The Myth of Sacred Prostitution

   I just read the introduction to “The Myth of Sacred Prostitution in the Ancient World.”  This is a scholarly work by Stephanie Bodin.  It was all I needed.  “Deflowering by foreigners” is a nice way of describing rape: an ancient (and modern) tactic of war to damage or destroy the keepers of the culture and thereby the culture of “the enemy.”  All it does is piss off the losers who are gonna get you later!

Alternative theory:  The temples where this allegedly took place might have been schools?  Tantrikas studied for 12 years, learning how to be a good wife, obviously not by the 1950’s definition.  Their education was asexual.  They were then married, usually to a high-ranking male.  The sexually based artifacts recovered might have been instructional aids.  (My definition of a “good wife” is embodied in Isis, whom I believed deified so that mortal women would not believe they could achieve her status.  They can!)

Herodotus, the father of history, and father of this myth, was simply another spin doctor, no different from the modern spin doctors.  Remember, “history” is written by winners leaving out that which is detrimental to “the cause,” and embellishing whatever helps them.

In my humble opinion the bottom line is sex is always a sacred act; it is we who profane it, by blocking or removing love from the act.  But, this is what we have been taught for centuries.  It’s damn time to unlearn these profane lessons of the past!

Sex is a Head Game!

 Sex is a head game based on myth, ignorance and misdirection.  The human body is a fantastic creation, much of it working just fine without any outside help.  Further it can be trained both physically and mentally to operate either beyond or below its “normal” functions.  Normal is defined “mathematically” as what most people do and think.

 A hasty generalization would be most of us are genetically predisposed to heterosexual relationships and inculcated to monogamy.  Some are not.   Within the majority, most are unaware of normal physiological sexual responses beyond small orgasms and many women are lacking even these.  We are trained and conditioned to deny our sexuality, our humanity.

 Most women in the USA have suffered sexual abuse in some form ranging from emotional abuse to sexual molestation (under 16) and rape.  This exists to some degree in every country in the world.  Our experience, including the myths we are taught to believe, uniquely shapes our perceptions.  Perceptions have their origins in our heads.  Ergo, sex is a head game.

 The myth under which most men suffer is sex is about pleasure: “getting their rocks off.”  Women are then either used like blow-up dolls for self-pleasure, or so much pressure is placed on men to “satisfy” their partner, they suffer emotional erectile dysfunction.  These are extremes, but they exist with an infinite range in between. 

 My experience and research have impacted my perception of sex as well.  Today, I see sex as a mechanism for transmitting love, where pleasure and ecstasy are by-products.  But we are not trained to love.  We are trained to not love, including in our intimate relationships.  Thankfully, some men have escaped the myths and conditioning and can love.  Not many, but they are out there!  Our re-training continues, for as it is said, “God isn’t finished with us yet.”

 Copyright Art Noble 2012

http://www.thesacredfemale.com

The Sexual Paradigm and Love

(This is a paper I hope to present at the International Network for Sexual Ethics and Politics in Ghent, Belgium this August.)

DRAFT: 

The Sexual Paradigm and Love

Abstract:

                In 1974, Robert C. Solomon noted, “It is one of the dangers of conceptual analysis that the philosopher’s 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 sexual paradigm under which we in Western civilization currently operate: pleasure and/or procreation: a political construct.   The paradigms to which he referred were but sub-sets of this one.  Further, it would seem that most researchers and others in the “sexual industry,” today look at sex with the blinders of this paradigm.  This paper suggests expanding the paradigm by including love and looking at both sex and love with a more objective view based on energy.  Energy divided by time is power.

            It is further suggested the power obtained by the individual through love is genetic in nature, however there is suffiecient anecdotal evidence to validate its existance regardless of its nature.

Body

              In Hindu mythology, the entire universe was created on the first orgasm of Shiva and Shakti, indicating this is a powerful experience.  In our current view of sex, we live with the paradigm sexual activity is only for pleasure and/or procreation.  The power of creation is ignored.  Eros, the god of love was originally “a primeval deity who embodied not only the force of erotic love but also the creative urge of ever-flowing nature, the firstborn Light for the coming into being and ordering of all things in the cosmos.”  Plato’s symposium changed that.

            Today, our grand sexual paradigm is that sex is either about pleasure or procreation or both.  Good scientists everywhere discuss, and even argue, over what brings the most pleasure to the greatest number of people, particularly women.  Since a lot of us are men, that is rather humorous on its face.  My research indicates women have much greater capacity for sexual pleasure than men, and we men are incapable of being in their bodies at a perceptive level.  All we can do is observe.  Further, most men limit orgasmic experience to the rush of endorphins accompanying ejaculation, believing, “that’s it.”

             Were I reading this, the first question I would ask, is what do 8000 year-old stories have to do with modern sexual politics?  The answer is, everything!  So, let us start with today’s paradigm, and then return to our history to see how we got here.

            There are many still suffering from Victorian prudery who would argue sexual pleasure is sinful… for everybody but themselves.  Throughout history, we oscillate on the pleasure question: pleasure is good or pleasure is bad.  This diverts us from looking at love as a part of the sex act.  Further, in the minds of the general public, and some scientists, the word “love” is specifically associated with the sex act, from which pleasure is derived.

             To understand how we might have arrived at  this sexual paradigm, I first would like to paraphrase three people.  First, Dr. Christopher Ryan who said, “Our cultivated ignorance (of sexuality) is devastating,” and “civilizations are based in greed.”[2]  Next, the founder of pseudo-psycho-sexual science, Dr. Sigmund Freud who exclaimed, “ Most of our neuroses are based in sex.”[3]  I don’t fully agree with much else they say, but they hit the mark with these statements.  Lastly, Napoleon Hill who said, “The combination of love, sex and romance can raise a man from mediocrity to the altitude of genius.”  Hill goes on to talk about “access to infinite intelligence,”[4] which I have discovered to be on an individual need to know basis.     

            During the hunter-gatherer phase of human development, before the advent of civilization, what did early man need to know?  Primarily where the food was and whether or not it was good to eat.  Where is the water?  Where can we find shelter?  How can we stay safe from animals that want to eat us?  If many had not answered these questions, we would not be here today.  I am less amazed by Australian aborigines ability to find water on their walkabouts than I once was.  They had a need to know and were directed to water.  Just before the Tsunami of 2004, native  villagers were heading for high ground while American and European tourists lolled on the beaches.  They, too, had a need to know.  Humans are fantastic creatures once we get out of our own way.

             To arrive at the conclusion that power, or “access to infinite intelligence” belongs in the paradigm, requires looking at both love and sex with a different set of glasses.  For the most part today we look at love as a feeling generated by brain chemistry.  This is a very narrow and anthropormorphic view of love.  There are many forms of love, mother love, brotherly love, etc., perhaps each generating their own version of brain chemistry.  Only erotic love has been studied by Fisher, et al[5].   Dr. Jenny Wade relates an example of this power in Transcendent Sex due to brotherly love.[6]  

            To understand how love can give us “access to infinite intelligence,” it is necessary to view love as energy.  It is suggested this energy has the power to modify our genetic code thereby creating the brain chemistry.  Where sexual desire is a function of the PVN in the hypothalamus, the effects of erotic love are more readily observed in the caudate nucleus and tegmentum.[7]  Further, orgasms based solely on sexual desire are observed to increase bloodflow in the right half of the brain[8]^,[9] whereas orgasms including love are observed in both halves of the brain.[10]

             Love has two attributes in common with energy: transmittal and transformation.  We may think of “transferring” love from one to the other, implying one’s feelings generated within the individual are for another.  However, we may be transmitting love through us to another.  

            The origin of this view comes from the story of Shiva, Parvatti and Kama.  Kama, god of love, was implored by the people of the Indus Valley, under attack by evil demons and spirits, to do something to get Shiva and Parvatti to have a son who would save them.  Kama shot Shiva with a arrow made from a flower as parvatti was walking by, and one result was Karttikeya, who save the people from the evil spirits and demons attacking them.  The other result was Shiva was angered at having his meditation interrupted so he hunted Kama, found him and focused the energy from his third eye on Kama.  Kama burst into flame leaving only a pile of ashes and this conditionless, boundryless, borderless love all about the world.  It is called ApAaga in Sanskrit, Agape in Greek and we call it unconditional love. 

            The next problem was how to model this, with the many forms of love.  I chose the visible light spectrum with Agapeas the light source.  This provides for the spectrum of the forms of love, our minds being the prism through which the light of love refracts. 

"Love's Prism" in Our Mind

. 

 

            Since prisms blocked in various areas do not let all the light through, we are left with only a partial rainbow of colors.  I chose “chewing gum” to represent the memes and other blocks to this light.  They may also be thought of as the conditions we put on love. 

 

Love's Prism With "Chewing Gum" Blocking Energy

            As I was working with this, I noted the rainbow from this prism, in the position of the ancient symbol for man—the blade, was inverse to the position of the colors in the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.  If I inverted it to represent the early symbol for woman—the chalice, what would happen?  Do women see love differently than men? 

 

Female View of Love?

            The last part of this assumption is the energy of love has the power to impact and modify our genetic code.  We know in the fetal stage of development mutation (alteration of base pair) occurs, along with genes jumping from one chromosome to another and  recombination also occurs.  Genetic restructuring is now being performed on adults.  Why can not love be a genetic modifying agent?  This, of course, is simply speculation.  Anecdotal evidence form Enkidu’s transformation in The Epic of Gilgamesh, through the “Divine Enlightenment” of Tantra, to Napoleon Hill’s observations in 1937 would indicate the existence of this phenomenon.  It makes no difference if it is genetic modification or not.  It happens.

            Now we can look at adultery and other relationship forms with a different eye.  Did it occur during the hunter-gatherer age?  Probably, but not to the extent it did when women were diminished to economic commodities, belonging to their father.  Through out history thereafter women “belonged” to either father or husband having the status of chattel.  In many cultures today, women are still sold into marriage, or simply sold.

            What did the hunter-gatherer have that we don’t?  First, they were not laden with all the garbage ideas we have about sex, and were probably a lot happier with it than we are today.  Secondly, they did not have the barriers to love that we have today.  Thirdly, they probably had a lot more respect for everything, including their women.  We can see this respect today in indigenous peoples around the world.  But we call them “savages.”   They have nowhere near the desire we have for material things, although Western culture has tipped many toward greed.  Many cultures now practice polyandry, polygamy, omni-gamy, and possibly even circular monogamy.  I don’t know if the latter exists yet, but we humans are inventive. 

            Stephanie Coontz traced the history of marriage back to the beginnings of civilization and found it to be an economic institution.[11]  In the agrarian age, adjacent farmers could merge their fields through the marriage of the son of one to the daughter of the other.  These arranged marriages neglected the wishes of the children, as they have throughout history.  “Wishes” is a very weak word when primal forces are at work.  We know today women have the ability to smell a man’s MHC[12] and it is believed they can determine at least immuno-compatibility for the offspring.  We know not what other forces may be working as well.  We can certainly presume it would be very difficult for a woman to copulate with a man whose smell was offensive to her, even when he was freshly bathed.  Bathing itself, an unusual circumstance in those days.

            As villages grew into towns, and towns into cities, we had war.  Somebody had something somebody else wanted, so they amassed a force of men and took it.  “To the victor belong the spoils of the enemy” is said to be coined by New York Senator William J. Marcey, referring to the victory of the Jackson Democrats in the election of 1828.  However, many tribal nations also live by this.  If we searched history for this phrase, we could probably find it, or something comprable, dating back thousands of years. 

            Men with “access to infinite intelligence” have a drawback for leaders.  They don’t believe the spin.  Spin is nothing new.  Brainwashing is nothing new.   Since not all marriages were arranged, men had a better opportunity of falling in love with a woman as their economic value was in its infancy.  This led to men applying the combination of love, sex and romance with amazing results for them.  They were not as likely to believe the exortations of the leaders of the day and resist military service.  Defense was one thing, but stealing from a nearby village was another.  This resistance had to be stopped!  Enter misogyny.

            If we put negative ideas about women in the heads of men, they will be more malleable and we can have more soldiers.  I use the word “soldier” loosely.  This also refers to “soldiers” of the fields, factories and other industries throughout history.   The myths about women began, and today, some women and a lot of men still believe them.   These are essentially conditions we put on love.

            Economics is about the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services from scarce resources.  Politics is about the control of those resources and the distribution of wealth created from those resources.  So, when we talk about the politics of sex, we should be looking at women as a resource, a valuable resource!  That is, a valuable resource to the individual man.  This is a resource that needs to be protected, rather than controlled.  By “protection” I do not mean legislated onto some pedestal, rather treated with far more respect than has been afforded them throughout the history of civilization.  However, with the power of love in a group of individuals, other resources are not as easily “controlled” by politics.  We now see this paradigm as a political construct.

            In order to “control” production of these resources: to have early farms and later industries grow larger, it was necessary to “control” the relationship between men and women.  As patriarchy grew, rules were laid down for women.  Daughters being chattel was but one of many.  Sexual myths were promulgated to divide us.  Women became “less than.”  Workers and soldiers were needed for farms and war.  Sons were valued over daughters to not only extend the patriarchy, but we are more easily manipulated into becoming soldiers and workers.  The war between the sexes began.

            A basic strategy of war is divide and conquer.  The current “war on women” is simply another battle in the war between the sexes, beginning at the dawn of civilization.  Most who wage this war today have no idea what they are doing or why.  After 10,000 years, it is just the way it is.  The tactics of this war are demonization, dismissal, denigration and deification.

            The early temples of Ishtar, Inanna and other goddesses were created to set some women apart as priestesses, implying they only, should be worshipped by men, while wives sat at home alone.  Divide and conquer.  This deification was carried over into the concept of motherhood to the extent during the Victorian era, wives were for procreation and mistresses were for pleasure.  An extreme result of this is the whore/Madonna complex underlying many relationships today in both genders.  It should be noted all women have essentially the same anatomical structures, but it appears cultural conditioning prevents both men and women from their full usage through love or pleasure.  The mind is both powerful and malleable.

            The myth of Lilith I knew nothing about until I started my research in this field a few years ago.  Yet, the “missionary position” was all I knew for most of my sexually active life.  It seems the purpose of that myth was to keep the male superior.  And Lilith, for wanting to get on top, was heavily demonized.  She was demonized in early Sumerian literature as a baby killer, but the Hebrew myth of the 13^th Century had her consorting with demons, sleeping with men in their dreams to create more demons, and making Adam out to be a dummy.  He should have known the one on top does all the work.  Myths, like sea stories grow with the telling.  The most modern, Robert Graves’ version is probably the worst.

            We have dismissed women for centuries with, “Oh.  She’s just a woman.  What does she know?”   In the 19^th Century, women who wished to enter the professional world were deemed hysterical and were given hysterectomies.   This of course removed anatomical structures that could be quite valuable to men.  But men have not considered women as a valuable resource for eons, except in rare cases.

            We continue to denigrate women, as is being done in the American Congress today with the media carrying the battle cry.  We neither recognize women as a resource nor the power of love to refine that resource for our benefit.  The paradigm of pleasure/procreation is still in gross operation to the detriment of men around the globe.

             We now can also see how the ancient stories of love, without the political construct of pleasure/procreation, can yield this power to men rendering the construct to a sick joke.  Neither procreation nor pleasure are “sick jokes.”  Rather it is the removal of love from the paradigm as a consideration.  Further, this removal may retard our evolutionary future.  It is the purpose of this paper for Sexologists everywhere to consider bringing love into the paradigm, showing the power of love to both genders.  “How ethical is this,” is a question only you may answer.

---

 

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

[2]  Ryan, C., Jetha, C, Sex at Dawn, Harper Perennial, New York, NY, 2009

[3] The Freud Reader, ed. Peter Gay, W.W. Norton & Co., New York 1989

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

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

[6]  Wade, J., Transcendent Sex, Pocket Books, New York, NY, 2004

[7] Ibid. Fisher, Helen.

[8] Arnow, B.A., J.E. Desmond, L.L. Banner, G.H. Glover, A. Solomon, M.L. Polan, and S.W. Atlas. Brain activation and sexual arousal in healthy, heterosexual males, Brain 125:1014-23, 2002

[9] Janszky, J., A. Szucs, P. Halasz, C. Borbely, A. Hollo, P. Barsi, and Z. Mirnics, Orgasmic aura originates from the right hemisphere, Neurology 58:302-04. 2002.

[10] Ibid. Fisher, H.

[11] Coontz, S., Marriage, a History, Penguin Group (USA), 2006

[12] Meston, Cindy M., Buss, David M., Why Women Have Sex, Henry Holt and Co., New York, NY, 2009

Author’s Note

(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

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.

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

“The Mystery of Sex”

            Don’t blame me.  I didn’t say it.  Napoleon Hill said it.  It is the title of a chapter in one of his books.  Who th’ hell is Napoleon Hill, you ask?  He was the Deepak Chopra and Tony Robbins of the 1920’s and 1930’s.  His book, Think and Grow Rich, was published in 1937!  That’s seventy-five years ago!  That was even before MY time!

You can read this chapter on line at http://books.google.com/books?id=c86H36mgiM4C&pg=PP&&dq=According+to+Napoleon+Hill,+98%25+…#PPA182,M1  starting on page 182.

Here are some quotes from that book:

The emotion of sex brings into being a state of mind.  Because of ignorance on the subject, this state of mind in generally associated with the physical, and because of improper influences, to which most people have been subjected, in acquiring knowledge of sex; things essentially physical have highly biased the mind. 

The emotion of sex, has back of it the possibility of three constructive potentialities, they are—

1.      The perpetuation of Mankind.

2.      The maintenance of health, (as a therapeutic agency, it has no equal).

3.      The transformation of mediocrity into genius through transmutation. (Bold emphasis is mine.)

 “Highly biased”?  See my blog on dysassociative sex.  His items 1 & 2 are what I call the pleasure/procreation paradigm.  But, his item #3 is why I wrote The Sacred Female!  The transmutation he speaks of may be a result of the transcendental experience I speak of.  However, the transcendental experience may not be necessary for the transmutation.  (Transmutation is simply the changing of one element or form of energy into another.)  But, more Hill.

Love, romance and sex are all emotions capable of driving men to heights of super achievement.  Love is the emotion which serves as a safety valve, and insures balance, poise, and constructive effort.  When combined, these three emotions may lift one to an altitude of a genius. There are genuii, however, who know but little of the emotion of love.  Most of them may be found engaged in some form of action which is destructive or at least, not based upon justice and fairness toward others.  If good taste would permit, a dozen genii could be named in the field of industry and finance who ride ruthlessly over the rights of their fellow men.  They seem totally lacking in conscience.  The reader can easily supply his own list of such men.  (Bold emphasis mine.)

Can you imagine?  He wrote this long before George Bush was born!  Nah!  Bush is no genius.

Now, you may think I wrote The Sacred Female to enhance the pleasure of women.  OK.  I did.  Why?  Accepting the various sexual responses of women is a part of loving them.  It seems the greater their sexual pleasure, the easier it is for them to provide this transcendental experience for men.  It clears the decks for action.  However, MEN ARE THE RECIPIANTS OF THIS GENIUS!  I wrote the book so men could survive and prosper in the tough times ahead.  I figured women would be the best teachers.

PS.  You can read The Sacred Female at http://authonomy,com, a Harper Collins UK site.  I’ve tried figuring out the URL, but unless you paste it into a new browser, it won’t work.    Here it is:

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=authonomy.com&page=1&qsrc=0&zoom=&ab=0&u=http%3A%2F%2Fauthonomy.com%2F

www.thesacredfemale.com

Copyright 2012 Art Noble

A “Higher Purpose” for Men and Women

(This will be the “Author’s Note” in The Alchemy of Erotic Love… for Guys.)

  When it comes to women, men are taught to view them as either “brood cows” or “Pleasure Palaces.”  It wasn’t always this way.  We are taught to penetrate them as we did the enemy long ago, with sword and spear from behind a shield.  Even the word, vagina, means “scabbard” or “sheath” in Latin.  The bedroom is not a battlefield!  We treat them as a glass of beer, sipping only the frothy head, leaving the delicious nectar beneath to go flat and stale.  We do this at our own peril!

Join me as we look at woman without the perfumed blinders of pleasure and/or procreation.  We will look at her scientifically through the magnifying lens of love.  This lens is not the mushy gushy stuff of chick flicks, rather the lens that focuses the sun’s energy on us to ignite the creative flames of men’s souls.

I will not lead you down some primrose path of ethereal foo-foo talk.  I have been there and they all dead-end for me.  I wanted hard-core answers!  However, science hasn’t been there yet.  The flame in me can only suggest what science might find when they get there.  If my scientific speculation on what might be going on in the human body is wrong, it doesn’t make any difference.  The results are there, if you want them.

Many Gurus will tell you, ”I am right.  Believe me.”  I won’t.  As the old saying goes, “The proof of the pudding is in the tasting.”  Don’t believe me!  Try it for yourself.  Only when you have the results, will you believe me, and my speculative mechanisms still could be wrong.  I don’t think so, but it makes no difference.  The results are there, if you want them.

Oh, yes.  Our higher purpose?  To love and be loved.  That simple!

Copyright 2012 Art Noble

http://www.thesacredfemale.com

The Epic of Gilgamesh: 2nd Generation

 

(These tablets were found in the imaginary archeological dig of my mind.)

 

TABLET 1

 

Grok, High Priest in the Temple of George,

Sat tattered and forlorn.

He watched as down the street

At the Temple of Ishtar

Lines were long and the sound of coin

Grated upon his ears.

Radiant men left the Temple,

Imbued with the power of Love.

 

Gilgamesh Jr., too, was

Discombobulated, and

The coffers of Urek grew empty.

His army dissipated as the

Men of Urek grew prosperous and

Content in their Joy,

Transformed with the power of Love.

Jr. could no longer raid and loot

Neighboring towns and states

For all war is simply

Theft and murder by Kings.

Grok with Jr., pondered

Until Jr. said, “I have a plan!”

 

TABLET 2

 

Jr. called for his stealthiest assassin

And in confidence ordered him

To the house of Anktor, his General.

Jr. told the assassin to cut his throat

Then sever his penis

And bring it to Grok

In the Temple of George.

The assassin did

As he was bid.

 

The next morn

A great cry arose from Urek

As this news spread.

People gathered in the street,

And were startled by Grok

Waving the severed penis over head.

“George is angered,” he cried.

“You spend your time with Ishtar.”

“You ignore the Great God George.”

“This is your fate!”

 

Fearful, the men entered

The Temple of George,

Dropping their coin as they entered,

Music to the ears of Grok,

To humble themselves before George

As once they humbled themselves

Before Ishtar and their wives.

They left the Temple more fearful

Than when they entered.

 

Now believing only

The demise of Ishtar would save them

They whipped the Priestesses

Out of Urek

And ransacked the Temple

Bringing the wealth to Grok

(Who split it with Jr.)

 

The army gathered

Sumer was attacked

Men had coin for George

The coffers of Urek were filled,

And misogyny was born.

 

2/15/12

Copyright Art Noble 2012

www.thesacredfemale.com

 

Love: A Many Splendored Spectrum: A Physical Model of Love

“I find Art’s prismatic model of love intriguing in its simplicity and inclusiveness.  It would fit well into any religion or belief system.” 

Fr. Thomas J. Rynne.

Abstract:  Love is currently defined as a feeling, generated by altered brain chemistry and then, generally between a man and woman.  This definition of love limits our capacity as human beings.  The proposed model of love is simply a model from which many simplistic observations can be made.  It also offers a different look at “boundaries.” Love can then be defined as any relationship with a noun (person, place or thing) that brings some “quantity” of joy into the life of the lover.  I love a good steak dinner, but I prefer women.  Maybe it really is simple?

~~~

While in the throes of failed models for love, I came across a mind-blowing Hindu myth:

Once upon a time, in the Indus Valley, running through parts of what we now call India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, the people were under attack by evil gods and demons.  They learned their only salvation would come from the son of Shiva, a god representing the Divine Masculine, and Shakti, a goddess representing the Divine Feminine, then in her second incarnation as Parvati. The people went to Shiva, an ascetic god, and pleaded with him.  They interuppted his meditation, so he told them to bug off.  The people then went to Kama, the god of love, and told him the story.  Kama said he would see what he could do.  Kama fashioned a bow from sugarcane and an arrow from a flower.  He waited until Parvati was walking by Shiva and shot Shiva with the arrow.

There were two results;

1.  The birth of Karttikeya who slew the demons and evil spirits, and

2.  Shiva was resentful at Kama for messing up his way of life.  Shiva hunted Kama and when he found him, focused the energy from his third eye upon him.  Kama burst into flames leaving only a pile of ash and borderless, boundryless, conditionless love all about the world.  Think of the earth’s magnetic field.  Where ever we go, there it is. 

Next, I checked out the Cologne Sanskrit Digital Lexicon and found 531 responses for the word “love,”  most dealing with erotic love.  This boderless love in Sanskrit was called ApAaga.  No way they were going to fit on a Venn diagram.  The question was, if love is not a feeling, what could it be?  Since Einstein, everything is energy. 

E=mc²

Energy has two attributes that may be considered common with love: it can be transmitted and it can be transformed.  Look at electrical energy.  It is transmitted along wires into a microwave oven where it is transformed into microwave energy.  This energy is then transformed into heat energy when we “nuke” a potato.  We know this every time we take a hot, baked potato out of the microwave oven. Chapter 1 talks about our transformation.  The easiest way to model love would be as energy. 

We can transmit love with a smile.  The smile makes us feel better and perhaps the person we are smiling to feels better also.  We have “transformed” our feelings.  So, we can look at love as energy.  What kind of energy?  Who knows and who cares?  This is only a model and it seems to work.  This is not to say love is or is not energy.  It is simply a way of looking at it.  If it is energy, we can let others get down to the nitty gritty of frequencies and wavelengths and all the scientific stuff.  There is work in Russia regarding “attitudes” impacting our genes, and who knows: love may simply be an attitude?  Or is an attitude simply a reflection of our thoughts?

Metaphorically, let’s look at love energy as though it were light energy.  We’ve heard a lot about “unconditional love:” Agape, or “ApAaga” in Sanskrit.  Let’s imagine it to be white light.  Yet, there are many kinds of love: brotherly love, erotic love, mother love, etc.  A way of separating white light into its component colors is through a prism.  A way of separating unconditional love into its various forms is through people, or what is in our minds.  We are as love’s prism.

 

Love refracting through the prism of our mind.

            Others, with greater spiritual knowledge than I, believe energy is concentrated in various sections of our bodies called “Chakras,” which are color-coded.  The “red Chakra” or “root Chakra” is located in the genital area, so we can let red represent erotic love, right at the top.  We can also coordinate other forms of love with these colors.  It is important to note that the colors have tiny, blurred boundaries.  The colors are scientifically defined by given areas of frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum.  In other words, red isn’t orange.  We should know our boundaries and protect them.

            Some 400 years ago, Newton and others observed if you screened or blocked part of the white light at the prism, you only got part of the rainbow.  If you blocked the prism on the other side, you only got part of the rainbow.  Sometimes one or both sides are just dirty and need a good washing, particularly in the region of erotic love.  The screens blocked the light just as the conditions we place on our love block that energy.  As an example, a guy becomes enamored of his secretary and finds the feeling is mutual.  When they begin the affair, what is the first condition, spoken or unspoken, he puts on his love?—“Don’t tell my wife.”  “Conditions,” or “screens” are generally based in fear.  It is like sticking a piece of chewing gum on the prism.  Other conditions we might place on our beloved might range from “Don’t ejaculate,” to “Don’t squeeze the toothpaste in the middle.”

 

              “Love’s Prism with a piece of Chewing gum.”

Of course, we all have these little bits of chewing gum all over our prisms and our “rainbow” is missing a lot of colors.  For the intellectual, these bits of chewing gum are called “memes” or “viruses of the mind.”  They are simple, subject-verb-object, negative thoughs, many implanted and transferred over the centuries.  “Women are evil,” is traced to the Malleus Maleficarum of 1486 and “men are dogs” may go back to Lysistrata around 411 BC.  Or as it is said in the military, “Grab ‘em by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.”  It is quite similar to Pavlov’s dogs where we are conditioned to respond.

            We all have screens over our prisms, or conditions we put on love.  We seem to congregate with others who have screens covering the same areas of the prism.  I don’t know or care where your screens are.  Sometimes I think what we call “true love” is no more than two people having chewing gum in the same places on their respective prisms.  Problems arise when one scrapes some of it off.   I am here to simply suggest we at least change our screens from opaque to translucent.  Or scrape some of the chewing gum off. Let a little light through. 

 

Now, why would we want to wash our “prismatic” self?  If a smile can make us feel better, what would allowing love to stream through us do to us when we are making love with our beloved?  There is a lot more intense energy being generated in sexual congress than in just smiling. 

Science knows of many different proteins being created during this time, but certainly not all of them.  We know from ancient and modern history, transformations of we humans can occur through sexual love.  Oh yeah, with love, the sex is better too.

Of course, this is simply the speculation of a novelist. If this speculation is anywhere near correct, don’t think for an instant it deprives love of its mystery.  We will all be long gone from this mortal coil, or mortal double helix, before science accepts love as energy.  Even then, the mystery will remain.  I hope I am wrong about science.  But this is simply provided as a different way of looking at love.  I’m an engineer.  Whaddya expect? 

We modeled our spectrum of love on the visible light spectrum, mostly so we could visualize it.  We humans need this. But, visible light is only a tiny part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum (EMS), and this shows “erotic love” at the bottom, because red has a lower frequency,but a longer wavelength than purple.

 Let’s see what science says about these frequencies.

It can be seen from the different forms of human love, our behaviors would occupy different areas of the spectrum within the boundaries.  The frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum of the basic colors are measured in Tetrahertz (10¹² Hz) as follows:

Indigo-             665 – 715 Thz

Blue-                610 – 680 Thz

Green-             520 – 570 Thz

Yellow-            515 – 525 Thz

Orange-           485 – 510 Thz

Red-                405 – 480 Thz

We are just interested in the numbers.  Note the 5 Thz gaps between red and orange and orange and yellow.  There are “colors” and frequencies in those gaps, but they are neither red nor orange.  (Red-orange?)  Also note how green, blue and indigo overlap.  I don’t think the guys defining colors had anything to do but argue over which color was which, so they probably compromised on these numbers.  Maybe we might consider bringing all of these “colors” into the bedroom.

Could Love be Different for Women?

In looking at our prism, we can see it represents the ancient male symbol, the blade.  If we turned it upside down, it would represent the ancient female symbol, the chalice and red would be at the bottom, as it is in the EMS.  I wonder, do women look at love differently?  But that would be only a perception of this energy.  The energy itself has no gender attached: it embraces us all, if we allow it.

 

 

Could Love be Bigger?

            Our model of the prism and visible light spectrum only looks at the range of love as humans can perceive it, or perhaps intellectually know of it.  The EMS is a lot bigger.  Maybe the EMS is a measurable shadow of the love spectrum?  Perhaps to “perceive” more of it would require opening of other senses?  Forget it!  We have enough to handle right here.

How Do We Love?

            Now that we’ve finished all the theoretical stuff, we can forget it.  Let’s get down to brass tacks.  You’ve met a young lady, or you might be married to her.  Your paraventricular nucleus in the hypothalamus is putting out “those” signals.  You want to ravage her body.  Now, what about your desire to give her love?  You may “love” her as a friend, but that doesn’t give you “those” signals.  If all you have is “those” signals, get a blow up doll.  They don’t take the house when it is over. 

            When we get into sexual anatomy, you wil

l see what a fantastic creature a woman is, just from an anatomical point of view.  We know they think differently, possibly because of the corpus callosum connecting the left and right halves of the brain.  This is cool because they can offer a different perspective on the same problem and keep us from beating our heads against a wall, if we listen to them.  They have a lot going for them, besides being a “friend with benefits.” 

            OK.  Now, how much do you really know about this woman?  Can you think about her in a non-erotic way?  Just about what a good mother she is, about all the attributes she has; how she treats her friends and yours; how she behaves with you in public and in private (remember, this is non-erotic.)  When you can think about her in a non-erotic way and still get a bulge in your trousers, this is a pretty good indicator that you are in love.

            If we think we are responsible for love, we are putting a burden on ourselves.  By viewing it as something (energy?) outside of us, it makes it a lot easier.  We simply have to open ourselves to it.

            I’m just a guy with as much “chewing gum” on my prism as you will find under a 7^th grade desktop.  When I wanted to give my love to my beloved, I figured I didn’t have much to offer.  Then I thought, “God can do a much better job than me.”  I envisioned a door on my back, opened it up and let God love her through me.  Done deal.  I wanted to give her the best of everything, including love.  I had not formulated the energy concept at the time.  It was that kind of desire to love, as well as ravage her body.  The temporary results were phenomenal!  I don’t know if I chose the right one or the wrong one, because it didn’t last long.  Damn near killed me when it ended.  But, the experiences I enjoyed, and I mean enjoyed at the deepest sense of the word, with her and others, led to my research to find out just what the hell was going on in our bodies, that I now share with you.  You don’t have to envision a door on your back.  For a poet, I am rather prosaic in these matters.  You may want to think of love as X-rays, and all you have to do is stand in front of the machine and let it pass through you to her.  Whatever works for you will be just fine, but it helps a lot if she is doing the same thing, with whatever works for her.

Yes, it is this simple.  Not easy, but simple.

There is a lot of talk about “foreplay” generally done in the bedroom as foreplay for sex.  Foreplay for love is done out of the bedroom, from a sense of desire to love.  When we bring that into the bedroom, Hoo Boy!  We’ll look at this in the next chapter.

Abraham Maslow

            In 1954, Maslow developed a hierarchy of human needs.  Later these were modeled in the triangle fashion as such: 

 

It is now suggested we take another look at this hierarchy to see how these needs are actually met, noting that Maslow based this hierarchy on

what he considered “healthy” individuals.  This is just a thought for consideration with our new perspective on love, not saying this is the way it is.

 

            Looking at this through our developmental stages, from infancy, childhood, adulthood, up to death, we all need to love and be loved.  In infancy, regardless of the time period in human history, our parents met most of our physiological and safety needs.  Even sexual intimacy in childhood is observed in children playing with their wee-wee’s, until parents come along and beat the crap out of them.  Love in, from and through the family, gives us our sense of belonging as well as our esteem.  Developing past puberty, sexual intimacy will give us the ability to create and self-actualize, however, self love is also very important here, including children getting a sense of sexual intimacy with themselves.  We simply open our selves to it for us.?

Copyright Art Noble 2010

www.thesacredfemale.com