Archive for September, 2014


September 12, 2014

Poly Sex is a complex subject. We made it that way. I’ve broken through a lot of my culturally imposed ignorance, political constructs, and myth we are told to live in, to try and explain what was going on in my body. We are all products of Western culture, and many of us live by the same myths. The big one is “humans suck.” We are “shameful creatures, created in sin.” All kinds of crap! My research indicates a much different picture of our potential. We are fantastic!

One of the things I discovered is much of what we “know” about sex and male/female relationship is just opinion or consensus. Were actual current knowledge placed in a stack, it would be about 10 feet tall. When “everything” is known, the stack will reach beyond the stars. Another problem is most of the opinion is based on limited experience, with consensus by others of also limited experience. Though my experiences are beyond the current concept of “orgasm” I have learned there are far more than I can speak to from personal experience. All I ask is we take the limits off ourselves.

Though I have not always been so, I now consider myself “monogamous.” Formerly, “monogamous” was in that I had one “legal” wife, and a few forays on the side, but no affairs. I was so locked up, I never even had affairs with my wives! My first epiphany was ‘women are not for taking to bed, they are for waking up next to.’

I am also a cisgendered heterophile, which is science-speak for a a guy who likes girls. My research has blown my mind! I have found excellent reasons—or are they justifications—for my monogamy. I wanted to project this on to primal man. I have learned from people I trust, many indigenous cultures around the world in the recent past are polysexual: polyandry, polygamy, polyamorous. The Lakota were polyamorous. The Yaqui were polygamous. The aborigine of Australia practiced polyandry. The Inuit would offer a guest their wife as we would offer an electric blanket. It may have been polyandry in Sumeria that brought about the myth of the Sacred Prostitute? Awwwww, come on! Somewhere there’s gotta be a culture that was monogamous? The only thing I can think of is that “sex” was not the big deal in these cultures; it was the attitude. The way you treated each other was the big deal.

The Eastwood movie, Unforgiven, was really not too far off an expression of pioneer culture in this country. Women were scarce. Men who beat their wives were first “talked to,” then beaten and on the third time they disappeared. There wasn’t a 7 year waiting period in those days, so women would remarry. A little bit of history you won’t find in the text books.

Now it seems monogamy is a construct of a patriarchal civilization where women are chattel and wealth is passed on to the eldest son by the father. In primal, polysexual tribes, the concept of “wealth” did not exist. Children belonged to the mother or the tribe. (It takes a village!)

So, I have to ask myself is my monogamy a function of the Judeo-Christian construct in which I was raised? Then I look at Solomon with 300 wives, 1000 concubines, or whatever, and scratch my head? I read Gen.6:2 with a different eye and ask were our attitude changed would we not become as sons of God? Of course, the last question I ask is can I be satisfied with just one? From what I have discovered, absolutely, beyond the moral admonitions! So, as long as I am in a culture that by mouth professes it, why not? Let others do their thing. I’ll do mine.

Our Operative Conditioning

September 12, 2014

will.press_.lever_.for_.food_ When I started studying “sex” 15 years ago, I never thought it would open so many other fields, and provide radically different perspectives on darn near everything. When I learned a lot of women fake orgasms, I wondered why? I thought it might be a head game; not one that women played, but one that had been played on women. My research indicated I might be correct.

It was with recent insights I was able to put it together—at least in my mind. At birth, we are dependent on our parents for survival. As we grow, we accept their authority. This is assumed a “truth” going back to primal man, before civilization. One of the conditions not recognized or considered by anthropologists today is the “tribe”of primal man had to be interdependent for survival. Authority was transferred to the tribe as the child grew.

It is my thesis the primal child’s interdependent relationship with parents, the tribe and the world around the child-man was a function of love. When I look at the behaviors and attributes of love, they are applicable across the board to our fellow human beings and the world around us. And then, we got greedy! One man, later a group of men, decided they wanted more. To provide more, we (they) created “civilization.” Slowly, authority was transferred to this group we call kings and priests. Authority was maintained by fear, force and confusion. As language developed and became “written”, conditioning became easier. Language became a mechanism for operative conditioning.

The primary word we had to modify and redefine to make operative conditioning work was love. Today it is generally limited to boy/girl stuff and confused with sex, which is either for pleasure or procreation. Other words, once a respected part of man’s lexicon were denigrated and forbidden or vaguely redefined to confuse us. Other phrases have come into vogue that limit us.

Genetics is a field of study so complex, not even those who study it for a living fully understand it. My simplistic, even childlike view, indicates to me a number of things.

What we think based on our operative conditioning impacts us at the genetic level, probably by modifying our epigenome, i.e. creating histone tails and modifying methyl groups that prevent our genes from expressing, and,

This also affects our perception of every thing from colors to our life experiences.

Further, this epigenome may be, in full or part, transmitted in fetal development.

Ya gotta admit, this makes our operative conditioning a lot easier!

The nice thing about interdependence as it applied to primal man is he knew about love with out knowing he knew. Our best examples of those who love without knowing are infants and small children with Down’s syndrome. They just love. They haven’t been “worked on” by parental or outside operative conditioning…yet.

Back to women and their inability to enjoy an orgasmic experience, what are the head games we’ve played over the centuries that led many to this result? It would appear to me making women chattel at the dawn of civilization started our decline in intimate love. The various marriage and sexual “laws” in ancient Western history reinforced this. The big document in Western culture is the Malleus Maleficarum, which though I’ve never read in its entirety, impacted my perception of women at the subconscious level. The Myth of Lilith also impacted me and therefore my partners. However it is the last 200 to 300 years where most of the damage to both men and women is perpetrated.

It is my goal here only to point out the illegitimate origin of words and phrases with which we are burdened, as they may relate to erotic love. Erotic love appears to be the most powerful way in which our epigenome is positively impacted. After that, it is up to you.

%d bloggers like this: