What do we think about sex and love? Why do we think about sex the way we do? Where do you start a book like this? The best place to startmight be from where we are, and then work both past and future. What is important is not what “we” think, but what you think, and why.
What we think about sex is unique to each of us, but generally ranges from “it’s better than masturbation” to “it’s the most wondrous experience in life.” What I found humorous in my research is there is no clinical or scientific definition of sex! We all assume everybody knows what it is and what we are talking about. The problem is we can only define it from our own experience and education. Then, our education depends on how we interpret the opinion of others based on our own unique experiences. And then, we have our point of view.
The first thing I would like to offer for your consideration is a clinical definition of sex. “Sex is the mental and/or physical stimulation of nerve endings, creating electro/chemical energy that may result in pleasurable involuntary muscle contractions in the genitalia and other sexual responses.” Sex is also a mechanism for transmitting love, and we’ll get to this later.
As we will see throughout the book, this definition opens a larger can of worms than it closes. I have observed involuntary muscle contractions ranging from a gentle fluttering or buzzing in the genitalia (accompanied by a sigh of relief) to something resembling a grand mal seizure. Further, science doesn’t know what the “nerve impulses” are or if they vary with the individual? The bottom line is what we know about sex is primarily the opinion of others (including me) that limits our perception and experiences. I have no idea how far you can go and all I want to do here is give you more options by taking your blinders off. You may experience more pleasure and have other results as well.
Generally speaking what I have learned from others is that sex is either about pleasure or procreation. A distinct effort is made to keep love outof the equation. I call this the “Pleasure/procreation paradigm.” A paradigm describes distinct concepts or thought patterns. Even with this definition, we each have our own perception of the concept. When it comes to sex, there are about 7.5 billion perceptions of sex, one for each of us, and each of us believes most of the rest of us holds the same perception, but if you don’t, you are a pervert. I don’t think you are a pervert. I think you hold a different perception of sex and love than I do. All I am offering you here is a different angle to look at your perception. As you will see in Chapter 7, our sexuality is simply based on how we view sex, and that is a function of many factors.
In1974, 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 5000 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. What this political construct does is keep us focused on pleasure or procreation and keeps us from focusing on love. We will see that love may be different from what we imagine it to be and in the next chapter we will see it can change us in wondrous ways.
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; later the Malleus Maleficarum demonized all women. The goal of deification is to put the opposite sex, or the sexual relationship out of reach 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. A man’s love for woman will be the salvation of mankind, should they accept it and return it.
Around1250 CE, 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. 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, and loving. Through love, we may transform into the divine human beings we can be.
Through the ages, the word “divine” became woo-speak. It simply means having the ability to see or find the unseen. It is more about accessing our intuition and being able to solve problems without knowing how we are doing it. Although that “ignorance” in my left-brain, sometimes ticks me off, it works.
My point of view (POV) came from a transcendent experience, following my then beloved glowing like a firefly, lighting the room. I was in blackness. There appeared a point of shimmering light, I recognized as my essence.
Then, another point of light I recognized as her essence.
The two lights danced toward each other,
becoming one bright light.
Beginning with the blackness, I was inthe presence of God and God was smiling. THE POINTS OF LIGHT HAD NOGENDER. There was no masculine or feminine, divine or otherwise in this dimension, or plane, whatever you want to call it. No more than photons have gender. I don’t know if I had “an orgasm” or not. This was a part of that orgasmic experience.
This type of transcendent experience is called merging and it has many variations, as many as there are “types” of transcendence. “Any kind of transcendence with a partner is no guarantee of a lasting relationship.” I read this in Jenny Wade’s book, “Transcendent Sex,” ten years later and smiled, because she was gone in four days. All this is discussed in later chapters.
Our society, or culture what ever you wish to call it, conditions us to believe, as it once did me, men are penises with wallets attached, the larger the better, and women are toys for pleasure or breeding to satisfy our respective egos.
There was one other element to my experience I forgot to mention: love; as close to “unconditional love” as I have ever experienced. As I plowed through my research, I ignored it. But something was missing? DUH! Love! With love everything fell into place. Better yet, I was aware that I could recognize the essence of someone and had the capacity to love that essence unconditionally as well as receive her love.
In this life, or on this plane, where most of us exist, men and women are different. We have different anatomies, not only in our genitalia but also all over our bodies. I believe this anatomical difference was given to us for a reason. I can’t put my finger on it, but I like it. It seems first we unite in the flesh, becoming one flesh. Then we unite as male/female to female/male. Then we can see our essence,without gender, though in this life our gender will be with us ‘till we die. The order is immaterial and there may be more.
My work leads me to believe as sentient,biological beings we have the capacity to make this leap. It is a process: quickly for some, a long winding road for others. I choose to begin at the beginning, in this plane, this life, leaving each to their own quantum leap. Is there more? Probably. I can only lead as far as I have gone and leave the door open for the individuals who wish to pass through. I also recognize other POV’s, because mine is not the only one. Yet in the other ones I like, I can always find the love, even with another name.
Why is my book “… for Guys?” I chose to begin at the beginning. In this life, I am a guy. As such, I have no business telling a woman how she should feel, beor what she should do. I don’t even tell guys this. I tell them what I have done and observed what works. I tell them what my perspective is and how it changed my life. How I think it works is all intuitive speculation. I just know the results.
I describe the fantastic male and female interior genitalia for guys, using parts lists and wiring schematics. I talk about responses few have experienced or even heard of. This is just so they will know and not be frightened when and if they happen. I talk about anatomical differences between men and women. Women have a better connection between left and right brain, due to a thicker corpus callosum. Sensory perception is a function of both halves. Women have about 4000 genes on Chromosome #23, and men only have 2084. Women have the capacity for billions of different kinds of orgasms (slight to major variations) men may have a dozen or more and usually limit themselves to one. We are all unique creatures, but women are far more fluid and their bodies respond in accordance with their monthly cycle, making them an adventure. If nothing else, I hope men develop more respect for women, simply based on their anatomy. My goal is to make this book an anachronism. We will look back on it and smile, shaking our heads, saying, “weren’t we silly. All we gotta do is love.”
We are going to get into Archeology later, but I have to wonder about primal man. Suppose there was one who could read English, who picked up this book. He would probably look at it and ask, “What do I need this for?” When looking at how primal man lived, Archeologists project their perception of sex, their sexuality, on to primal man. Each of them has their own agenda, mostly to show they are not perverted. This way, they get to keep their job. I wonder, if without all the garbage we carry around, primal man was not more “advanced” than we give him credit? It’s just a thought.