Archive for March, 2012

Author’s Note

March 23, 2012

(This is the Author’s Note from my new book, The Alchemy of Erotic Love… for Guys.  We’ve been screwed over royally and I hope you are as ticked off as I am!)

When it comes to sex and love, both men and women have been screwed over for at least the last 5000 years in Western civilization, the last 200 being the worst!  Without much introduction to the esoteric aspects of sex, I was able to experience and observe sexual responses, or ancillary sexual responses, far beyond mere orgasm.  You could say, “I got lucky,” but I prefer to think of it as being blessed.  I am also cursed with curiosity.  First, with the use of social media, I validated these experiences with other people.  To my great relief, I wasn’t nuts; but now I am pissed!

I wanted to know what was going on in my body and hers’. I started studying sexual science and was again blessed to meet up with Dr. Beverly Whipple, a hard-core scientist, and Dr. Franceen King, a Certified Clinical Sexologist who is a licensed sex therapist in Florida.  Many of my experiences were to some extent beyond either of their sciences’, but provided a framework from which I could project solutions.  The ancients were very helpful as well.

I looked not only at sexual sciences, but also “modern” anthropology and archeology, the history of sex and sexual politics.  What I discovered is that we live under a sexual paradigm, or pattern, of procreation and/or pleasure.  That’s it.  That is all sex is good for: either pleasure or procreation.  Then I saw this paradigm was and is a political construct, having nothing to do with our full range of sexuality and ability to love. 

In 1974, Robert C. Solomon noted, “It is one of the dangers of conceptual analysis that the philosophers choice of paradigms betrays a personal bias, but it is an exceptional danger of sexual conceptual analysis that one’s choice of paradigms also betrays one’s private fantasies and obsessions.”[1]  What Solomon did not recognize is the overall sexual paradigm under which we in Western civilization currently operate (for 3000 years +/-): pleasure and/or procreation. The paradigms to which he referred were but sub-sets of this one, which in and of itself is a political construct.

To fully understand what was going on in our bodies, I had to look at our sexual anatomy differently than most anatomists.  I also had to look at love differently.  With these different perspectives my varied sexual responses were easier to explain.  In here, I only speak to those experiences I have had or observed.  Are there more?  All I can say is don’t limit your selves any more!

The next question was: why aren’t more men and women having these experiences?  My answer is operative conditioning to maintain the pleasure/procreation paradigm.  Yes, there are medical issues, but most of it is a historic head game!  Sexual pleasure has had its ups and downs throughout history.    Today, there is a lot of focus on pleasure.  On one hand, this is good.  Pleasure is not the end “goal” of sex, but it is a step toward a third “p” in the paradigm: power!  This political construct allows us to oscillate between “pleasure good” and “pleasure bad,” diverting us from power in the expanded paradigm.  On the other hand, too much focus on pleasure diverts us from what can really happen for us.

Maintenance of the paradigm may also be viewed as “the war between the sexes.”  The primary strategy of war is “divide and conquer.”  In this war, the tactics are the four “D’s:” deification, demonization, denigration, and dismissal.  I’ve found a number of historic documents that blatantly show these mechanisms and will discuss them in detail later, along with more modern erroneous myths.  The problem is even though we are not consciously aware of these myths and misinformation; they permeate our society.  I’d never heard of the Myth of Lilith, yet for years limited myself to the missionary position.

Lilith was among the first to be demonized, but the Malleus Maleficarum demonized all women.  The goal of deification is to put the opposite sex out of reach, or the sexual relationship as seen between Isis and Osiris.  To some extent, even “motherhood” is deified.  The extreme end of the sexual paradigm is for men to view women as either sacred brood cows or pleasure palaces: both ludicrous.

Around 1250 ACE, Vincent of Beauvais wrote the Speculum Maius (The Great Mirror), the Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia of the time.   In there was a section consisting of 2734 chapters called the Speculum Doctrinale.  Deep in one of those chapters is an admonishment for husbands not to love our wives too much!  This seems to have stuck!

Dismissal can be more damaging than burning at the stake. “Pay her no mind.  She’s just a woman.”  (I detested Tool Time for this reason.)  It would be easy to point out the vile put-downs, or denigration, of women today, particularly in an election year. But they are historic and will continue into the future.  We can only change it in ourselves, and by boycotting those who persist in it.  One damn good reason is backlash.  Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned!  Or, “ Karma is a bitch!” A better reason is what we men (and women) can do for ourselves by violating the Speculum Doctrinale.  Just love!


[1] Solomon, Robert C., J. Phil (11)336-345, 1974

!

Copyright 1012 Art Noble

http://www.thsacredfemale.com

Our Sexual Paradigm: Pleasure and/or Procreation

March 9, 2012

The human body is an amazing creation.  If we gathered all of the human biological scientists in the world in one place to tell us how it works, they would simply argue for 10 years.  But, thousands of years ago, somebody figured out why it works.  Essentially, the body is under control of the mind.  Control the mind and you control the body.

 For the last 5000 years, more or less, we have lived under the sexual paradigm of pleasure and/or procreation.  It is a political construct!  Under this construct, these are the only two aspects of sex.  This leaves us viewing women as either brood cows or pleasure palaces, either view implying male ownership.  Men are slowly learning that some women are smart, too.  We need new glasses.

 This is an easy political construct because both are obvious.  We are so focused on these aspects of human sex and sexuality we can see no other results.  There are many, most of which are “politically incorrect:” they belong to the occult.  Occult means, “beyond common knowledge.”  The knowledge is there, but needs to be applied differently to become common knowledge.  But this violates the political construct.  We have to think outside the box!

 From the occult, we hear a lot of ethereal words that make absolutely no sense to those of us who speak English.  We may grasp some vague understanding of what they are talking about, and we think we know, but are left flat later on.  Many of them use words to describe actual biological processes of which they know nothing in terms of biology.  I prefer hard science as a basis and do not mind using the word “idiopathic” rather than mysterious, mystical or spiritual.  They are all synonyms for, “Duh, I donno.”

 Political constructs are fabricated for purposes of diversion.  Tactics include deification, dismissal, and demonization.  Boy, are we easily diverted to pleasure!  The question arises, “What are we being diverted from?”  From Enkidu in The Epic of Gilgamesh, through early Tantra up to Napoleon Hill in Think and Grow Rich, it would seem we are being diverted from our transformation.  Hill called it our “transmutation”.  In that it is probably genetic in nature, transmutation is a better word.

 There are other names both in our culture and others for this transmutation: growth of consciousness, awareness, intuition, Satori , evolving, awakening, etc.  This leads to enlightenment, Divine enlightenment, or as Hill put it, “access to infinite intelligence.”  Don’t worry.  This access is on a “need to know” and “ability to communicate” basis.  Communication implies both verbal and mechanical.  For example, if one of the top wealthy men Hill interviewed placed a buy order for a stock that went up, that is considered mechanical communication.  Or consider Ed Leedskalnin constructing a machine that would lift 14-ton blocks, without having the slightest idea (intellectually) of what he had done. Who cares? It worked.  (Coral Castle)

 That transformation may take place in a blinding flash or take years, even generations.  But, the secret ingredient is love, another aspect of sex we have been diverted from, by focusing on pleasure or procreation.  Erotic love is not the only way for this to occur, but let’s face it.  Erotic love is a lot easier and more intense focused on one woman than trying to love the other seven billion people on this planet. That would probably work… eventually.  It worked for Mother Theresa and Sister Teresa of Avila.

 In my article on Illustrated Sexual Anatomy I define 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.”  In the blog on Love: A Many Splendored Spectrum, I define love as energy and model it on the visible light spectrum.  My guess is the combination of these two energies tweaks or expresses genes, producing the transformation.   It is like electrical energy into microwave energy reacting with a raw potato, producing heat energy to transform the raw potato to a cooked potato.  It makes no difference whether the guess is right or wrong.  It is all about an “attitude” of love.  Then, something happens!

 This sounds great!  Why not expand the paradigm?  Guys, you may know from sad experience, many women have a built-in crap-meter.  They have the uncanny ability to know when you are just hitting on them or when you are really interested in them.  With our transformation, we get one too.  Ours works differently.  Ours works on used-car salesmen and politicians.   Now you see why it is a political construct.

 Anthropologists too look at our evolutionary history with eyes locked into the pleasure/procreation paradigm.  What would happen if they expanded the paradigm?  Would this explain the genetic shift in Neanderthal?  Would it explain how we entered into the Bronze and Iron ages other than by fortuitous accident? Perhaps we should take another look.  Then we can consider the future of evolution based on love.

Copyright Art Noble 2012

www.thesacredfemale.com

Sex at Dawn – A Different View.

March 6, 2012

By Dr. Christopher Ryan and Dr. Cacilda Jetha, Harper Perennial 2010

 Dr. Christopher Ryan beautifully and passionately described prehistoric sex with many academic citations.  In the introduction he states, “Our cultivated ignorance (about human sexuality) is devastating.”  I heartily agree. Then, Chapter 2: What Darwin Didn’t Know About Sex.  Perhaps it is not the anthropologist’s job to investigate the power and malleability of the human mind, yet the human mind is both.  Nor, perhaps, is it their job to investigate more deeply the nature of love, than to pass it off as hormonal brain chemistry.  However, in dealing with sex, we must look at both.

 Dr. Ryan points out we all write from our own perspective, based on our experience and prior teachings.  He notes, “Hobbes took the madness of his age, considered it normal, and projected it back into prehistoric epochs of which he knew next to nothing.”  By the same token, Dr. Ryan writes within the long standing, politically imposed sexual paradigm of pleasure and/or procreation, then limiting pleasure to orgasm. I write from mine.

 There are many ancillary responses occurring with or without orgasm or even sexual contact.  Sexual emissions (“ejaculation”) in both male and female are a separate, but an associated physiological response and the human female has three sources where the male has but one.  Transcendence or “altered brain chemistry” is another, which may also occur without sex.  Orgasmic bioluminescence is reported not only by modern women but also referred to in ancient sacred Shamanic texts as “Dragon’s Fire/Breath.”  Then we have Napoleon Hill’s “transmutation,” where “the combination of love, sex and romance can raise a man from mediocrity to the altitude of genius.”   This transmutation was first noted in The Epic of Gilgamesh, 2600 BC, so it is nothing new.  Further, it is probably genetic in nature, so transmutation is a good word.  It is not known how these experiences affected the ancients.  No one to my knowledge ever reported observation of a “glowing bonobo.”   And how would we know if a bonobo had a transcendent sexual experience?  Humans are a little different.

 Dr. Ryan has no doubt love was present in the prehistoric era, but blows it off, leaving to believe, as Dr. Helen Fisher, it is simply “brain chemistry.”  This excludes all other forms of love by omission.  He also points out the Speculum Doctrinal, around 1250 AD, abjures a man for loving his wife too much, then goes on to say some modern love songs are examples of stalking.  Perhaps.  Humans throughout history are known to screw up an anvil with a rubber mallet.

 He mentions primal behaviors of love, such as grooming, gazing and nourishing without labeling them as behaviors of love.  Both erotic and non-erotic touching is also a behavior of love.  I’ve never seen a bonobo, but I’ll bet a nickel they are touchy-feely.  He does talk about mating cries which, according to Robin Williams in Dead Poet’s Society, humans extended into language.  We can express both a desire to “mate” and love.

 He pointed out in the hunter-gatherer age, “women typically breastfeed each child for five or six years.”  Later Ryan states, “Considering its almost total lack of muscle tissue, the female breast wields amazing power.”  The female (and in one case, male) breast is an organ of nourishment.  Nourishing is a behavior of love.  Could we men be subconsciously looking for love, yet denying it due to the pleasure/procreation paradigm?

 Dr. Ryan also limits his discussion of sexual behavior to primates, stating only bonobos and humans have sex for pleasure.  This is based on ovulation cycles.  Bottlenose dolphins (tursiops truncatus) apparently, may be another species.  Then again, in the Kama Sutra the yab yum (female on top of male sitting) is a bonding exercise where gazing is the mechanism rather than orgasm.  This gives a different aspect to lap dancing.  Perhaps dolphins, who are as monogamous as gibbons, have sex for bonding?

 Although Dr Ryan discusses pair bonding, he does not mention attachment; as different a human behavior as absorption is a different physical behavior from adsorption. I was pleased to see his discussion on MHC, a woman’s nose and the deleterious effect of birth control pills.  As wild speculation, suppose a woman’s nose could also smell beyond our male immune-compatibility and by his smell, determine her ability to transmute him, based on his genetic make-up?  We only learned of woman’s ability to smell MHC a few years ago.  Hill said it takes love.  If it were just sex and romance 99.99% of all the men on this planet would be geniuses.  Sadie Hawkins Day might have been a good thing. 

 Toward the end, he speaks to “variety is the spice of life.”  He views it as doing the same thing with different women.  Do we ever consider doing different things with the same woman?  He also points out the malleability of the human mind where a woman walks out on a cheating husband as though she were reading from a script.  We could also call it brainwashing.  It is neither good nor bad.  There could be many other conditions.  What is “bad” is the fact we are programmed and this is the tip of the iceberg.

 Oh, the angst of a poet!  One over riding, unstated thesis comes through this book: a Greed Based Civilization is a disease, responsible for more premature human deaths than any other cause.  Who knows?  GBC might be an STD.  Love might be the cure, and the future of evolution.

 Copyright Art Noble 2012

www.thesacredfemale.com


%d bloggers like this: