, both in the hands of men and women alike.

So, while Masculine energy is worshipped and rules, and is often missused by BOTH men and women in an effort to gain greater power and dominion, at the same time, the feminine powers are often devalued, by both men and women. In my mind, the feminine powers are both the creative impulse and the nurturing/community impulse. It's the sensitivity and awareness of our actions on others, our community, and our environment. Just as women are at times guilty of abusing the masculine energy, men are often ashamed of their feminine side, and work to suppress it, often to the detriment of themselves and their families as they overcompensate in a misguided attempt to assert ONLY the masculine.

As you note above, all of these virtues, both masculine and feminine, are available to men and women. That's why it's important to de-couple masculine and feminine from any respective genders. Frankly, I would be okay talking about purple and orange powers and gifts rather than confuse the issue with gender.

In the end, I believe that human beings achieve their very best when the masculine and the femine are equally balanced, equally valued, and fully aware of one another. The masculine energy moves things forward in a singularly focused manner, while the feminine energy keeps it checked so as to not damage the community or the planet.

Anyway, that's how it seems to me.

I strongly recommend The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future by Riane Eisler for a more detailed (and coherent!) exploration of this very topic. It's an excellent and thought-provoking read that aids the masculine energy understand the importance of the feminine.

peter_mary

11th July 2006, 08:53 AM

Even if you don't BELEIVE in a literal female deity, it helps to know that such a deity exists in human minds, even if just as an idea in my own mind. It validates the concept that yes, women can be Powerful too. Even if it's just human women being powerful in human ways, the mythology of a female deity is the symbol the the ultimate extension of that power.

So without a Goddess, in the back of my mind, the most powerful being I've ever conceived of is... still.. quite male. That keeps males as still the most powerful beings conceivable.

Luna
This was helpful to me. It's a reminder that despite the fact that you (and me...and many others) have abandoned the notion of a male god, it remains true that the VAST majority of the culture we know continues to worship male divinity. In that realization is the associated awareness that in the culture in which we live, femininity continues to be seen as secondary to masculinity. Since we associate femininity with womanhood, the natural conclusion is that women are second-class citizens.

By exploring the notion of the goddess (not that she needs to be REAL, but she needs to be AN OPTION), we begin the process of valueing the feminine. And that's gonna go a long way in bringing to balance to a lot of disillusioned folks.

Jeff_Ricks

11th July 2006, 09:03 AM

.This was helpful to me. It's a reminder that despite the fact that you (and me...and many others) have abandoned the notion of a male god, it remains true that the VAST majority of the culture we know continues to worship male divinity. In that realization is the associated awareness that in the culture in which we live, femininity continues to be seen as secondary to masculinity. Since we associate femininity with womanhood, the natural conclusion is that women are second-class citizens.

By exploring the notion of the goddess (not that she needs to be REAL, but she needs to be AN OPTION), we begin the process of valueing the feminine. And that's gonna go a long way in bringing to balance to a lot of disillusioned folks.I agree completely! I would also say that not only does the concept of a male deity breed unbalance in our culture but so does the concept of any deity, male or female. Our culture's belief that a god is in charge of the universe implies that we humans are second class, defective, citizens, and that, I think, breeds all kinds of unhealthy paradigms that negatively affect our culture.

Jeff

dogzilla

11th July 2006, 09:23 AM

How else could Moses' wife performed the circumcision of their son?

With her teeth?

:eek:

j/k

dogzilla

11th July 2006, 09:28 AM

In the absence of embracing the feminine, men in the church never get to know the beauty and power of a truly egalitarian partnership with a woman. They never get to appreciate the mystery and strength, the gifts and virtues of knowing the yin to his yang. (Dogzilla is at this very moment picturing a "yang" and having carnal thoughts about it...)

DANG! How does he always know that??? :confused:

Where was I? Oh yeah...If men and women value equally the masculine and the feminine gifts and powers and energies, then they avail themselves to the creative impulse of the universe, and understand creation at it's deepest level.

Mormon men (and MOST religious men), miss that, and the world suffers for it.

Yes, but in what ways?

(You've almost answered the original question.)

dogzilla

11th July 2006, 09:34 AM

I think that reveling in a sexually open relationship ignores the potential of sex to also cause great emotional harm.

I take issue with that. Sex does not cause great emotional harm. People do.

How we think about sex, how others think about sex, social mores, brainwashing... all those things play into how we feel about sex and determine how much harm is done.

I've said this before and I'll say it 100 times. It wasn't the sex part of the abuse that messed me up; it was how people treated me and tried to make me think about the sex that was damaging. I wasn't "damaged goods" because I'd had sex... I was "damaged goods" because some asshole man tried to make me believe that.

lunaverse

11th July 2006, 10:16 AM

Personally I find the polytheistic religions such as Hinduism much more interesting in their exploration of the divine forces of the universe.

Exactly!

I worry that by trying to define GOD according to gender roles artificially limits our ability to understand the universe. We simply end up projecting an idealized image of gender which can alienate people who do not identify with either of the "idealized" set of characteristics and so again there is a group of people who are isolated and shut out just as you claim happens to women when there is not a strong female diety taught in a culture.

I agree with this as well. And it has a lot to do with polytheism. If your meme is that the idea of gods is not fixed in stone, and you can visualize a god/goddess that meets your needs at the time, then that god/goddess can be identifiable individually to everyone.

I hang out with a lot of geeks, many of whom describe themselves as "pagnostic", pagan agnostics. Those who participate in deity-based ritual have their pick of several hundred gods from dozens of past civilization. They base their choice on what feels right to them. Some believe the god actually exists, some recognize it as a psychological tool, some have other beliefs (human-created thought-form beings, etc).

I'm on the end that occationally uses a goddess image as a psychological tool. I've learned some very profound things from her, even though I realize she is only a mirror into my subconscious, reflecting those things I already know on some level, but am too afraid to state "by myself".

And she changes CONSTANTLY, from an Artemis sort of woman to a Mother in Heaven angelic sort. She doesn't need to be fixed, because I don't see her as an external Truth. She is an internal idea.

It's actually quite a lot like inner child work, only different. Inner child work involves visualizing yourself as a child, and as an adult, having a conversation with yourself. Similar, only the roles of the "other" are reversed...

Luna

lunaverse

11th July 2006, 10:27 AM

Ok, here goes.....Ooooommmmmm.....

Helemon, that was awesome, thanks for posting that. :)

Luna

lunaverse

11th July 2006, 10:32 AM

Frankly, I would be okay talking about purple and orange powers and gifts rather than confuse the issue with gender.

What I was thinking as I read this was, Yin/Yang. :) Takes biological sex right out of it.

Luna

peter_mary

11th July 2006, 10:36 AM

What I was thinking as I read this was, Yin/Yang. :) Takes biological sex right out of it.

Luna
As I recall, ONE of the ways to think about Yin/Yang is in terms of masculine and feminine. And since the whole POINT of Yin/Yang is the balance between the two making a whole (a round), with a little black in the white and a little white in the black, it makes the point that, really, it's all mixed up in their together, but we have a tendency to sort it out along the lines of black/white, or masculine/feminine, or yin/yang, as much as anything just so we can structure our thinking. That structure sometimes gets in the way!

Thanks for pointing that out...yin/yang is a better way of thinking about it than purple/orange... :o

lunaverse

11th July 2006, 10:45 AM

I've said this before and I'll say it 100 times. It wasn't the sex part of the abuse that messed me up; it was how people treated me and tried to make me think about the sex that was damaging. I wasn't "damaged goods" because I'd had sex... I was "damaged goods" because some asshole man tried to make me believe that.

Right on. I've always had ideas along these lines but never wanted to voice it, because the whole topic of sexual abuse is a landmine of taboos. Even if the abuse itself is damaging, the social conceptions that go along with it doubles, triples the affects of the abuse.

So now that someone else has said it, I'll second it. :)

And as far as open relationships go:

1. I'm not sure that's what Daryl meant, but if it is, they good for him, and yay!

2. Helemon, for the most part, you're very open minded, but there are a few areas I think you're stuck on. It's not that you're saying "monogamy is the right thing for me, and you folks go decide what's right for you"... I know lots of people in that category, and that's cool. You're flat out saying poly* (polyamory, polygamy, polyandry, polywannacracker, swinging, open relationships) is always wrong for everyone no matter what. And there are at least a couple of people here who strongly disagree with you.

It does seem as if you hold on to a few myths, that seem a little bit... Mormon... in nature. :) One is that sex is super-powerful magic holy stuff. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's just as crude and biologically basic as sneezing. And just about as enjoyable.

There's nothing magical or special about sex. Like a forest or a beach or a starry night, it CAN be special and magical, but it isn't just all by itself. After all, animals do it, and I don't think they get anything out of it beyond the moment and Darwinism. It's us humans who are applying the meaning, whatever it is, to the sexual experience. Nothing sacred about that.

So just as one person enjoys the science of a starry night, and another guy doesn't even notice, and a third gal has a spiritual epiphany from looking up... So one person enjoys the monogamy, another the tantric spirituality, another the promiscuity of being a swinger, and still another the LOVE and JOY of having multiple RELATIONSHIPS with several wonderful people.

So there. :P

:)

Luna

helemon

11th July 2006, 12:24 PM

I strongly recommend The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future by Riane Eisler for a more detailed (and coherent!) exploration of this very topic. It's an excellent and thought-provoking read that aids the masculine energy understand the importance of the feminine.

Ok, thanks. I think I can agree with that explanation. I guess what I initially was reacting to in the post was not the exploration of female and male personality traits but what seemed to be an implied assumption that if the tables were turned in religion things would be all love and harmony. Daryl notes that without a feminine goddess in the culture women feel disempowered, but the opposite would then be true for males if a female diety were to replace the current model. Also if as Luna suggests we use the archetypes not to understand the universe but to explore the complex natures inside of ourselve then I see value in them. I think most diety humans have created are more a reflection of the social dynamics of the society than any real attempt at understanding their physical environment.

helemon

11th July 2006, 12:40 PM

So one person enjoys the monogamy, another the tantric spirituality, another the promiscuity of being a swinger, and still another the LOVE and JOY of having multiple RELATIONSHIPS with several wonderful people.

Thanks for setting me straight. I agree it is non of my business how others choose to express their sexuality. Like I said I was in a bit of a pissy mood last night. Might have something to do with a certain proposal problems and a committee of all women that has me feeling a bit hostile towards the feminine of late. :Crazy:

But I will own the fact that sex especially open sex is a scary concept for me. I see and read about all the pain affairs can cause, I think about how sex can tear apart relationships, I think about how sex changes relationships and that it is not something to be treated lightly. So for me and where I am at right now that is not something I could embrace and that's ok. I think that is what I was reacting to in Daryls post was what I interpreted as and endorsement for open relationships and I was trying to make the point that sex can have a major impact on peoples lives and should not be treated lightly, not that Daryl does, that is just the way I took the post. If it works for others then good for them.

helemon

11th July 2006, 12:59 PM

There's nothing magical or special about sex. Like a forest or a beach or a starry night, it CAN be special and magical, but it isn't just all by itself. After all, animals do it, and I don't think they get anything out of it beyond the moment and Darwinism. It's us humans who are applying the meaning, whatever it is, to the sexual experience. Nothing sacred about that.

Exactly!! Its humans who apply meaning to it. And just because one person thinks the interaction means nothing more significant than a sneeze the other person may think it means that this person cares deeply for them and wants committed relationship. How many times have you heard men say "it was just sex!" to no avail. I think these emotions of bonding and commitment that so often are created by sex are more than just cultural conditioning. I think there is a biological basis that causes sex to be so strongly tied to emotions of trust and commitment. It is only in the past half century that technology has provided humanity with the means to decouple sexual pleasure from pregnancy. I don't think it is easy for many women or men to turn off the idea that sex means nothing more than mutual pleasure. I think we may be biologically predisposed to have certain acts create deep emotional bonding. That is the magic I was referring to. Not magic in the witchcraft sense but magic in how sex can mysteriously transform how people view each other.

helemon

11th July 2006, 01:07 PM

I take issue with that. Sex does not cause great emotional harm. People do.

How we think about sex, how others think about sex, social mores, brainwashing... all those things play into how we feel about sex and determine how much harm is done.

I've said this before and I'll say it 100 times. It wasn't the sex part of the abuse that messed me up; it was how people treated me and tried to make me think about the sex that was damaging. I wasn't "damaged goods" because I'd had sex... I was "damaged goods" because some asshole man tried to make me believe that.

I can totally agree with this, but that being said no one lives in a social vacuum. So even if you don't think it is wrong and the person you are with don't think it is wrong it can still cause emotional distress if everyone else thinks it is wrong. Look at all the shit gays have to deal with. What I guess I am advocating is that it is still a good idea to be circumspect about sexual expression and think about the potential ramifications and be willing to accept them. So all I am saying is that sexual relations are not harmless. There are real physical and social consequences that can result no matter how open minded the people involved might be.

lunaverse

11th July 2006, 01:17 PM

I see and read about all the pain affairs can cause

This I can agree with. The reason Affairs are such a problem is that they're done in secret, without full informed consent by all parties. IMO, it's the dishonesty that is the problem, not the sex.

You could have an entirely emotional affair in secret, with no sex, all snuggles and mental intimacy, and this would probably hurt your monogamous partner just as much (or more!) even if you could prove there was no sex. It's the secrets and the not agreeing to the situation that is the problem.

Luna

helemon

11th July 2006, 01:31 PM

This I can agree with. The reason Affairs are such a problem is that they're done in secret, without full informed consent by all parties. IMO, it's the dishonesty that is the problem, not the sex.

Read some of the swinging websites. They acknowledge that even when a couple enters into the lifestyle openly with both agreeing to give it a try there are still relationships that cannot handle sharing their partner with others. There are still feelings of betrayal and jealousy. So I don't think that being open about the relationships necessarily removes all the risks of betrayal and emotional pain.

peter_mary

11th July 2006, 02:14 PM

Exactly!! Its humans who apply meaning to it. And just because one person thinks the interaction means nothing more significant than a sneeze the other person may think it means that this person cares deeply for them and wants committed relationship. How many times have you heard men say "it was just sex!" to no avail. I think these emotions of bonding and commitment that so often are created by sex are more than just cultural conditioning. I think there is a biological basis that causes sex to be so strongly tied to emotions of trust and commitment. It is only in the past half century that technology has provided humanity with the means to decouple sexual pleasure from pregnancy. I don't think it is easy for many women or men to turn off the idea that sex means nothing more than mutual pleasure. I think we may be biologically predisposed to have certain acts create deep emotional bonding. That is the magic I was referring to. Not magic in the witchcraft sense but magic in how sex can mysteriously transform how people view each other.
I, too, have suffered at times from rather Episcopalian attitudes about sex. I've actually learned to open my mind considerably reading Dogzilla's and Luna's posts on the topic, and have concluded that they are ALSO right in their open attitudes.

But I think an important piece that needs to be appreciated, and which Helemon (and sometimes me, too) is struggling with, is that even if the act of sex is objectively a biological function along the lines of a sneeze or a fart (had to throw that one in, just because I'm a boy :) ), our CULTURE does in fact imbue the sex act, and the monogamous relationships within the bounds of marriage as somehow MORE significant than just the biology.

So while Luna may be on one level correct that it simply is what it is and people are the ones who heap all the meaning onto it, the fact remains that people DO heap a lot of meaning onto it. And despite however open minded we might become in the process, it doesn't diminish the impacts on other members of our community who remain influenced, often enormously influenced, by those cultural norms.

I may become more open minded, therefore, about sex, but I had better damn well make sure my wife is equally on board with those attitudes before I start exploring other avenues! And if I don't...then Helemon is exactly correct...I can expect a broken family, broken relations, the loss of trust, hurt feelings, etc, etc.

All of that is to simply say, once again, we have travelled into a forest of infinite shades of gray, and there are no simple solutions.

Except perhaps this: Above all else, do no harm.

If that were kept before us at all times, then there is lots of room to explore all kinds of things, but there are parameters, too.

peter_mary

11th July 2006, 02:31 PM

Yes, but in what ways?

(You've almost answered the original question.)
Wait, let me double check the original question:
So, what price do you see for the sublimation or even obliteration of 'the feminine'
I thought I did answer that. The price men pay for the sublimation of 'the feminine' is "loneliness." I believe the same is true for women who sublimate the feminine. I believe this is true for gay men as well as straight men. (Check: Is that a politically incorrect or somehow insensitive term? "Straight" versus "gay"? Feel free to correct me on that if it's a poor choice of words...)

Going back to Luna recognizing the Yin/Yang in my earlier discussions, imagine just half of the symbol...just the black without the white, or vice versa. It lacks the completion of the other half. Well, whether real or culturally perceived, I believe the same is true for the human experience. We are only whole when our masculine is balanced with our feminine. The two together constitute the wholeness of the human experience. In truly knowing the wholeness by virtue of that balance, whether it is found in the context of a traditional marriage, a gay union, a community of like-minded individuals, or entire cultures, I am inclined to believe that only then can we ever really know other people. Denying the feminine not only alienates at least 50% of the human family, but it almost always alienates us from at least a part of ourselves. I am regularly "accused" of being fairly in touch with my feminine side, and my wife is equally in touch with her masculine side. If we denied the value of either, we'd only ever partially know ourselves. Without fully knowing ourselves, I don't believe we can fully know anyone else. We can never fully, completely engage with another/others in complete intimacy, honesty, and fullness.

And hence we are doomed to loneliness. Only ever knowing parts of ourselves, parts of others, but never the whole.

Now then, I've answered it in MY mind...what do YOU think? Something tells me you have an opinion (or I don't know Dogzilla! ;) )

papa

11th July 2006, 04:26 PM

Born Free

11th July 2006, 05:36 PM

<snip>

I think that is what I was reacting to in Daryls post was what I interpreted as and endorsement for open relationships and I was trying to make the point that sex can have a major impact on peoples lives and should not be treated lightly, not that Daryl does, that is just the way I took the post. If it works for others then good for them.

OK, what did I miss?? :duh

You guys have obviously really got stuck into this thread over (my) night, and the interaction looks interesting.

But, Helemon, I am at a loss to recall what I said that might have been interpreted as 'an endorsement for open relationships'.

As it turns out, I happen to believe that many people hold excessively possessive attitudes towards partners and particularly partners sexual expression. But, I stop short of advocating open relationships, so really am flummoxed as to what I said that created this impression in you!

Was it my partners expressed arousal to another? If that is what you were referring to, I happen to believe that it is very normal to find others attractive, even arousing. That said, I see it as toxic to deny that to ones self, to lie to ones partner about such an attraction, and certainly rich with complexity to act upon such an attraction. There was a stage in my life where I did all the above, and I would not recommend it.

See, just as I see a belief in a God can provide an insight into self, so I believe that attraction to 'another' can be illuminating. It can reveal unmet needs, unexpressed needs, fantasies, even childish whims, and a whole range of things that are valuable to see and explore, without thinking that acting on the attraction is the only and inevitable course of action.

If, as I suspected, that her response was rooted in very old primitive programming, does that diminish my wife? Not in my eyes. We are everything from our reptilian responses right through to our uniquely human responses, and more. She is that full range; I am that full range. To make choices about which of those I will entertain is uniquely human.

I see the notion that I/she should have one idealised response to such situations, is to be a product of the monotheistic stage of human belief. It says that the ego is everything, that free-will and reason run the show (or should). Polytheistic stages of thinking would have that a multiplicity of Gods were competing to run my life, and I was a victim, along for the ride. If you look at the latest research summarised by people like Pinker in The Blank Slate, we see that both are true.

So if both are true, better that we start from accepting that we have the potential to be both Demons and Gods, and that we might be wise to act wisely within the range where we really do have choice.

Again, for me, that is where the God and the Goddess, the Ying and the Yang come together, where they richly compliment each other.

Now I have double-guessed where you were coming from Helemon, but I hope I was approximately on the mark and have furthered the dialogue some.

Daryl

helemon

11th July 2006, 07:26 PM

But, Helemon, I am at a loss to recall what I said that might have been interpreted as 'an endorsement for open relationships'.

My bad. You have never stated your position on this issue openly. I was reading into other statements you have made about sex. I agree with you that being open with your partner about what arouses you is important to a healthy sexual relationship. And as Luna points out either way it is none of my business as long as long as it works for the individual. I apologize for my tone of late. I was feeling a bit bitchy last night. I need to balance out my Yin with a bit more Yang. ;)

Born Free

11th July 2006, 08:09 PM

My bad. You have never stated your position on this issue openly. I was reading into other statements you have made about sex. I agree with you that being open with your partner about what arouses them is important to a healthy sexual relationship. And as Luna points out either way it is none of my business as long as long as it works for the individual. I apologize for my tone of late. I was feeling a bit bitchy last night. I need to balance out my Yin with a bit more Yang. ;)

Go ahead, let rip (the inner bitch)! :eek: :) :cool:

My request would be that that is done openly. I am sure the 'inner bitch' has a Goddess. Ritualise your expression of her energy. Let it all hang out.

In the process we get to see the energy involved; where it it drawing from, and get to see more of our richness and complexity. This is a living example of the utility of this idea of 'the Gods', where we make them serve us, rather than the other way around.

I see that process as exactly what we missed out on as MoMen (OK P_M, I am claiming MoMen as mine). We lived within this impoverished myth that we were the epitome of logic, and cool rationality. The fact is we could be downright bitchy, most particularly where we felt we had to fit inside narrow parameters, that really were a lie.

Can I be a bitch? You want to believe it!

What is the best way for me to get out of it?

For my partner to lovingly make fun of it. That breaks the ice. The Bitch gets named up as if she is a third party in our relationship, not core Daryl. To that extent she is like a God or an energy that visits, that comes and goes, but is not core to me. By giving her a name, we take back the (healthy) power.

That provides the room to look, laugh and let go!

Daryl