Archive for the ‘Sexual love’ Category

The Primal Unit of “Civilization”

March 21, 2017

Cro-Magnon-ManThe connotation of “civilization” is modern, where we have technical and scientific advances almost daily.  Our history is replete with technical and scientific advances but at a much slower pace.  Yet, in terms of the word “civil,” primal man was far advanced in his humanity and civilization.  Perhaps ‘society’ or ‘culture’ would be better words instead of civilization.

I have found those who study anthropology still regard love as a feeling or emotion, usually between man and woman.  I regard love as a near infinite spectrum of energy, impacting us at the genetic level to produce the feelings or emotions.  For me, it is easier to look at it this way and it explains many things.  Therefore, I propose the primary unit of societies is the man-woman relationship.  This is not to say heterosexual relationships were the only ones, but like today, the heterosexual population is much greater than the LGBT population.  The difference is for primal man, it didn’t make any difference.  Every member of the tribe had a job to do for the survival of the tribe.  This was primarily exercising their talents.

The strength of the tribe was a function of their interdependence and synergy as grown by love.  Today we see our woman as “belonging to” a man (or vice versa).  Consider that in primal societies a woman “belonged with” a man as a mate and partner. The partnership was respected by other members of the tribe.  Why?

At this time, science believes one out of 200,000 babies is born with the ability to see infrared with their eyes.  They sense heat as well as color.  Is it possible under proper circumstances others have this ability as well?  I think so.  We are only slightly enlarging the Visible Light Spectrum to include infrared.  Could this be a function of love grown interdependence?  Again, I think so.  It makes it easier to pick up game hiding in the bushes.

Let’s look at the “science” we have on love.  Not much.  Dr. Helen fisher has looked at the impact of love as increasing blood flow to the brain with fMRI studies.  She interprets this as love is a function of brain chemistry.  Lynn McTaggart studies and promotes good intentions to change the environment.  Masaru Emoto studied the change in the structure of ice crystals after water was bombarded with good, loving thoughts.  Very few have loked at love as energy and when they do, they call it something else.  The Heart Math Institute calls it energy, avoiding the word love.

Returning to the primal unit of man and woman or woman and man if you prefer, we see in our patriarchal system thousands of years of child abuse.  “Spare the rod and spoil the child.”  I was not spoiled… or was I?  As I grew, my parents learned spanking me broke blood vessels in their hands.  They then used Uncle Jack’s leather clothes brush.  I have it as a keepsake.  Today we psychologically “discipline” them which can be more damning.  We teach them to “fit in.”  Before we are old enough to be spanked, we accept.  I wonder if teaching or allowing acceptance, with boundaries, would be better?  The point being we are instructed to focus on our children rather than our mate.  Divide and conquer.

In today’s relationships, married or not, there is a lot of resistance to change, even when change can meant growth.  Well, hell!  I like who I am right now.  We generally don’t see that we might like ourselves better if we change a little.  Primal man did not suffer the abuses we tolerate today.

Primal and indigenous man lived in an interdependent anarchy.  Leaders arose for a specific task.  Hunters, warriors, healers were each unique in their innate talents.  Acceptance is an attribute of love, as are the boundaries established by self-love.  The primal unit of the tribe was the couple.  We hear from anthropologists, that “open relationships” were the norm, or “serial monogamy” was the norm.  I suggest these authors are projecting their belief system and life style onto primal man.  They have no knowledge of the interdependence’s synergy or genetic changes that may come from love.  They do have credentials, which gives them more “authority” to express their opinion.  I have only experience.



February 27, 2017

1I guess a lot of guys don’t think about unity when we get into a relationship.  I never did before I got into my research.  I had my mind on something else.  I didn’t know squat about love either.  I figured if I like to give her “things,” I must love her ‘cause I’m cheap!  I did know you can’t buy love.  So my gifts of “things” were from my heart, not my wallet.  But, I never really gave her me.  These gifts had nothing to do with unity and unity  is where the action is!

The word unity encompasses all the other words we hear about relationships: commitment, fidelity, honor and love.  “Do you take this woman/man…” and seldom do they mention unity.  We hear about a “union” but it is as if they don’t want unity in the union?  Commitment is easy because we can only commit to ourselves.  When there is a mutual desire for unity, fidelity is easy too.  It is difficult to be in union with one while screwing another.  Further when you are screwing another you are not honoring the one with whom you profess to be in unity.  As you go through all the ups and downs, love is the glue holding you (plural) together.

Why is this mutual desire for unity so important?  Synergy!  The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  We are each a part.  We can screw our heads off, having magnificent sexual responses, transmitting to one another universal love and it means very little without the mutual desire for unity.  Couples can be married for 50 years and never “get it.”  They will stay for show or stubbornness and have no concept of unity.  Unity is not that difficult, if you really want it and the rewards are beyond amazing.

Intimate sexual relationships are not the only kinds of relationships where unity and synergy can be achieved, as I point out in my book.  We can be in unity with our friends and neighbors as well.  It takes love to get there.  Sometimes, we can get there without knowing it until we are there.  Bottom line is love is the path to follow.  Brotherly love works too.

Quantum Entanglement and Codependence

February 24, 2017

QE bodies.jpg“Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance—instead, a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole.” ~ Wiki

Instead of looking at the human body as shapes or organs or even cells, we can view the human body at the sub-atomic level.  Cells (all 50 trillion of them) are made of various molecules which in turn are constructed of atoms.  At the sub-atomic level, we are getting down to the nitty gritty!

The current theory of Quantum Entanglement implies we are connected to everything in the Universe!  I have a hard time getting my head around this.  It does offer a limited explanation for astrology, which focuses on our galaxy, with one exception.  Humans interpret the connective impact of the stars quantum entanglement with us. Humans are whack jobs! Even the astrological computer programs are designed by humans and may vary.  I think of the hurricane projection maps, all indicating a slightly different path.  One is usually way out in left field, and sometimes it is right.

Let’s get back to us.  I believe humans are fantastic creatures, conned out of their innate abilities by authorities.  The con job was run on us so we could “fit into society.”  This is a “society” determined by others in “authority” removing our innate abilities.  When somebody has a bunch of letters behind their name, like “PhD,” we give them authority because they are learned in one or more fields of philosophy in those fields.  That philosophy is determined by precedent and the precedent is determined by kings and priests going back millennia.

For example, we are told by various authorities, “love is a feeling or emotion produced by brain chemistry.”  I see love as a spectrum of energy, impacting us at the genetic level, producing the proteins that give us the feelings.  There are more feelings of love besides those associated with erotic love, where science seems to focus.

I look at love as a universal, omnipresent energy.  It is not limited to humans!  Yet, although many mammals exhibit the behaviors of love, we cannot think of primal man as a loving creature?  I do!  Our modern DNA is fogged by methyl groups created by imaginary fears: fears we were burdened with dating back at least 5000 years ago. This limits our perception and our innate abilities.

When we transmit an electric signal down copper wire it travels a little bit slower than the speed of light.  Split particles, one reacting to stimulation of the other simultaneously, are not burdened by the speed of light.  If love is energy, as all matter is standing waves of energy, then we might be dealing with instantaneous “speed” or the speed of love?  Copper wire is also matter but electricity slows down due to friction.  This isn’t quite right, but hopefully you get the idea.

The mammals and primal man went through a process or “dance” of dependency.  The infants were nourished from their mother’s breast.  Mother taught their cubs and kits to play as they played with each other.  The kits and cubs were groomed by their parents as their parents groomed each other.  These are behaviors of love.  Cubs and kits were fed by their parents until the youngsters learned to hunt and forage for themselves, becoming independent.  The kill saw shared with the family.  Counter dependent behavior was met by exclusion from the family or pack so they learned to hunt and forage or died.  As the kits and cubs grew into the family they learned interdependence, where although there was an Alpha, his or her presence was inclusive of all the others, rather than being separate.

Adult co-dependence is a learned stopping point in our development.  Women are told men must take care of them.  This is a false extension of protection: another behavior of love.  Relying on this, women do many things they really don’t want to do for various reasons and so do men.  Many times for the same reasons.  Co-dependence is essentially based in fear.  Women will have sex for physical, goal attainment, emotional and insecurity reasons.  So will men.  In my book (literally) the best reason it to transmit love energy.  All the other reasons pale!

Of course sexually intimate relationships are not the only co-dependent relationships.  In modern “society” we have co-dependent relationships with just about everything and everybody.  This is a failure of our culture.  As co-dependents, particularly with “authorities” we are unable to comfortably break this sick bond.  It is easier to get a divorce from a spouse and that can cost you the rest of your life!

What is important is our desire for unity, rather than security or pleasure.  This leads us to interdependence.  Here, at this point, we can ‘feel’ our inter-connectedness with everything: or at least all the stuff on this planet.  We don’t have to intellectually know it.  Primal man may have had no intellectual awareness of this connection, but simply felt it.  Until we become interdependent, growing through this co-dependency, we will never know what “miracles” await us.  This is a growth attained by, with, and through love.  We won’t need astrologers to tell us things about the future: we will know and act accordingly.  There are many other professions of today we will not need.  As I point out on my Facebook cover: “Once you fully know love, you will have access to everything you need to know.”




On Pedophilia.

February 20, 2017


The word “pedophilia” is the combination of two Greek words meaning love of children.  From Psychology Today, “Pedophilia is considered a paraphilia, a condition in which a person’s sexual arousal and gratification depend on fantasizing about and engaging in sexual behavior that is atypical and extreme. Pedophilia is defined as the fantasy or act of sexual activity with children who are generally age 13 years or younger.”[1] “The term paraphilia refers to intense sexual attraction to any objects or people outside of genital stimulation with consenting adult partners. A paraphilia is considered a disorder when the paraphilia is causing distress or threatens to harm someone else.”[2] The translation from Greek of “philia” is brotherly love.  Perhaps a better word for this “disorder” is “Pedosexualis,” as a sub-disorder of “Parasexualis.” Even that falls short of this activity.

The next thing that bothers me is the philosophical definition of love, or the “Nature of Love.”  “Presuming love has a nature, it should be, to some extent at least, describable within the concepts of language. But what is meant by an appropriate language of description may be as philosophically beguiling as love itself. Such considerations invoke the philosophy of language, of the relevance and appropriateness of meanings, but they also provide the analysis of “love” with its first principles. Does it exist and if so, is it knowable, comprehensible, and describable? Love may be knowable and comprehensible to others, as understood in the phrases, “I am in love”, “I love you”, but what “love” means in these sentences may not be analyzed further: that is, the concept “love” is irreducible-an axiomatic, or self-evident, state of affairs that warrants no further intellectual intrusion, an apodictic category perhaps, that a Kantian may recognize.”[3]  Much of philosophy talks in circles and this is no different.

I have clearly defined love as a spectrum of energy impacting us at the genetic level.[4]  I say clearly, but there is no scientific proof of even the existence of such an energy spectrum.  Science hasn’t looked!  Erotic love is a small part of the spectrum.  Erotic love may be looked at as sexual love between consenting adults.  In 1753 The English Marriage Act defined the age of consent as 21.  Shortly thereafter, Scotland lowered the age to 12 for girls and 14 for boys. However, today’s definition of “adult” is arbitrary at age 18 and in some cases today might be extended to age 40 or beyond. It would then seem the term pedophilia is in fact a misnomer of some dude attempting to justify his behavior as love.  It is not love by any stretch of the imagination.

There are two psychological needs of humans: to love and be loved.  The spectrum can be infinite, with erotic love simply being a small, intimate and powerful part of the spectrum.  We can love others without sexual desire.  Children are in this categorySo, what has happened to us that an estimated 3% of the male population is pedophilic?  What has happened to us that few actually practice love in our (adult) relationships?  Love is all around us and in us.  I believe there is a big con game going on for centuries, to dissuade us from love.  Around 1280CE the Spectorum Doctrinale (the Funk and Wagnalls of the 13th Century) Told husbands not to love their wives too much.[5]  At the same time Nahmanides (?) in The Holy Letter (Igarette ha Kodesh written for the Kabbalah) was exhorting men to treat the act of love and the partner with reverence and respect: attributes of love.[6]  The Spectorum Doctrinale, from the Roman Catholic Church had a much wider circulation than those in the Kabbalah.

In my view simply based on anatomy, women have a greater capacity to love than do men.  Capacity may not be the right word, but it gets the point across.  By the same token, based on their experiences with men today, many women have shut down this capacity.  Men are humans too and have the same psychological needs to love and be loved.  Our culture has equated love with sex!  Children, not yet calloused by modern erroneous belief systems, just love anyway.  They are easy targets for rejected men who are looking for “love.”  To say these are rejected men is being kind.

The real question is why have we been conned out of love?  My answer is love is the glue that holds relationships together, even when you are so pissed you could strangle him or her.  They have threatened the illusion of your identity!  (You are actually something more so it is not a bad thing; we just see it that way.)  As you go through this, you grow into interdependency and become aware.  This is the threat to the powers that be!  So we deviate.















[5] Ryan, Christopher, and Cacilda Jetha. Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What it Means for Modern Relationships. New York: Harper Perennial, 2009

[6] Cohen, Seymore J. trans. The Holy Letter, (attrib. To Nahmanides) Jason Aronson, Inc, 1976

Relative and Absolute Reality

February 6, 2017



If you keep thinkin’ like you’re thinkin’, you’re gonna keep gettin’ what you’re gettin’.


yin-yang  Relative Reality is kind of an ego thing, or a material thing.  The “flavors”   (a word Mira Prabhu got from a guru and which she continues to use to describe relative reality because these are not stages or steps but overlap) are:

  1. Inherent imperfection
  2. Impermanence
  3. No ownership
  4. No accident
  5. No fixed judgements – transformation is always possible
  6. Everything is the result of past thought, speech or action

Questions around this are

  1. Is everything imperfect or are we looking at it as imperfect?
  2. I slap my material table. In a few years, I may use it for firewood.
  3. Ownership: Do we really “own” anything?  Ancient Egyptians thought they did and tried to take it with them.  I don’t think it worked.  I wonder if this isn’t more in the “Absolute” view?
  4. Accidents and coincidences aren’t really accidents and coincidences. From the Eastern perspective, the word coincidence is a word we made up because we don’t understand everything happens for a reason.  We may not know the reason so we call it a coincidence, or an accident.
  5. I know Judgements! Unfortunately, darn it, things change and transformation is possible.
  6. Karma isn’t what we are given to believe. Essentially, we create the ‘matrix’ in which we live with our thoughts, words or actions.  Of course, this is the way we are taught to think, speak and behave.  In most ‘spiritual’ encampments there is a lot of focus on changing this.  Whatever works for you.

In Vipassana, there are only three flavors:

  1. Impermanence
  2. Suffering, usually the result of a belief in permanence or ownership.
  3. Realization of non-self.

All this is part of the relative reality where most of us live.  Our educational system promotes this and polarizes us while so doing.  We are usually given two choices: pick one!  Are you Republican or Democrat?  Liberal or Conservative?  Christian or  Pagan?  Muslim or Infidel?  Tory or Whig?  These labels become part of our illusionary, polarized identity.  I like Denzel Washington.  In his roles, he never plays a black man.  He plays a man who happens to be black: sometimes a good man, sometimes a bad man, but always a man.

We are also polarized by sex and gender.  Sex is about pleasure or procreation.  Pick one.  In this case, both are allowed for some.  Girls are girls and boys are boys, period!  Girls do this and boys do that.  Few take into consideration we are genetically unique and have our own occupational and sexual preferences and proclivities.  We are conditioned into homogeneity.  Thank heavens, this conditioning is breaking down in the relative reality.  More and more are becoming aware of who we are, relatively speaking.  I see this as a behavior of love: self-love.

This brings us to Absolute Reality: that which is unchangeable.  In Buddhism, this is called the “un-manifest self.”  It is that which is permanent, and our primal consciousness.

I’ve been learning a little about quantum mechanics.  One of the things I learned is particles can be waves, depending on how we look at them.  I also learned two other things:

  1. All matter is standing waves (including our material body) and
  2. Tesla noted there were two kinds of energy: transverse waves as seen in the electromagnetic spectrum and longitudinal waves emanating from the node of the transverse waves. These longitudinal waves are also called scalar energy.  They are also called Chi or Prana in Eastern languages.

There are all kinds of ways of looking at the human body.  We can view it as a collection of organs or a collection of cells or molecules or atoms or even at the sub-atomic level.  We can look at it at the unique genetic level.  To my knowledge, no one yet has looked at it as a collection of standing waves or what frequencies they might be?  I find it humorous that Reiki and other energy healers don’t have numbers.  They feel the energy from our “kinky” Chi and straighten it out.

Since I am manifest in the material form, I must realize this manifestation is based on standing waves: energy.  Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  It is permanent.  It can change its form.  We see this every day when we turn on a light (electric to light energy) or nuke a potato (electric to microwave energy to heat energy).  The standing waves, along with all the other ways of looking at my body in the relative reality are who I am.  The standing waves I have shaped in my life are my essence, that which cannot be destroyed.  It is one way of looking at this concept.

Now comes the good part.  All material is standing waves.  This means the trees and plants and other critters are also standing waves.  Hang on!  This also means the Earth and all the astro-goodies in the Universe are also standing waves.  Here comes the real kicker!  Everything is sentient!  Physicists a long time ago, split a photon into two particles.  As they experimented with one, the other responded simultaneously in a like fashion.  Einstein called it “spooky stuff.”  So, we are not just connected with each other; we are connected with everything!

I know I am connected with my pup and I know she feels things.  Science has found ‘feelings’ and communication in plant life, but not as we understand human feelings or communication.  I sometimes can feel the energy from trees.  I need to spend more time there.

Of course, most of us are polarized into the Relative Reality and can’t see the Absolute as anything but woo-speak that won’t buy you a cup of coffee.  Then, there are a few who live in the absolute and are really ascetic!  I think the name of the game is to live in both, viewing the relative through the eyes of the absolute.  This unites the ‘duality’ we argue about.  The Great Cosmic Joke then diminishes to the foibles and false perceptions of man.


January 27, 2017


In terms of dependency, adult relationships generally follow our parental relationships.  As infants we are totally dependent on Mom for nourishment and cleanliness (grooming) and other behaviors of love.  As we start to walk, we become co-dependent with Mom and Dad.  When we begin to talk, we become counter dependent: a.k.a. “the terrible twos.” When allowed to go through this, within boundaries, we become independent and in familial relationships followed by interdependency.  To some degree or another, this is common behavior among mammals.

At one time it was proposed by Ernst Haeckel that fetal development was along the line of our evolutionary ancestors, from single cell on up.  Haeckel’s phrase was “ontogeny (fetal development) recapitulates phylogeny (evolutionary stages of our remote ancestors).”  It was disproven and discredited long ago.  What is being proposed now is the adult development of relationships “recapitulates” our childhood stages of dependency.


When we hear the word “relationship,” the mind automatically jumps to intimate sexual relationships.  The word is much bigger.  We have relationships with everything!  We may not notice or pay attention to the trees we drive by, yet we have a relationship with them.  They are CO2 eaters and O2 producers.  We take them for granted.  We have a relationship with the car we are driving.  Like the intimate sexual relationship, it takes maintenance.  Even minimal maintenance, such as checking tire pressure and changing oil, is essential to keeping the car in good running order.  We have relationships with institutions, like your bank and government.  Strangely enough, most of these relationships are either dependent or co-dependent.


When it comes to definitions, everybody has their own idea of what a word means.  Me too.  You may have a slightly different definition and that is perfectly all right.  By the time you finish this article, you will see how these definitions are woven together, and you are welcome to do your own weaving.

Dependency. Think of a fresh infant.  They are dependent on mama for everything:  nourishment from breast milk, grooming, diaper changing, placing them on their stomach to sleep, and holding and burping them. (All of these are behaviors of love.)  As the child grows, walks and speaks a few words, they are still mostly dependent, but co-dependency begins to creep in.

Co-dependency. With small children this is when we have to cajole to get them to behave.  It is when we play the spoon is an airplane so they will eat.  With adults, this can be dangerous.  With adults, usually one is enabling addictive behavior in order to get their needs met.  Addictive behavior is more broadly defined than sex, drugs and alcohol.  One can be addicted to processes such as religion.  A woman may go to church with her husband so that her sexual needs are at least partially fulfilled.  Or visa versa.  It is usually deadly when drugs and alcohol are involved.  There is much written on codependency, so I won’t bother too much with it here.

Counter dependency.  There is segue to this step of the dance from co-dependency.  With children, then comes counter dependency: the “terrible twos.” This is when the child is attempting to establish their identity and it is usually contrary to the social expectations of the parents.  As adults, we are left with a socially acceptable illusion of our identity, which grows and may change with time. We wear different uniforms.  In intimate relationships. one or the other becomes first sorrowful (angry) at the way life is going and finally speaks up about it.  If the receiving partner has violent tendencies, this can be very dangerous.  If they are passive-aggressive, they may sulk and the next time, become violent.  There are many scenarios that will be explored later.  The reality is this is a time for growth!

Independency.  No, this is not when he or she leaves you, but it may come to that if you are not willing to grow.  This is when one or the other or both no longer “need” the other to satisfy their addictions or illusions, but can do very well by themselves.  Most of the time in healthy growth, they still want each other rather than need each other.  I should point out here the pre-Christian definition of a virgin was an independent woman.  One who could grow, gather or hunt her own food and find or build her own shelter.  She did not need a man to “take care” of her; she wanted a man with whom she could bond.

Interdependency.  This is the final step in the dance and there are segues throughout. The dictionary definitions of interdependence read much more like co-dependence than the interdependence with which I am familiar.  Co-dependence is tit for tat; I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.  The definitions of interdependency leave out the “magic” that can only be attributed to love.


For me, dependency is very clear.  The “clinging vine” is an example in intimate relationships.


 I have copied some material[1] off the net which I have put in quotes. It is a consensus of those in the business of “curing” codependency. They both agree there are many definitions of codependency and they also agree on this one:

“Codependents are people who let the feelings and actions of another person affect them to the point that they feel like they have lost control of their own lives.”

I have two problems with this definition:

  1. I would substitute “entity” for “person,” and
  2. Codependency is part of a process in relationship development and we have relationships with everything. Therapists get so focused on interpersonal relationships, they seem not to see the big picture.

Bradshaw[2] suggests our relationship development as adults follows our family development. As infants we are dependent on mother’s milk. Nourishment is a behavior of love as are touching, grooming, play, and protection. The child grows from dependency into codependency. It is “I’ll do this if you’ll do that.” It is behavioral in nature rather than verbal. Codependency is more comfortable to both, so here we are.

Government is an entity with whom we have a relationship. They manipulate us into being good citizens which they define as taxpayers, submissive to their policies. We in turn are given security against outside criminal behavior… except theirs. This can also be an analogy for our interpersonal codependent relationships. The web site lists these common characteristics of codependency:

  • “Excessive Care-taking: Codependents feel responsible for others’ actions, feelings, choices and emotional well-being. They try to anticipate loved one’s needs and often wonder why others do not do the same for them.
  • Low self-esteem: Codependents are people who need to be needed. They will only feel important and valuable when they are helping others, and blame themselves for anything that goes wrong.
  • Denial: Codependents typically ignore, minimize or rationalize problems in the relationship, believing that “things will get better when….” They stay busy to avoid thinking about their feelings.
  • Fear of anger: Codependents are afraid of both their own and their loved one’s anger, because they fear it will destroy the relationship.
  • Health problems: The stress of Codependency can lead to headaches, ulcers, asthma and high blood pressure.
  • Addictive behavior: Codependents may themselves develop addictions in an attempt to deal with their pain and frustration”

Codependency usually involves an “addiction” of one sort or another. I use a very broad definition of addiction: use of any substance or process that appears to cover the pain of childhood loss or trauma. The loss could be our identity and having to wear that damn uniform! I was once addicted to my own intellect, but gave it up when I found I could not pronounce Intelloholic correctly.

Counter Dependency

Counter dependency from a loving partner can be the best thing that ever happened to us. It is not fun. A loving partner may see our essence, our real identity. When we behave in a contrary fashion to that essence, they say, “Cut the bullshit.” And then it hits the fan because we are comfortable with being not who we are. There is also “counter dependency” from a manipulative partner. This simply plays on our addiction in order to support their addiction. This gets old. Of course we believe what we want to believe and what we are accustomed to believing. Counter dependency with love leads to our independence and becomes a sign of self-love.

As adults in relationship, counter dependency is an important part of development! Bobby Burns said,

And would some Power give us the gift

To see ourselves as others see us!

We don’t have that gift. We can only see the reflection of our parent’s view of us and our own view in our mirror. The problem is, we are comfortable with that reflection.

In “The Eden Project,” Hollis correctly speaks of fear as being the source of our relationship problems.[3] He cites three who discuss the “management of fear.”  I find this humorous.  We cannot manage fear, for in so doing we create an illusion of no-fear, when in fact it exists and controls us.

Karen Horney (1885 -1952, psychologist):

  1. Become submissive to the partner, diminishing one’s own power, rationalizing this as congeniality and concern. Actually becoming more co-dependent.
  2. Become abrasive or hostile, seeking domination, believing the other is only interested in self. Hostility is a demonstration of fear.  Includes passive aggressive behavior. [1/2 Counter-Dependence]
  3. Flight, avoidance, emotionally not present while physically present. Withholding of intimacy.

Fritz Riemann (1902-1979, psychologist):

  1. Distancing from the fear of nearness.
  2. Depression from the fear of abandonment.
  3. Fear of change leads to OCD, seeking control of the environment since control of the other is not possible.
  4. Fear of engulfment and permanence leads to disassociation. “If I’m not there, he/she can’t hurt me.”

Fritz Kunkle (1889 – 1956, theologian):  Power.

  1. The “star” seeks admiration and validation from outside, rather than from within.
  2. The “clinging vine” resigned responsibility for self and seeks identification with the other. [Dependency]
  3. The “turtle” seeks protection and security at all costs. Takes the path of least resistance to identify with wealth and status of the other. [Dependency]
  4. The “Nero” overtly seeks power to cover his own inadequacies.

From the above, we see how these early investigators mish-mashed the dance of dependency.  Counter dependency requires a good, strong “No!”  This can be said with love rather than hostility.   No matter who we are today, or who we think we are, we all have fears that must be confronted rather than managed.  Intimate relationships can be either the best or worst place to do this.

Most of us have worked very hard to craft some illusion of our identity: our personae dramatis, the face we show to others.  I find it interesting the prefix per- means through and sonae is sound.  Dramatis refers to actors who in ancient times spoke through a mask.  Here we are.  Our goal, should we have one, is our authenticity.  I point out in FORBIDDEN: The Alchemy of Erotic Love, fear creates methyl groups on our genes modifying or preventing their full expression.  I further define “authenticity” as being able to express all our required genes under the appropriate circumstances.  Of course, we are each genetically unique and the behavior associated with this expression will be different for each of us.  As long as this behavior is loving in nature, it is in my estimation acceptable.

Having worked so hard on the illusion of my identity, I like it.  I am comfortable with my inability to fully express my genes: with my inauthenticity.  I will fight to keep it!  So will you!  And when we think about it, we see how silly we are.  The price of love is the comfort of our limitations, for as we become more authentic we lose our limitations.


 The first three steps of dependency are based in need. The last two are based in want. Independency implies the individual is self-sufficient. We tend to think of this in financial terms, but it also implies emotional self-sufficiency. I suggest better relationships can be found when a mutual wanting and a mutual desire for unity with the other is present. It is a want based on the essence of the other, rather than a need for security. You are independent now. You are secure in yourself. You don’t need security from another. (Don’t worry. Nothing is perfect, including us trying to live by the standards of another. We just get better.)


There is very little written on interdependency, the last step in the process of relationship development. Perhaps this is because social scientists cannot get their head around the psychic “knowing” that comes with it. (Those who work with their heart can.) It seems like society is trying to keep us codependent to make money off of us. Team work out of a mutual desire to accomplish some objective can be an example of interdependence. In a team, each has their own place. This is not a place determined by others, but by the individual. An offensive guard on a football team knows he is a guard and not the quarterback. He knows his job and he has fun doing it, contributing his unique skills to the team effort. Teamwork under the lash doesn’t work for long and only reflects the desire of the lash holder.

There is a more important aspect to interdependence: our “knowing” not of an intellectual source. This knowing has at least as many facets as there are people for we are all genetically unique. We each know something important to our lives or the lives of others. There are a lot of names for it, depending on what facet we are talking about, or where we think it came from. Interdependence goes beyond intimate personal relationships just as codependency does and just as love does. But, intimate personal relationships are a good place to start.

             I only have one example from my life, and today I wish there were more.  It has nothing to do with sex or intimate relationships, but love is definitely involved.  It is about racquetball.  When teaching before I was an associate professor, I in many ways loved my students.  Some I loved enough to fail recognizing they would not survive in the commercial diving world.  When I say “love,” I mean I exhibited many of the attributes of love toward them: respect, admiration for their qualities, appreciation for their work and what they taught me, and compassion when called for.

I had one student that I admired for his mechanical skills and also learned he was at least a high B, possibly an A international class racquetball player.  I was working my way up to becoming a D class player.  Ed was a hustler.  He would bet you $20 on a game, spot you 20 points, take the serve, and you were very fortunate to return the serve, much less score!  He would pocket your $20 bill and call, “Next?”  When not hustling, he just enjoyed the game.  As we played, I grew in the number of points I was able to get against him.  Our mutual respect grew in the game.

But this is really about doubles.  The first time we teamed up in a doubles match was magical!  There was something between us I can only describe as energy.  I was making shots I had never made before and covering the court in a way I never had before.  Ed, too, was playing beyond his capacity, which far exceeded mine, and it was magical.  We won most of the games we played as double partners, and it really wasn’t about winning.  It was about the synergy we created where the whole was orders of magnitude greater than the sum of the parts.  This is interdependence!

Interdependence did not come from training toward some goal.  I was simply the end of a process, based in love, around a single task: racquetball.  As I pointed out in the beginning, we have relationships with everything.  I suggest the most important relationship is the intimate one we have with our beloved.  Of course, there are far more issues in an intimate relationship than there are in racquetball.  It is possible that we will go through the dance for each of them, but as they are resolved in an atmosphere of love, the synergy will grow.

The conclusions of these thoughts are:

  1. Love is necessary through all of the process.
  2. Codependency is a part of the process. It is when we are stuck there that problems arise.

The question arising from these thoughts is, “Does it work?” Only you can answer.



[2] Bradhaw,J., Homecoming, Bantam Books , New York , NY 1990

[3] Hollis, James, The Eden Project: In search of the Magical Other, Inner City Books, Toronto, 1998, p.68


January 26, 2017

Hymens, like everything else on or in a woman’s body are uniquely formed.  The “intact hymen” is actually a detrimental medical condition called an imperforate hymen.  It is dangerous because when menstruation begins, the flow is backed up into the vagina and usually develops into an abdominal mass causing pain.  This article discusses different types of hymens.

The next issue is the word “virgin.”  In pre-Christian, perhaps other than Judaic, cultures, the word virgin meant an independent woman.  A woman who could grow, gather or hunt her own food and find or build her own shelter.  This is a woman who did not need a man to take care of her.  This is a woman who wanted a man on equal footing.   Well, ladies, it seems you have been culturally screwed out of your independence.  Time to get it back!

Why Erotic Love is a Path to Awakening

August 20, 2016


Erotic love is as essential as groceries and yet, most of us are starving to death, or eating at McDonalds. The phrase “erotic love” is usually interpreted as sex or perhaps Neo-Tantra, but this is not what it originally meant. Once Tantra meant something far more profound and intelligent than the corrupt modern conceptions of this ancient art and science that have spread all over the globe. In some communities, tantrikas were selected at puberty and spent years being trained in raising their vital energy (known as kundalini) so that they could then share this powerful method of connecting with the divine with their partners. Apart from the classical education in body-mind refinement, they were taught disciplines such as herbal and energy healing, gardening, economics—both home and macro—agriculture, and in all of these was love. Tantra was a weaving of love into all aspects of life and yes, that did include sex.


prism-new baseSearching the Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon for the word love, one finds 531 responses. This is much greater than the dozen or so words in Greek and far beyond the Hollywood mushy gushy, codependent portrayal of love. It is possible to look at love as an energy spectrum, much like the Visible Light Spectrum (VLS). Of course, the VLS is only a tiny part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum. It is possible love is much bigger than we can see, and far more powerful than we’ve been told. Then, when we consider the color red representing the erotic love segment of the VLS, it is a very small part. But now, “passion” can be viewed as the amplitude of that energy. Passion will work for us in any endeavor. And, this view offers “rational” explanations for what appear to be irrational experiences.

Generally speaking, neither science nor sexperts look too closely at love. Dr. Helen Fisher attributes love to brain chemistry and says it only lasts until the children are old enough to raid the icebox. (Four to seven years old.)[1] Dr. Cindy Meston states that women have sex because it feels good.[2] For most guys this is true all the time—but not so for many women. She also in another study cites 237 reasons why humans have sex.[3]


Most of us do not bother to define sex or even think about a definition. I had to create a definition to state what I was talking about. Sex is the mental and/or physical stimulation of nerve endings and other areas, creating proteins and electrochemical energy that may result in pleasurable involuntary muscle contractions in the genitalia and other sexual responses. Most of sexual science ignores the “mental stimulation” and the other responses. For some, the mental stimulation is the most important part of the event. Science has shown that it is possible to produce an orgasmic experience without genital contact. It is scientifically called, “thinking off.” Really!


Science looks at hormones and other proteins produced in the orgasmic experience. Few look at where these originate: our genes. There is very little about enzymes, probably because they are used up in the experience. There is science on how fear creates methyl groups on our genes, preventing or modifying the production of proteins. The collection of these groups on our genes, as well as other chemical groups functioning in a similar fashion, is called the epigenome. As an example, if these methyl groups form on a gene producing dopamine, the feeling of pleasure will be changed or diminished in that individual. However, though there is no other science on love as energy and no science other than mechanical on our epigenome, love appears to dissolve the fear based methyl groups. We don’t know if that is what happens, but something in this process does work!


Much authoritative misinformation about sex and love exists in the literature. Dr. Beverly Whipple is one who at least says, “The data suggest…” or “it appears that…” She also says, “All women are different.” That could be an understatement. Knowledge comes from experience. Beliefs generally come from what we are told and our perception of our experience. “Sex is about pleasure.” If you have had pleasure in a sexual experience, then you believe it. From experience and anecdotal evidence of others, the pleasure is always greater when the partners are in love with each other. There are far more sexual responses than ‘orgasmic pleasure’ of which we have not been told. We are both misinformed and misled down the pleasure path without love. Pleasure is good, but there is so much more.


What we call “romance” are actually behaviors of love: actions given freely because we want to give, without expectation of a return. These behaviors are identified as Communication, Nourishing, Touching, Grooming, Gazing, Protection, Play, Smelling, and Sharing. Most of real foreplay takes place out of the bedroom. Think about it. The purpose of foreplay is to get her aroused and ready.  If she is already aroused and ready when you get to the bedroom, there is no need, except maybe to start her orgasmic experiences by touching and kissing.


There are characteristics or attributes of love we “see” or feel in us. These are: Acceptance, Admiration, Adoration, Appreciation, Cherishing, Compassion, Devotion, Empathy, Gratitude, Intimacy, Joy, Kindness, Mercy, Respect, Reverence, and Trust. Erotic love is simply bringing as many of these attributes, particularly the last three, and as many of the behaviors as possible into the bedroom with you. Once you get used to this new attitude, it becomes simple. Now I have to answer the question, “Why?”


In Think and Grow Rich, Napoleon Hill devoted a chapter to “The Mystery of Sex.”[4] He says, “The combination of love, sex and romance can raise a man from mediocrity to the altitude of genius.” (Women too, but Hill couldn’t say that in 1937.) Notice that Hill puts love first, and then ignores it. If we look at love dissolving our fear based methyl groups, and perhaps others, in terms of our “original” DNA, we become more authentic and less fear “normalized.” Who knows what unique talents and awareness will arise from our authenticity? It appears that love is the mystery, not the sex. Sex and romance never worked for me. Love did.


[1] Fisher, Helen, Why We Love, Henry Holt & Co. (An Owl Book) New York, 2004

[2] Meston Cindy M., Buss, David M., Why Women Have Sex, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2009

[3] Meston Cindy M., Buss, David M., Why Humans Have Sex, Arch Sex Behav. (2007) 36:477–507 DOI 10.1007/s10508-007-9175-2

[4] Hill, N., Think and Grow Rich, Wilder Publications, LLC, Radford VA.1937


The Dance of Dependency

November 26, 2015
Mother and chlid


Mankind has always been in some sort of dependent relationship with each other and with his or her environment.  Modern psychology, based on observing modern humans, notes five stages of dependency in our development from infancy:(total) dependent, co-dependent, counter-dependent, independent, and interdependent.  These stages are not necessarily linear and may be fluid, as well as broad spread.  They appear to be repeated in intimate relationships.

As an example, today government is co-dependent with the governed (tit-for-tat), and government attempts to make it a more dependent relationship.  Of course, in the tit-for-tat, government seems to be sucking too much from the tit and the illusionary, promised tat is not materializing.  The next step in the dance is counter-dependency, and with governments is historically bloody.  In intimate relationships it doesn’t have to be, but sometimes is.

Counter dependency can be an excellent step in the dance for personal growth as human beings.  Like it or not, we all wear masks and costumes.  We hold illusions about who we are.  In As You Like It Shakespeare says, “All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant, Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms.”  What is beautiful to me is our mates may see through the costumes and masks to our authentic selves.  They want us to stand naked before them as they are willing to stand naked before us.  To shed our costumes demanded by society.  The tragedy is many are so engrossed with the illusion of our identity we will defend it to the death: both of the relationship and literally.

The next problem is all we know is what we’ve been taught, most of which is bullshit to control us within whatever modern culture we live.  The word modern means the last 5000 years of man’s existence.  In today’s society we have many areas of our lives in which we are co-dependent.  I am co-dependent with my grocer.  I give him money and he gives me the food I have selected. Tit-for-tat.  Many are dependent on government for checks or food.  We generally apply these terms to interpersonal relationships and do not think of the nature of our dependent relationship on other entities.

What about our current relationship with the environment?  Simple.  We are destroying everything we have been given to survive and thrive.  We project our current beliefs onto primal man as to how they lived.  Yet, it would appear they were in an interdependent relationship with each other and nature.  I believe this interdependency with all was achieved through love.

We have taken the word “love” and diminished it to apply to intimate interpersonal relationship, and because that may include “sex” it turned into a “four-letter word.”  Words impact our beliefs and our beliefs impact how we live our lives.  Yet, intuitively we know “love” is a more encompassing word.  My objective is to take the word out of the tiny box into which it has been placed so that we may once again be interdependent and evolve.

The basic unit of mankind is “husband” and “wife,” whether “married” or not.  This basic unit existed long before ceremonies in any culture. From this basic unit came “the family:” a secondary unit, and then “the tribe” a tertiary unit.  All of these in various primal cultures had boundaries to insure their interdependence, and thereby their survival.  Their interdependence was complementary throughout the units.  There may have been an “alpha” male or female within the tribe, but probably intuitive enough to recognize the complementary interdependence required for survival.  The nice thing is, primal man was not concerned with our modern invention of labels.  He just was!

Now, let’s see where we are today by looking at our blueprint: our DNA coding.  Each of us is a beautifully unique creature. Nobody looks like anybody else. Nobody perceives like anybody else. Close maybe, but no cigar.  The first thing we can say about this blueprint is we only know how to read 3% of it and that not very well.  That 3% represents our genes and that is an arbitrary number of 25,000.  Geneticists were arguing over 20 or 30 thousand genes so they compromised on 25,000. Fuck them!  I am not arbitrary!  I am not a compromise!  I am unique and so are you!

I got that out of my system.  Next little thing we know is some of our genes are locked up by methyl groups.  They don’t work.  On one hand this contributes to our uniqueness. On the other, it “normalizes” us making us easier to control.  Occasionally these methyl groups vanish allowing that gene to be expressed and voila! The individual is cured of an incurable disease!  A personality change occurs because they are more receptive to sensory signals.  All kinds of strange and wondrous things happen at the genetic level with love, among other events like NDE’s.  I prefer love to a near death experience.

Erotic love seems to be the most powerful kind of love that will not only clean up our genes, but also allow us to pass on clean genes to our kids.  Seems to.  This is just what I have figured out from my experience and from what I have read trying to figure out what the heck was going on in my body.  A hundred or so years ago, Freud and others made a big whoop-te-do about our sexual repression being the root cause of our neuroses. This was another step in either limiting love to sex or divorcing love from sex.  Apparently we are practicing sex a lot more and most of us are still as crazy as bat doo!  So, why don’t we put love in the mix and see what happens?

I wanna be just was!


August 6, 2015



Most (damn near all) Western Homo sapiens sapiens (us) are whack jobs who can screw up an anvil with a rubber mallet!  Both genders, including me!

I began my research into sexology about 15 years ago to find out what was going on in our bodies after an awesome sexual experience.  It took 10 years just to find out the name: transcendent sex.  I got all the way down to the genetic level in our bodies without answers until I threw love into the pot.  Then it happened.  It worked!

I looked at love with an engineer’s eye: a different perspective.  Love is an energy spectrum impacting us at the genetic level.  It at least impacts our epigenome, and who knows after that?  Erotic love is apparently the most powerful because of the passion or amplitude of the energy we are transmitting.  Twenty-five hundred years ago, the Greeks defined Eros, the god of erotic love, as one who endowed us with creative powers and the ability to bring order out of chaos.  Around the time of Plato, Eros was diminished to the god of sexual pleasure.

One of the things I learned is sexology is very subjective.  Everybody is out to promote their view.  Me too.  The difference I claim is, I focus on love—attributes and behaviors—along with our biology.  I recognize there are no biological absolutes and we each have our own individual uniqueness.  I admit you are your own best “sex expert,” once you divest yourself of 5,000 years of fear-based BS creating your epigenome and screwing up your genes.  That is the tough part.

So, what is this war on women?  Face it!  We live in a greed based patriarchy.  We are given “standards of normalcy” from patriarchal authority.  What I have learned is that when I put anyone down, I am putting me down, which is where this authority wants me.  I don’t belong down!  Misogyny is not about putting women down.  It is about keeping men down!  The war on women is but a strategy in the war on love.  Until we come together in love, recognizing what fantastic creatures we and others are in their own right, “they” win!

%d bloggers like this: