Archive for August, 2011

On Transcendent Sex

August 31, 2011
I mention a few episodes of transcendent sex in The Sacred Female, but I did not know what they were called until I read Transcendent Sex.  My descriptions there came from experience.

 Dr. Jenny Wade’s book , Transcendent Sex,[1] gives a detailed description from 91 different people who experienced this phenomenon.  Here, we leave the realm of physical pleasure and sex.  It is truly a mind-altering experience, implying a significant change in our brain chemistry, and our lives.  Sexual love is for some, simply a pleasurable pathway to this ecstasy, although actual intercourse may not be necessary.  There are many forms of transcendent sex.   These are altered states of consciousness, due to a change in brain chemistry, which may also be accomplished by years of ascetic living and meditation or with drugs such as LSD and other methods.  We may think of them as “stepping into another world.”

 As our consciousness grows, we may think of it as living in another world, while still connected to this one.  One cannot help but wonder if we treated our beloved mates as sacred, it would work for us?

Dr. Wade categorizes many different types of transcendent sex and different experiences within the types.  The following list is excerpted from her book only to show the many different types occurring to individuals.  Since this survey was limited to 91 respondents, and the list is but a “headline,” her book is recommended reading for further information on this subject.

First she hits is with the bad news:

  • Sexual techniques and mechanics may have no bearing on transcendence. 
  • Transcendence may occur between couples without sexual congress.
  • Orgasm is not a causal factor.  It may occur without, before, during or after orgasm, and orgasm becomes a non-event.
  • Sexual abuse is not a causal factor.
  • Transcendence may occur in the later years of a marriage or on a one-night stand.
  • It “transcends” religious beliefs and sexual orientation.
  • It is not a guarantee of “true love,” nor should it be a goal in sexual love.  It is just something that happens, sometimes.

She relates the various experiences as follows:

Fireworks, Light and Electricity: stars—lightening—emersion in various colored lights— golden lights shooting upward—sensations of heat—actual elevated body temperature (105 F).  Also, a man reported tingling sensations in his hands and feet for weeks afterwards, interfering with his sleep.

 Kundalini:  Science defines the Kundalini as, “nonodinary percepts of energy fields in the absence of any discernible stimulus, especially sensations of heat, subtle force fields, light and liquefaction, congruent with descriptions in various mystical traditions.”[2]  Kundalini is also the name of the “sacred snake,” coiled near the base of the spine, or the Serpent Goddess, in the sacral region.  In English, the experience is like a hot snake uncoiling up your spinal column, plus!  Kundalini has a multitude of spiritual meanings and here we only focus on the sexual experience.

                                              The Spinal Column


Here is one place where the insertion points between Th-10 and S-2 of the various nerve pathways come into play.  The Kundalini experience may be a rhythmic, cycling flow of additional neural impulses at the various insertion points along the spinal column, working their way up the spine.  As we are focused on transmitting love to our beloved, thinking of nothing else, all kinds of wondrous things happen!  However, the Kundalini can be extremely painful if, as we surmise, there is an excess of this energy trying to cycle and flow.  It is as if a “log jam” of neural impulses occurs at these points on the spinal column.  It can also lead to madness!

Deity Presence:  angels—the presence of God (the Third in the room)—visitations of the deceased.

Gaia:  feeling of oneness with blades of grass or flowing like sap in trees—magical connections with plants or animals—sounds of silence as a permeating feeling.  One man reported a transmission of intelligence from a dolphin with whom he had been lovingly playing.  It was a red beam of light focused on the center of his forehead, pineal gland, he described as a “virtual transmission implant that could code a 60 gig, 60 bit DVD ROM streaming video that portrayed all of evolution.”[3]   (The occurrence was years before the web and only after the web did he have words to describe it.)

Trespasso:  seeing extra faces on your lover—seeing a sequence of other faces, or people—angelic or demonic faces—spirits trespassing into partner’s body, obscuring the face—animal faces, usually bear, wolf or bird.  (I speculate this is the source of many animal headed archeological artifacts: totems, figurines, petroglyphs, etc.)

Merging:  becoming one with—filling with the others energy—spiritual awakening.  Usually occurring with deep love.  Sometimes in long term relationships.

Shapeshifting: animal possession—sense of being an animal with all the attributes.  One woman saw her limbs grow, her body hair grow as she became a wolf with no recollection of humanness, but later was able to recall her wolf-ness.

Transport: out of body, where the body is seen objectively (generally afterwards)—spatial dislocation—becoming an animal or plant—transport to another time and/or place.

Past lives:  who you were, when in that experience or past lives intrude into current friendships.

Nothingness: a sense of nothingness—dissolving—a loss of boundaries—nothingness AND everything-ness—no sense of self.

Deity uno:  being one with God—into the white light of God—dissolving into God—merged into the fires of God—felt alive—apparitions of the dead—residual “sensitivity” or ability to see the essence of others.

These are but a few of the experiences discussed in much more detail in Dr. Wade’s book.  When we don’t know transcendence is a possible outcome of a sexual encounter, regardless of how ecstatic it may be, the experience can be frightening.  Now, you know.  In the presence of fear, these experiences can be interpreted as “bad trips,” or even “evil” depending on the individual’s belief system.

Generally speaking, transcendent sex can lead to positive spiritual outcomes: instantly or years later.  Not always.  There is one story of a former Catholic priest who was psychologically destroyed by successive transcendent sexual experiences.[4]   “A transcendent experience can tap into unhealthy complexes and magnify them.”[5]    One woman had an extra-marital affair with a cross-country colleague, ending in her divorce and a psychotic break, thanks to transcendent sex.[6]   This is an altered state of consciousness and not to be trifled with!  Dr. Wade also warns that many western “gurus” simply use their addiction to transcendent sex as a mechanism for seduction.  There is a strong spiritual discipline that accompanies most teaching for this form of divine enlightenment.  On the other hand, sometimes it just happens.

If any of this has happened to you, please feel free to comment and please tell others about this blog.

Copyright Art Noble 2011

[1] Transcendent Sex, Jenny Wade, PhD, Pocket Books, New York, NY, 2004

 [2] ibid. p.273

[3] ibid. p. 67

[4] ibid. p. 223

[5] ibid. p. 212

[6] ibid. p. 221

The Myth of Lilith

August 21, 2011

lilith-2           There was probably a time in pre-recorded human history when a man and woman looked at each other and asked, “What th’ hell are we doing here?”  Not finding an answer they then asked, “Well, where did we come from?”  The world has not been the same since!

Some of the earliest myths have an androgynous (both sexes) god giving birth to a male and female child.  Another myth has man as androgynous, but arrogance invaded this creature so the ruling god cleaved the creature into male and female counterparts.  Separated, they began looking for their other half, and here we are.

One of the most important sexual myths for Western civilization is the Myth of Lilith.  Myths are a lot like sea-stories: they change with who tells them.  In ancient Sumeria, Lilith was a handmaiden of the goddess, Inanna.  Her job was to bring men to the temple of Inanna and have them participate in sacred sexual rites with the priestesses, like Shamhat in the story of Enkidu.  In Sumerian, the word root of Lilith, lil, means “air” or “lady air.”

Let’s stop for a moment and try and place ourselves in the sandals of a Sumerian guy selected for this task.  Could he have been thinking, “Oh oh!  This lady is connected to the gods!”  Today, we think of “being connected” as having an affiliation with organized crime.  They are pikers in comparison to the power of the gods!  So, when this man entered the temple of Inanna, he was no longer the great hunter, or best warrior, or even the best farmer or craftsman as he might have viewed himself to his wife.  His ego went out the window!  His macho man-box faded into nothingness by comparison of being in the presence of a goddess’ representative!  What happened to them inside the temples?  Perhaps, as suggested by Enkidu, they were transformed from a “bestial” into a “human state,” perhaps as needed by some men today.  (Both men and women are conditioned by these myths and misinformation from “voices of authority.”)  Maybe, as Hill observed, they were raised from mediocrity to the altitude of genius.  Maybe they went home and treated their wives with more dignity and respect.  We can only guess.

What about the priestesses?  How did they regard themselves?  Although later thought of in derogatory terms, they probably regarded themselves as sacred adjuncts of Inanna.  As such, their bodies were sacred temples and the act they performed was sacred.  It is highly doubtful they thought of this sacrament as “turning a trick.”  It is further doubtful that this attitude of sanctity in anyway diminished the physiological pleasure of the sacrament for either party.  It more than likely enhanced it!  What a wondrous world it would be, were men and women to regard themselves thusly.

This was early Sumeria.  To the North in Babylon was Ishtar, a similar goddess to Inanna. Also there was Astarte for the Semites, and Aphrodite for the Greeks.  Although most archeologists look upon the priestesses as “prostitutes,” they may have served a higher purpose.

Lilith, called Lilitu, as she served Ishtar, was then originally a guide to what we call “spiritual sex.”  So what ever happened to her?  Well, speaking for most men everywhere, the temples of Inanna, or Ishtar, are far more appealing than, say that of Apollo.  I would guess that visits to other temples became perfunctory, as church today is for many.  Besides, men leaving the temple of Inanna were now “human,” a word having a higher connotation then than it does today.  Perhaps it referred to an “awakened” state of consciousness.

Before we leave Sumeria and cuneiform writing, the cuneiform symbol for woman was the inverted triangle with a vertical cleft in the middle.  This was symbolic of the pubic area.  In The Di Vinci Code, Dan Brown calls this symbol, the chalice.  It also meant, “giver of life.”  Archeologists, locked into the pleasure/procreation paradigm, interpret this as childbirth.  We suggest this could also be the awakened state of consciousness for men: a new life.

Where in Sumerian, Lilith was “lady air,” the Semitic word root “lyl” became “lylil” in Arabic meaning night.  Darkness.  Evil comes out of darkness and the night.  So it begins.  First she was the spirit of destructive night storms.  Later she was incorporated into the Syrian spirit of Lamashtu, a demon who killed children.  Already, who wants to hang around her?

In Hebrew legend, she first appears around the 12th Century CE as Adam’s first wife.  Initially, they were created of the same material, out of the earth.  (But watch how she changes as the stories change!)  Adam wanted to be sexually dominant, and Lilith wanted to get on top.  There was no resolution to this argument, so Lilith returned to the spirits from whence she came.  Adam then got the subservient Eve, made from his rib to insure cleanliness.  One wonders here if this is not some variation on the original story of androgynous man being cleaved, separating men and women?

The main elements of the story remain the same, but as with sea-stories, grow and get more misogynistic with each telling.  Then in Hebrew mythology, she again merged with Lamashtu and became a baby killer.  The spirits to which she returned are demons and she becomes the original succubus who visits men in their dreams, taking semen from their nocturnal emissions to create new demons.

The most misogynistic treatment of Lilith is also the most modern by Robert Graves.  He claims Lilith was made of filth, where Adam was made of clean dirt and Adam kicked her out of the Garden of Eden for wanting to get on top.  Lilith immediately went off and consorted with demons and Adam again got the subservient Eve.

Of all of them, this makes the least sense.  If God loves us then why would he give man a mate made of filth?  Had He wished to use separate construction materials, there were flowers and spices and all kinds of sweet-goods.  Further, all of these myths portray Adam as a dummy.  He should have known the one on top does all the work!  We should also recognize “demonizing the enemy” as an ancient tactic of war.  We see it not only in ancient but also modern history, and in modern politics in America.  Lastly, although Eve is raised to sainthood among some cultures and subcultures, look at her kids.  In other cultures, she is looked upon as weak and responsible for evil.  Maybe we’d all be better off had Adam stuck with Lilith.  Also, as part of this mythology, Abel was Lilith’s child, not Eve’s.   So, since he was probably a demon, it was OK to kill him.

Later, all of Lilith’s “evil” qualities were incorporated into the Malleus Maleficarum in 1486, but that is another myth for another blog.

copyright Art Noble 2011

Why “they” Lie About Sex!

August 20, 2011

It is a very long story, part of which is only a different history theory, but let’s pick Genesis 6:2 as a beginning point.  The Bible stories of the first five books were pretty much straightened out under Moses around 1425 BCE.  Some scholars believe these books were first put on papyrus by Ezra for King Solomon’s Temple, around 1000 BCE, but modern consensus is the first recording occurred around 400 BCE.

Gen.6:2 says, “The sons of God looked upon the daughters of man and found them pleasurable.”  I was always in perfect agreement with this, although it goes on to condemn this as “wickedness.”  This is interpreted historically by Christianity that sexual pleasure is wicked!  However, Judaism recognized the inherent pleasure of sexual congress. The tractate of Niddah of the Talmud tacitly approves of pleasure during sex, stating that, if a woman takes part in copulation more passionately than the man, a son will be born, but if the man takes part more passionately than the woman, a daughter will be conceived.  Yet, both religions kept the purpose of sex as procreation.

A few of my readers know there is a lot more to sex than pleasure or procreation: a very few, and unfortunately, most are women.  I say unfortunately because when men finally catch on, this will be a different world!  The first thing about Gen. 6:2, is its inherent misogyny: men are better than women.  Why?  It certainly isn’t about agrarian economics because women worked the fields alongside men.  But men became soldiers, needed for conquest!

Gen. 6:2 is a double-edged sword, but only one side is honed.  Yes, sex is quite pleasurable and if we focus on pleasure that is what we will receive and we may pick up a couple of kids along the way.  And, yes, sex does produce kids.  But, save The Song of Solomon discounted by Christianity as love for the Church, does the Bible speak of sexual love.  (Much of the early Greek versions use eros, but in English it just comes out as “love.”)  This is the un-honed side of the sword!  For once we bring our focused, sacred, unconditional love into the bedroom, the mutual love of, for and from our wives becomes the most powerful weapon on the face of the earth!  We become great warriors, but lousy soldiers.  We intuitively know we are not fighting for God, Mom and apple pie, but to fill the coffers of the already rich.  Historically, there is big money in war and conquest and banks are the biggest winners on the blood of soldiers.

There is another side to this.  Even the Great Apes, when food runs out in their territory, will invade another ape’s territory to eat.  If they are successful, they may kill the alpha male and possibly eat him.  We need warriors to protect us from invasion, as white cells protect the body.

Now, this implies only that men have had their egos fed for thousands of years regarding their superiority and as superior beings what their duty is: to be cannon fodder.  Women are to be “protected” so they may bear future soldiers or future wives.  Perhaps it is time we protect women from this role into which they have been gently forced.  A lot of these fantastic creatures already know that something is wrong here, but don’t know exactly what.  Maybe this will help.

The leaders to whom we acquiesce authority perpetuate the myths, believed by both men and women.  Granted, we as humans are all different.  But to one degree or another, we are united by an attitude that sex is “bad,” “dirty” or “evil.”  Some carry it to laughable extremes, and others will restrict certain types of behavior as “bad.”  “Promiscuity is bad because it spreads disease.”  Although this is centuries old, it may have a deeper meaning.  Promiscuity may keep us from maintaining the focus of love on our primary beloved and when we lose focus, we may lose the power.

More importantly around the world, whether in an African refugee camp, or on Park Avenue, just about everybody has sex!  Even Republicans have sex!  This is a fact that unites us all.  When we shift our attitudes from sexual pleasure to sexual love, our lives and our pleasure will be enhanced.  This does not condemn sex for pleasure.  (That would be too hypocritical even for me!)  But only suggests you add love into the mix.  Pleasure is a part of love, even without sex.  But when we can fully give of ourselves to one another and with one another of the love that we are, we will have a much different world: a better world.  One “they” do not want.

Copyright 2011 Art Noble

The “Sexual” Fantasy of Rape

August 17, 2011

             Some studies show the most common fantasy currently held by women is that of being raped.  To me, rape is a capital crime.  So I tried to figure out what could possibly make this desirable.  Obviously, I’m not a woman and I feel weird trying to put myself in a woman’s head.  On the other hand, we are all human being and mostly screwed up at that.  So it is as just another screwed up human I write.


            Speaking in generalities, when we were infants, it was quite natural for us to love.  But loving—the act of allowing love to flow through us—is a learned behavior.  Un-loving, the act of closing the door on love, is also a learned behavior.  In a teacher’s lounge at a school I once worked was a poster that said 95% of the children entering the first grade had a high self-image.  Only 5% graduated with a high self-image.  Seems like we beat it out of them with the educational process of un-loving.


            Both men and women have natural, normal sexual desires, originating in the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus.  It is a little tiny part of our brain that gets us in more trouble than all the rest of the brain put together.  But women really get slammed for having these desires.  Even today, many men don’t think women are supposed to have them, and should a woman act on them, she is a “slut” or some other derogatory name.  So women have to “control” their sexuality.  I’m talking about husbands and wives, or others in an LTR, not one-nighters.  Were women to really let go sexually with their lovers, it would probably scare the hell out of them! 


            Women are very aware the Whore/Madonna complex is alive and well to one degree or another in most men.  It is a complex we best were to shed!  This is not a call for women to go out and be promiscuous with strangers where they can cut loose.  THIS IS A CALL TO DUMB-ASS MEN TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE ROSES!  Many of these women have a wonderful desire to love you with their bodies; to give you a gift so precious and powerful you will be amazed.  Yet, you reject it by not accepting it.  It must be given as a Stepford Wife, under your control, meeting your expectations or it is not worthy.  No wonder women fantasize about being raped!  There, they lose control of their inhibitions they must keep with their lover.  They are in control of nothing, including their thoughts about sex. 


             The same would be true of bondage.  It is not the body that is being bound, it is the mind with all its viruses on what is “proper,” based on misogynistic myth handed down through the centuries.  Both men and women may seek domination.  It frees them not only of the responsibility for their own sexual pleasure, but also from many of the high-pressure responsibilities that may be in their lives.


            So it would seem the situation of the rape fantasy lies not with women, but with men who are not schooled in sexual love.  Oh, they may have techniques for “pleasing” a woman, but are incapable of accepting her “techniques” or responses.  Her techniques and responses are simply a way of transmitting love to you.  Learn to accept them!  Your acceptance of her is more important than your techniques!

            Back to the bottom line, all men and women are different and it is silly to make generalizations about one gender or another.  This brief blog may only be applicable in some instances, excluding the comment on acceptance.  What ever a woman’s love techniques or responses are, guys need to learn to accept them.  The same is applicable to women.  If you can’t accept them, get help or get out!


Copyright 2011 Art Noble.


Normal, Uncommon Sexual Responses.

August 16, 2011

To write about sexual love, I had to learn a little about sex. Actually, like most of us, I put the cart before the horse. I was more interested in sex and then had my epiphany on love. I’m a guy. Waddaya expect? First, love is not necessary to engender any sexual response! Just because it’s sex, doesn’t mean it’s love. One woman confided in me, she had an orgasm while being raped! Most guys will tell you they have orgasms with women they don’t even know, or like or love. If you pinch yourself on the arm, the response is pain. A response is a response is a response. However, guys will also tell you their response is so much better, even when they only think they are in love.

Most sexual responses are pleasurable. (The Kundalini can be excruciatingly painful.) Therefore we think that sex is about pleasure, and for most of us, it is. But, when we think of sex as a mechanism for transmitting love, it can be ecstatic, where pleasure is a by-product or side effect, and orgasm becomes a non-event! We must crawl before we walk and run before we fly. These responses are simply presented as a matter for your awareness and acceptance. Let’s look at some of the pleasurable responses for which our bodies have the capacity, but we don’t fully enjoy. There are probably many more.


Uncommon? Most guys don’t have a bit of problem with this one. But, according to a study related by Dr. Laura Berman, about 50% of the sexually active women in this country have never experienced an orgasm. This would indicate it is an uncommon experience.

So what is an orgasm? Freud said there were two kinds: clitoral and vaginal. We’ll see how full of crap he was in a minute. Bioenergetics also claims two kinds: climax – involuntary muscle contractions in the genitalia, and orgasm – involuntary muscle contractions all over the body. First, “climax” is a lousy word because it implies “the end” when it may be just the beginning. But, yes, there are involuntary muscle contractions associated with orgasm.

To see how many kinds there are, we need to look at our sexual anatomy. Both men and women have three major nerve pathways from the genitalia to the spinal column: pudendal, pelvic and hypogastric. Women have an additional pathway, the vagus nerve pathway, connected to the cervix and uterus, wandering around her body and directly connecting to the brain. If we think of sex as “the mental and/or physical stimulation of nerve endings, creating electrochemical energy, resulting in pleasurable sensations in the genitalia and other sexual responses,” then orgasm is a function of nerve stimulation. Partially.

With women having four major pathways, we could say there are 24 possible combinations of stimulation (Factoral 4 = 24) therefore 24 different kinds of orgasm. Men, with three major pathways then have the possibility of six. But there are 14 different structures and sensitive areas in the female genitalia (that we know of today) connected to these pathways, and 7 in the male genitalia. If we took all the possible numerical combinations for women, it would be about ½ billion different kinds of orgasm. It is pretty silly to argue about it and our belief systems control our responses anyway. So, let’s just say there are little ones and big ones.

Multiple and Sequential Orgasms

Male orgasm is generally associated with ejaculation. Not always! Men may experience a series of pleasurable vibrations in the penis without losing rigidity or ejaculate! A better description would be “penis buzzing.” This may occur in 5 to 10 second bursts, or longer, during intercourse. It may also occur after orgasm, when flaccid, lasting from a few minutes to a few hours. The latter can be quite disconcerting.

Masters and Johnson described “four phases” of the sexual process, the last, “refractory phase,” following orgasm. Men lose tumescence and it takes from a few minutes to a few hours to regain it. (It doesn’t have to be a stiffie. Workable chubbies also do the job.) Women more easily may have multiple orgasms than men, but we aren’t out of the running! As long as he keeps going, she may keep coming!

The difference between multiple and sequential orgasms is simply the time interval between orgasms. If a man stops after orgasm, without “after-play,” then the woman’s body also goes through a refractory period and we have to start all over.

Ejaculatory Orgasms

Both men and women have a prostate gland, the source of ejaculate. The male prostate is neatly snuggled up against the bladder, encased in the prostatic capsule. The female prostate is a collection of ducts and glands ranging from around 30 to over 100, scattered along the urethra, generally in Caucasian women, bunched up toward the front (opening) of the urethra.

Fig. 1.  The female Prostate with urethral opening to right
Fig. 1. Female prostate with opening of urethra to right.

Of the 50% of sexually active women who have orgasms, only 10 to 40% (depending on which study you read) will ejaculate. There are indications in Rwanda, “all” the women ejaculate. Although a very small portion of those that do not ejaculate may have medical problems preventing it, it is suggested most of the preventative mechanism is in our minds. In the 1600’s in France, women stopped ejaculating as a birth control mechanism. It didn’t work. (See The Bible and Female Ejaculatory Orgasms.) Since the ejaculatory orgasm is about ten times more pleasurable than non-ejaculatory orgasms, that was quite a sacrifice! The Church stopped promoting female ejaculation as a mechanism for conception after 1784, when artificial insemination was proven. It was too much fun for the ladies.

Orgasmic Vaginal Discharge (OVD)

Although this usually also occurs with orgasm, when it occurs, it may also occur in combination with female ejaculation. The prostate gland will secrete, or ejaculate, about 5 to 10 cc’s of prostatic fluid through the urethra. OVD is a copious flow through the vagina of unknown origin and composition. There is no science on this. Many scientists are still arguing over whether or not women can ejaculate. Let them argue. Women will still ejaculate.

There is a technique in Tantric sex for increasing orgasmic flow called, Amitra. I do not know if this pertains to ejaculation or OVD. Not all women exhibit this. The ones who have confided in me say this is just what they do when they have orgasms, and it has been that way since the first one.

Orgasmic Bioluminescence

This is when one or both parties glow (actually emit photons) on orgasm. A shamanic breathing ritual, called “Dragons Fire/Breath,” produces a glow in the practitioner. It is possible that during the orgasmic plateau phase of intercourse, the partner’s breathing mimics this practice, producing the glowing results. Also, it is possibly a function of excess Adenosine Tri Phosphate (ATP) that changes into photons, just like in fireflies.

Transcendent Sex

This will take a blog by itself! Briefly, it is an altered state of consciousness created by altered brain chemistry. There are many disciplines to train the mind and body for this experience, but sometimes, it just happens. Dr. Jenny Wade’s book, Transcendent Sex, lists most of these forms along with the following observations:

· Sexual techniques and mechanics have no bearing on transcendence.
· Transcendence may occur between couples without sexual congress.
· Orgasm is not a causal factor. It may occur without, before during or after orgasm, and orgasm becomes a non-event.
· Sexual abuse is not a causal factor.
· Transcendence may occur in the later years of a marriage or on a one-night stand.
· It “transcends” religious beliefs and sexual orientation.
· It is not a guarantee of “true love,” nor should it be a goal in sexual love. It is just something that happens, sometimes.

Our “transformation” or growth in consciousness from sexual love may also be a function of altered brain chemistry. Transcendence” may be thought of as temporary, where Transformation is more or less permanent. Physical work, or work outs at a gym, grow our muscles. Education (may?) grow our brains (or brainwash us). Love grows our consciousness and sexual love beats th’ hell out of sitting cross-legged on a mountain top for 15 or 20 years. This will be continued in another blog.


Guys, why should we grow our consciousness? Most of the 500 wealthiest men in America interviewed by Napoleon Hill for his book, Think and Grow Rich, mentioned sexual love as the mechanism that transformed them, giving them access to infinite intelligence and enabling them to be millionaires. Edward Leedskalnin, the guy with a 4th grade education, built Coral Castle, now in Homestead, Florida, out of limestone blocks weighing 14 tons, having the construction precision that matches the Pyramids and Machu Picchu! His love was unrequited! Yes, there are advantages to love.

Copyright Art Noble 2011

Interview with Richard Andrews – Part 2.

August 14, 2011

(Richard Andrews is the main character in The Sacred Female. It is just a fun trip to interview him. Go here for Part 1.

Host: Hi, Rich. Welcome back.

Rich: Thank you. Good to be back.

Host: When we parted last, you were going to tell us about bogus beliefs. Just what do you mean by a “bogus belief?”

Rich: We are told many; many things about sex that just aren’t true. When be believe them, it seems like our bodies respond in accord with our beliefs, limiting us in many ways.

Host: What do you mean by that?

Rich: As an example, when I was a college kid, there was an article in Time magazine titled, “Men ejaculate. Women Lactate.” Just by that title alone, from an authoritative voice, it puts a bogus belief in our heads. If women believe it, they don’t ejaculate, depriving themselves of a lot of pleasure. If men believe it, and their partner ejaculates, they think it is urine or something and get bent out of shape.[1]

Host: I can understand that.

Rich: Does that mean you don’t “approve?”

Host: Not exactly. I’d never heard of it before I read your story.

Rich: That’s the whole damn problem! We are just ignorant about sexual responses and even how badly we are locked up about our sexuality!

Host: I’ll agree with you on that! Now, tell us about the glow that came from her head when you , uh, when you er…

Rich: Had an orgasm? You can’t even say it! Sheesh! Well, it wasn’t just from her head. Her whole body was glowing, lighting up the room. At first, I thought I was hallucinating. Then I thought the rods and cones in my eyeballs had opened up, letting more light in. I had, and have no idea what was going on. But it happened! She lit up like a firefly in mating season with a white light.[2]

Host: Amazing!

Rich: That was only the beginning! We experienced transcendent sex!

Host: What’s that?

Rich: Science defines transcendence as an alteration of brain chemistry. I guess our activity was really sending out nerve impulses that produced a lot of chemicals, altering our brain chemistry.

Host: Is this like an “acid trip?”

Rich: I don’t know. Never been on one. But it was as if we were reduced to our essences: two points of light, that came together as one. It was the most beautiful experience in my life!

Host: Whoa! That’s fantastic!

Rich: Good word: fantastic. We hear about all this stuff and think people are making it up. Well, we aren’t. It’s real.

Host: So, bottom line is some of the myths are bogus and some are real. How do you tell the difference?

Rich: Simple. Anything demonizing or demeaning to women goes in the BS pile. Anything of great, “fantastic,” beauty goes into the reality pile.

Host: Does this mean that all women are these fantastic, wonderful creatures?

Rich: It is my opinion they all have the capacity to be. But, we’ve been putting them down for thousands of years. Sometimes, very hard! They react, the same way we would, and it’s not nice.

Host: One last thing, Rich. It the story, you describe a new awareness that you have. As a two-part question, how would you describe it and where do you think it comes from?

Rich: There are many names for it: transformation, awakening and evolving to name three. I prefer “growth of consciousness.” Consider it as an extension of having our brain chemistry altered on a more permanent basis. We exercise our muscles when we work or work-out; we exercise our brains through education. But we don’t exercise our consciousness much at all.

Host: OK, Rich. Where does it come from?

Rich: That’s easy. Love. [3]

(Dead air)

Host: You have left me speechless; not a good thing for a host. This is a lot to digest and though I really enjoy interviewing you, right now I’m glad we are about out of time. I hope we can get you back in the near future?

Rich. Glad to accommodate you.

Host: Thank you again. And now, a word from our sponsor.

[1] The Bible and Female Ejaculatory Orgasms

[2] A shamanic breathing ritual produces a glow in the practitioner. It is possible that during the orgasmic plateau phase of intercourse, the partner’s breathing mimics this practice, producing the glowing results. Also, it is possibly a function of excess Adenosine Tri Phosphate (ATP) that changes into photons.

[3] What is Love?
Copyright Art Noble 2011

Marriage: History and Comment

August 5, 2011

In Zablocki v. Redhail, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that marriage is a fundamental right. (I’d cite it, but only a lawyer would care, and they can find it anyway.) What is important about the word fundamental is the USSC applies the highest level of scrutiny to those cases involving fundamental rights. One really needs to have their stuff together! This argument may not meet their standards, and is certainly not in their form. But, I’m writing for you, not them.

Now that we have established the degree of difficulty in proving the case, we must look at the law itself, it’s origins, premise, and changes. I shall use the State of Florida as an example, although it is applicable to every state having English Common Law as it basis. This may exclude Louisiana (French) and California (Spanish).

When Florida became a State in 1845, we adopted carte blanche the laws on matrimony from English Common Law. The laws changed both there and here, yet the premise of these laws remained the same. The source of these laws was Horny Henry VIII and the Roman Catholic Church.

In 1510, Henry VIII married Catherine of Aragon, his brother’s widow. Pope Julius II approved this marriage, because Henry officially joined in league with the Roman Church. Henry felt one of his first duties was to provide a male heir to the throne and he wanted to establish a bond with Spain. Turns out, Catherine gave him Mary (Queen of Scots) and miscarried two male children. Around 1522, two things happened: The hottie, Anne Boleyn, came to Court and Henry vigorously opposed the thesis of Martin Luther in his book, Defense of the Seven Sacraments. For the latter, Pope Leo X awarded Henry the title of “Defender of the Faith.” This phrase is important!

According to Andrews, Henry started making eyes with Anne around 1524, but she rebuffed him. (The King?) Henry was frustrated by Catherine’s inability to produce a son, so he petitioned Cardinal Wolsey for a divorce. Wolsey said no, so he lost his head in 1529. Then, Henry began his attack on Rome. He stopped sending the tithe to Rome in 1531. Pope Clement the VII still would not grant the divorce. So with the help of Thomas Cromwell, he drafted The Act of Supremacy in 1534, right after he married Anne Boleyn in January of 1533. Oh, Elizabeth I was born September 7, 1533. This act declared the King, “be reputed the only supreme head in earth of the church in England.” The Church and State became one! Nothing changed in terms of Roman worship, and Parliament in 1539 passed The Six Articles Act, the first act of religious uniformity. Poor Anne, who did not give Henry a male heir, did not live to see this Act. She was beheaded on May 19,1536. Henry married Jane Seymour on May 20,1536

All of this was going on just after Pope Alexander VI’s kids, Lucrecia and Caesar Borgia, were wandering around the Vatican and Leonardo da Vinci died in France. Exciting times!

However, the point here is Henry recognized the Church was responsible for the creation of marriages. He simply made himself Head of the Church in order to advance his own brand of morality. In doing so, he made all of his secular officers a part of the Church and later, some of those in the Judicial branch of government were given the authority to perform the marriage ceremony. The Puritans settling in America in the early-mid 1600’s, later turned the function of marriage over to “secular” authorities (who were acting on behalf of the King, the Defender of the Faith. Were they acting on behalf of the State or of the Church?) One might imagine that marriage involved sex and sex was secular having nothing to do with the sacred, therefore…?

Marriage Act of 1753

The Marriage Act of 1753 was based on the “principle” that marriage was not a sacrament, but a civil contract, which although blessed by the Church, was still open to control by civil authority. What happened to cause this?

In 1563 at the Council of Trent, the laws of marriage were changed in Catholic Countries to bring tighter control of the Church. England’s medieval laws of marriage were left unchanged, except between 1640 and 1660 when the Protectorate placed the performance and registration of marriage in secular (civil) hands.

The Council of Trent had its impact in England. Marriages became more public, lavish and expensive. The poor—even the middle class—could not afford to marry. So, the populace came up with Clandestine Marriages. These were verbal and written contract marriages where the couples simply said, “I take you to be my husband/wife” or words to that effect. And there were Fleet marriages. The area around Fleet Prison was quite disreputable. Defrocked clergy lived there as well as imposter clergy. Marriages were performed there as early as 1604, and possibly before.

These Clandestine marriages were not under the control of either Church or State. The Church eventually recognized them as valid, but they had no standing under Common Law. Under Common and Canonical Law, the wife had the Right of Coverture (coverage): to be maintained and protected by her husband. She surrendered all rights of Common Law to the husband. She could not make contracts, a will, or run up debt. But she did have right to a dower, 1/3 of the husband’s estate upon his death, and her children were legitimate heirs. These rights were non-existent under contract marriage.

Then came the Marriage Act of 1753. This act had some interesting provisions. First, it excluded Jews and Quakers. There was no consensus about how a legally binding marriage should be carried out. The legal age for marriage without parental consent was 21. In Scotland, the minimum age was 12 for girls and 14 for boys. They mature early in Scotland. Quite a few marriages were performed in Gretna Green, Scotland, just over the border from England. Marriages were made that defied the laws of bigamy, incest and consent. Further, there were three different Courts for controlling marriage and its dissolution: Canonical (church), Equity (property) and Civil (common). Each had its own set of conflicting laws. A lawyer’s paradise! This system resembled a legal garbage heap.

We must remember that at this time a wife was property (chattel) and subject to laws of equity. In the late 1700’s, should a man flirt or have an affair with a married woman, it was called Criminal Conversation. A husband could sue his wife’s suitor for damages to his property. The wife, as the property of the husband, could not defend herself or testify in court. Awards grew from £700 in 1790 to £15,000 by 1815. Fortunes were made and lost.

This brief history is only the tip of the iceberg. It is what was when many States were admitted to the Union between 1789 and 1845: States that adopted carte blanche the matrimonial Common Law of England.

As an aside, in 1945, the State of Florida emancipated women. Women now had the right to own property (real and physical, like houses and cars.). In 1998, by State constitutional amendment, women became persons. Prior to 1998, only her unborn child was considered a person for criminal proceedings. Were the child born a girl, it wasn’t a person.

The first thing we must understand is that law is not Law. It is simply code. This code is made by humans who are screwed up as the rest of us. It purports to reflect current social attitudes, rather than Law. Law, or Natural Law, was supposedly the basis of our Constitution. The Constitution was simply a guideline upon which States could write their codes in order to avoid tyranny.

Mistakes were made in the adopted draft of the Constitution. However, it both recognized that mistakes could be made and provided a remedy in the form of Amendments. The 15th Amendment was the last Amendment that rectified Constitutional errors. The rest of them ARE mistakes. These mistakes were made either deliberately to impose tyranny or because our elected officials (Congress) lacked the balls to pen and pass legislation that would rectify conditions existing under code, not Constitution.

But, back to marriage. When the various states adopted the laws of marriage from England, they also adopted the “principle” that marriage was a civil contract. Prior to his getting the hots for Anne Boleyn, Henry vigorously defended the sacrament of marriage, indicating that it was a function of the Church, not the State. However, the State has no right to interfere within the bounds of a marriage it deems legally valid. Nor does it have the right to interfere in the lives of those whose marriages it has dissolved! The extension of these “states rights” could eventually lead us back to jus primae noctis, the right of the Governor or his designated appointee to claim the virginity of a young lady on her wedding night. Is it far fetched? It is quite obvious we have learned little from our history.

Call me old fashioned, or even Neanderthalic, although Cro-Magnon is more applicable, but I am glad that we have code on bigamy, incest and consent in marriage. I am glad that my children have a legal right to my estate, all $3.28! I believe these to be valid functions of government. But we have diverted our purpose in marriage to something far less than for which we have the primal capacity.

We make the assumption, on lack of evidence that early man did not love. We further assume early man had no valid social structure, other than hunter-gatherer, or agrarian. We don’t really know. From the agrarian age came “economic marriages.” Neighbors would marry to increase adjacent land area on which crops could be grown. We are just so superior they couldn’t have had anything like what we have today. (Thank God!)

I have been talking with some American Indians about the “old ways”. Widows and orphans were the responsibility of the next of kin, until a widow remarried. Wife beating was cause for a man to be lashed to a pole and whipped by the tribal women. Marriage was permanent: separation only by death. Sounds pretty biblical, for a bunch of “savages”. Seems they were living it, while we were just talking about it.

I believe there is something primal within us, long neglected, something that needs to be found again for our benefit: hieros gamos, the sacred marriage. Although today, the Greek Orthodox Church performs hieros gamos and attributes it to Adam and Eve, it was originally used to describe the marriage between Isis and Osiris, the legendary rulers of Egypt. This is one of the first marriages where the love and power of the couple is heralded. I believe this power is available to us all, when we fully love. Today’s governments have the objective of diverting us from this through “education” and other forms of propaganda. Many aspects of the codes are derived from our primal nature, but so twisted as to become unrecognizable.

The earlier mentioned Right of Coverture, a woman’s right to be protected by her husband, may not have been a “right” as much as it was the prudent thing to do. In love, there is power. When reciprocated, the power multiplies. So, are we protecting our love and source of power, or are we dressing up our pleasure palace?

Through centuries of denigration, we have not recognized the power of our love. It is worthy of protection. It is prudent to do so, when and while love is present at whatever level. Today, States will dissolve a marriage yet leave the financial bonds intact; i.e. enforcing ex post facto coverture. At the same time, these same courts have no legal means of acknowledging the wife’s contribution to jointly accrued assets. I heartily approve of requirements for child support from the non-custodial parent. However the custodial parent today has no responsibility to insure the funds are being used directly or indirectly for the children. Further, payment is made directly to the custodial parent and the custodial parent has no legal obligation to become a trustee. Leaving these bonds intact does not in fact dissolve the marriage! Creating a legal entity of “trustee” would insure the legal completeness of the dissolution and not impact the amount of monies received. Oh. I forgot. In this patriarchal society, women do not have the intelligence to become trustees. Again, we are neglecting the primal origins of Natural Law.

Our marriage laws, stemming from Horny Henry’s morality, are based on the “principle” that marriage is a civil contract. This “principle” is a fabrication of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke’s wholecloth! It was but political rhetoric of the day (1753) having no basis in previous law or established custom. This “principle” has its origins in Henry’s morality. I submit that the premise and foundation of the law, “marriage is a civil contract,” is flawed as are the laws built upon it. It would seem the cart is before the horse and the term “civil marriage” is an oxymoron. The “principle” of slavery was over turned on a faulty foundation, as should the “principle’ that marriage is a civil contract.

Although Henry VIII once defended the sacrament of marriage, the word sacrament is very closely associated with the Christian religion. Personally, I feel that a marriage made in the Church of Universal Light or Life or whatever it is, is as valid as one made in the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps marriage would be better defined as a sacred contract which government has the duty and obligation to regulate only in so far as to provide for the common welfare, by the least restrictive means. If promoting government interest is not to provide for the common welfare, of what use is government?

Further since these laws are based on laws from a combined Secular/Religious State, it would appear they violate the First Amendment, calling for separation of church and state. The letters “FD” (Fidei Defensor, defender of the faith) still appear on British coinage indicating the unity of church and state. It is quite obvious something is wrong with our codes for marriage. The easiest place to look is the Constitution. I think a better case can be made by one more knowledgeable than I am. But this will do for now.

There is no doubt that in the early stages, and early is relative, most marriages are utopian. No law of man, nor do I believe God because of man, will ever make marriage a continual Utopia as the couple grows and strains. It isn’t supposed to be Utopia! Growing periods can be painful. However, when marriage is considered as a sacred contract, perhaps marriages will become less disposable. Perhaps governments will less heavily impose themselves upon the rights of married couples. Perhaps even those married will increase their concern and attention to the marriage. Perhaps one can only hope.

Copyright Art Noble 2011

August 3, 2011

New facebook page for The Sacred Female: look for updates on sexology and transcendence there.

%d bloggers like this: