Posts Tagged ‘Evolution’

The Alchemy of Erotic Love… forGuys: Chapter 1. Where Are We?

April 28, 2014

What do we think about sex and love? Why do we think about sex the way we do? Where do you start a book like this? The best place to startmight be from where we are, and then work both past and future. What is important is not what “we” think, but what you think, and why.

 

What we think about sex is unique to each of us, but generally ranges from “it’s better than masturbation” to “it’s the most wondrous experience in life.” What I found humorous in my research is there is no clinical or scientific definition of sex! We all assume everybody knows what it is and what we are talking about. The problem is we can only define it from our own experience and education. Then, our education depends on how we interpret the opinion of others based on our own unique experiences. And then, we have our point of view.

 

The first thing I would like to offer for your consideration is a clinical definition of sex. “Sex is the mental and/or physical stimulation of nerve endings, creating electro/chemical energy that may result in pleasurable involuntary muscle contractions in the genitalia and other sexual responses.” Sex is also a mechanism for transmitting love, and we’ll get to this later.

 

As we will see throughout the book, this definition opens a larger can of worms than it closes. I have observed involuntary muscle contractions ranging from a gentle fluttering or buzzing in the genitalia (accompanied by a sigh of relief) to something resembling a grand mal seizure. Further, science doesn’t know what the “nerve impulses” are or if they vary with the individual? The bottom line is what we know about sex is primarily the opinion of others (including me) that limits our perception and experiences. I have no idea how far you can go and all I want to do here is give you more options by taking your blinders off. You may experience more pleasure and have other results as well.

 

Generally speaking what I have learned from others is that sex is either about pleasure or procreation. A distinct effort is made to keep love outof the equation. I call this the “Pleasure/procreation paradigm.” A paradigm describes distinct concepts or thought patterns. Even with this definition, we each have our own perception of the concept. When it comes to sex, there are about 7.5 billion perceptions of sex, one for each of us, and each of us believes most of the rest of us holds the same perception, but if you don’t, you are a pervert. I don’t think you are a pervert. I think you hold a different perception of sex and love than I do. All I am offering you here is a different angle to look at your perception. As you will see in Chapter 7, our sexuality is simply based on how we view sex, and that is a function of many factors.

 

In1974, Robert C. Solomon noted, “It is one of the dangers of conceptual analysis that the philosophers choice of paradigms betrays a personal bias, but it is an exceptional danger of sexual conceptual analysis that one’s choice of paradigms also betrays one’s private fantasies and obsessions.”1 What Solomon did not recognize is the overall sexual paradigm under which we in Western civilization currently operate (for 5000 years+/-): pleasure and/or procreation. The paradigms to which he referred were but sub-sets of this one, which in and of itself is a political construct. What this political construct does is keep us focused on pleasure or procreation and keeps us from focusing on love. We will see that love may be different from what we imagine it to be and in the next chapter we will see it can change us in wondrous ways.
Maintenance of the paradigm may also be viewed as “the war between the sexes.” The primary strategy of war is “divide and conquer.” In this war, the tactics are the four “D’s:” deification, demonization, denigration, and dismissal. I’ve found a number of historic documents that blatantly show these mechanisms and will discuss them in detail later, along with more modern erroneous myths. The problem is even though we are not consciously aware of these myths and misinformation; they permeate our society. I’d never heard of the Myth of Lilith, yet for years limited myself to the missionary position.

 

Lilith was among the first to be demonized; later the Malleus Maleficarum demonized all women. The goal of deification is to put the opposite sex, or the sexual relationship out of reach as seen between Isis and Osiris. To some extent, even “motherhood” is deified. The extreme end of the sexual paradigm is for men to view women as either sacred brood cows or pleasure palaces: both ludicrous. A man’s love for woman will be the salvation of mankind, should they accept it and return it.

 

Around1250 CE, Vincent of Beauvais wrote the Speculum Maius (The Great Mirror), the Funk& Wagnalls Encyclopedia of the time. In there was a section consisting of 2734 chapters called the Speculum Doctrinale. Deep in one of those chapters is an admonishment for husbands not to love our wives too much. This seems to have stuck!

 

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

 

Through the ages, the word “divine” became woo-speak. It simply means having the ability to see or find the unseen. It is more about accessing our intuition and being able to solve problems without knowing how we are doing it. Although that “ignorance” in my left-brain, sometimes ticks me off, it works.

 

My point of view (POV) came from a transcendent experience, following my then beloved glowing like a firefly, lighting the room.  I was in blackness. There appeared a point of shimmering light, I recognized as my essence.

Then, another point of light I recognized as her essence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The two lights danced toward each other,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

becoming one bright light.

 

 

 
Beginning with the blackness, I was inthe presence of God and God was smiling.  THE POINTS OF LIGHT HAD NOGENDER.  There was no masculine or feminine, divine or otherwise in this dimension, or plane, whatever you want to call it.  No more than photons have gender.  I don’t know if I had “an orgasm” or not.  This was a part of that orgasmic experience.

 

This type of transcendent experience is called merging and it has many variations, as many as there are “types” of transcendence. “Any kind of transcendence with a partner is no guarantee of a lasting relationship.”  I read this in Jenny Wade’s book, “Transcendent Sex,” ten years later and smiled, because she was gone in four days. All this is discussed in later chapters.

 

Our society, or culture what ever you wish to call it, conditions us to believe, as it once did me, men are penises with wallets attached, the larger the better, and women are toys for pleasure or breeding to satisfy our respective egos.

 

There was one other element to my experience I forgot to mention: love; as close to “unconditional love” as I have ever experienced.  As I plowed through my research, I ignored it.  But something was missing?  DUH! Love!  With love everything fell into place.  Better yet, I was aware that I could recognize the essence of someone and had the capacity to love that essence unconditionally as well as receive her love.

 

In this life, or on this plane, where most of us exist, men and women are different.  We have different anatomies, not only in our genitalia but also all over our bodies.  I believe this anatomical difference was given to us for a reason.  I can’t put my finger on it, but I like it. It seems first we unite in the flesh, becoming one flesh.  Then we unite as male/female to female/male. Then we can see our essence,without gender, though in this life our gender will be with us ‘till we die.  The order is immaterial and there may be more.

 

My work leads me to believe as sentient,biological beings we have the capacity to make this leap.  It is a process: quickly for some, a long winding road for others. I choose to begin at the beginning, in this plane, this life, leaving each to their own quantum leap.  Is there more?  Probably. I can only lead as far as I have gone and leave the door open for the individuals who wish to pass through.  I also recognize other POV’s, because mine is not the only one.   Yet in the other ones I like, I can always find the love, even with another name.

 

Why is my book “… for Guys?” I chose to begin at the beginning.  In this life, I am a guy. As such, I have no business telling a woman how she should feel, beor what she should do.  I don’t even tell guys this.  I tell them what I have done and observed what works.  I tell them what my perspective is and how it changed my life.  How I think it works is all intuitive speculation.  I just know the results.

 

I describe the fantastic male and female interior genitalia for guys, using parts lists and wiring schematics.  I talk about responses few have experienced or even heard of.  This is just so they will know and not be frightened when and if they happen.  I talk about anatomical differences between men and women.  Women have a better connection between left and right brain, due to a thicker corpus callosum.  Sensory perception is a function of both halves.  Women have about 4000 genes on Chromosome #23, and men only have 2084.  Women have the capacity for billions of different kinds of orgasms (slight to major variations) men may have a dozen or more and usually limit themselves to one.  We are all unique creatures, but women are far more fluid and their bodies respond in accordance with their monthly cycle, making them an adventure.  If nothing else, I hope men develop more respect for women, simply based on their anatomy. My goal is to make this book an anachronism.  We will look back on it and smile, shaking our heads, saying, “weren’t we silly. All we gotta do is love.”

 

We are going to get into Archeology later, but I have to wonder about primal man. Suppose there was one who could read English, who picked up this book. He would probably look at it and ask, “What do I need this for?” When looking at how primal man lived, Archeologists project their perception of sex, their sexuality, on to primal man. Each of them has their own agenda, mostly to show they are not perverted. This way, they get to keep their job. I wonder, if without all the garbage we carry around, primal man was not more “advanced” than we give him credit? It’s just a thought.

Genital Detachment.

November 1, 2013

Woman glyph  I snicker at all the modern gurus who tell us to “get centered” then take the cookie cutter of disregard to our genitalia in the center of our bodies.   Consider an automotive engineer lecturing on how an automobile works, ignoring the carburetor.  Words, their use or non-use, have a direct impact on how we think.  And how we think is how we are… up to a point.

We did not come into this world separated from our genitalia or thinking “sex’ was a bad thing.  Toddlers explore their genitalia, until their parents come along and slap the crap out of them for doing something bad.  So, we begin detaching from our genitalia early in life.  Of course, if mine (male) are bad, yours are worse, ‘cause you are just a girl.  Or, the other way around.

This is nothing new.  Throughout history, we’ve developed what we euphemistically call “pet names” for our genitalia.  There are 2600 in English.  Most are vile, as in violent.  Some, deriving their name from sacredness were turned to express disgust.  I see this as part of some grand conspiracy to keep us from the full glory of our humanity.  This way, we may remain subservient to some sadistic, sociopathic “authority.”  It is a big con game and we are the dupes!

The big con is the politically constructed, sexual paradigm of pleasure and/or procreation.  That’s it.  That is all sex is about: one or the other.  By detaching our genitalia, even objectively with words like “penis” and “vagina” they are no longer a part of us; just a free floating entity, examined on the basis of pleasure or procreation.  With many of the “pet names,” it is even worse.

Interestingly, the word penis comes from a Latin word meaning “animal’s tail.”  Think of a dog’s tail.  It usually just hangs down between the legs.  It points straight out when on the hunt, and sticks straight up in the Alpha mode.  In Sanskrit, the word “lingam” is used. Lingam translates to “wand of light.”  There are two possible origins of this word:

1. Our enlightenment, or

2. Our bioluminescence.

Our enlightenment begins with awareness, something authority does not want us to have and I have written about bioluminescence in other blogs.[1]

The word vagina, coined circa 1580 by Realdo Matteo Colombo, an Italian anatomist: a guy.  The word in Latin means “sheath” or “scabbard,” as if something a man’s sword goes into.  This creates the image of an act of war, not an act of love.  The Sanskrit word, “yoni” means sacred place.  This is the sacred place on the entire woman: the whole darn critter!

Looking at the origin of words and sounds, I found the  “quh,” “ku,” “kuh,” and “coo” sounds are fairly universal in describing goddesses in ancient cultures: kunti, kunthi, kunda, etc., and other words for the Great Earth Mother, and universal yonis.  Keeping it simple, did you ever listed to a baby coo?  Did you ever think they might be trying to tell us something?  Naw. They are just babies.  They don’t know anything.  (Until I teach them all the garbage I’ve been taught for thousands of years.)

It should be noted Reginer deGraff around 1660 gave us another possible origin of the word cunt.  In cuneiform—there is that “coo” sound again—the Sumerian symbol for woman was the inverted triangle with the vertical cleft.  The inverted triangle is called the chaliceThe cleft was made with a wedge-tool called a cuneus, which is also the name for the impression made in the soft clay by that tool.  The word cunnus in Latin is translated as cunt.[2]  But, this was the symbol for the entire woman.  The symbol also meant “giver of life.”  Archeologists interpret this as childbirth.  I suggest it could also mean a different life through our enlightenment: our new awareness.

It is from these sounds and the names of these sacred goddesses that many believe are the origin of the word “cunt,” which we now believe is the most obscene word in the English language.  It became a disgusting word in England around the 14th Century in England, and perhaps other parts of Europe.  This set the stage for the 15th Century Malleus Maleficarum demonizing women in order to acquire wealth for the Church.  What do you think happened to the property of all the women burned at the stake?  This was a quick follow up to the Spanish Inquisition, making Ferddy and Izzy rich enough to sponsor Chris on his quest for India.  It took longer to con the masses because they didn’t have the net or other means of transmitting “misinformation.”  What a con!  The demonization continues with our “pet names” for each others genitalia.

Cunt was also the early name given to the priestesses of love (we denigrate to “temple prostitute”) in the Temples of Inanna, Isis, Ishtar, Aphrodite, Venus, etc.  It is strange we never hear the wealth accumulated in these temples, be it coin or food, was distributed to the poor, elderly and ill within the communities where the temples were located.  Sounds like “Christian” values to me.

The word pussy is found in Egyptology.  The cat was the sacred animal in ancient Egypt.  Today it is a slang term when applied to men means “less than.,” a wuss, a coward.  I like what Betty White is reputed to say: “Have balls?  You ought to have a pussy!  It takes a beating day in and day out and keeps on going.”  Same con.  Both genders.

Have you ever heard a guy refer to “his Johnson?”  If his last name isn’t Johnson, it isn’t his.  How about his dick?  If his first name isn’t Richard, it isn’t his.  By detaching from our genitalia, we are no longer responsible for any actions “it” may take.  Even modern medicine divides us by our organs and components, so integrating ourselves is a tougher job.

If we are going to have “detachment,” at least we can refer to our sacred places with more beautiful terms, reflecting the magnificent beauty the act can bring to us.  The female vulva is described as a “bower of bliss,” a flower garden, a lotus opening with love as a flower opens with sunshine, and many others throughout history.  A magic wand, a wand of enlightenment, an evolutionary tool, even an applicator of love—the glue that holds the universe together—are better than what are commonly used today.

Be it clearly known, I am no archeologist, linguist or sexual scientist.  I am a man who has seen the beauty and benefits of a small attitude change in making love with a woman.  My research focuses solely on this: both the positive and the negative we have been “taught” through the centuries.  They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and I am a danger to authority who would maintain the sheeple status of mankind.  I know it works!  You won’t until you try it.

 

Copyright 2013  Art Noble

http://www.thesacredfemale.com

 

 

 

 


[2] Blackledge, C., The Story of V, Rutgers University Press, 2004

The Sexual Paradigm and Love

April 10, 2012
(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 13th 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 19th 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

March 23, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

!

Copyright 1012 Art Noble

http://www.thsacredfemale.com

Our Sexual Paradigm: Pleasure and/or Procreation

March 9, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright Art Noble 2012

www.thesacredfemale.com

Sex at Dawn – A Different View.

March 6, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Copyright Art Noble 2012

www.thesacredfemale.com

Aliens or Love?

November 26, 2011

Ed Leedskalnin

            The problem with the “Ancient Astronaut” theory is that it diminishes man to a bestial state, with no hope of any achievement other than making money.  We humans are fantastic creatures, but we are shamed into believing we are not!  This is not to say ancient astronauts don’t exist, but a lot of the head gear looks like modern diving equipment to me.  We just don’t believe that humans can build things like the Pyramids and the structures at Machu Picchu.   We humans have great potential!  And our biology is still a mystery, even to scientists.  

It was a chilly, Spring Latvian night in 1913, as the 26 year-old Ed sat at his empty table, alternately weeping and sobbing.  It was supposed to be a night of anticipatory joy and excitement.  He was supposed to be married the next day.  His 16 year-old fiancé left an hour or so before, saying she had found another.  Ed, never forgot the name that might have been, Agnes Scuffs, or Skuvst, or Hermīne Lōuis?  We don’t know, but Ed did. Hearts may break, but love and hope remain.  Was this great love the source of his amazing accomplishments?  In the article, Love: A Many Splendored Spectrum, I suggest that love is an energy that can restructure our genetic code, possibly giving us access to infinite intelligence, as Hill put it. 

Edward Leedskalnin was born in Latvia in 1887.  He was not wealthy and only had a fourth-grade education.  The one hundred pound Ed immigrated to North America after the break-up and in 1919 bought land in Florida City where he began single–handed construction on Coral Castle: America’s answer to the Taj Majal.  Coral Castle is made of hewn oolitic limestone blocks having an average weight of 14 tons!  The largest block weighs 27 tons!  The 9-ton gate could be opened with the push of a child’s finger!  In 1936, he single handedly moved the structure North to Homestead, Florida to avoid the development in Florida City.   He continued his work until his death in 1951.

Ed did have a home made tripod, with a four-fall block and tackle at the hand-lashed top.  The six to eight inch diameter legs were made of Dade County pine, which is harder than a bankers heart when cured: almost impervious to nails.  But it is mechanically impossible for a 100-pound man to generate the purchase required to lift a 27-ton block!  Further, that weight would splinter the tripod legs: unless it didn’t “weigh” that much.

 When asked how he did it, Ed would give polite but vague answers: “learning the secrets of ancient Egypt,” or “being in line with the Earth’s magnetic field,” or “a perpetual motion machine.”  Allegedly, some teenagers sneaking a peek at his work saw him “levitating” the blocks into place.  Photographs show a “shoe-box” sized box on top of the tripod, but the box has never been found.  Through his great love, did he find access to “infinite intelligence” on a need-to-know basis?  Did this access allow him to construct something assisting him in the movement of the huge blocks: an “anti-gravity” machine?  From his pamphlets on magnetism, he believed he was using the earth’s magnetic field as an assist.  But how did he make the perfect cuts?

It is quite possible he didn’t really intellectually “know” how he did it.  He just did it.  The key is in his continual reference to “Sweet Sixteen” or his “earlier love.”  It is important to note, this love was unrequited.  He didn’t get any!  From his later laments on morality, we can assume somebody else did.  One can only wonder what could have happened had they married?

It is further quite possible we will never “intellectually know” how he did it.  A more rational explanation would be the energy of his great love raised him, not only “from mediocrity to the altitude of genius,” but also to a different plane of consciousness, inexplicable to the rational mind, where he had access to infinite intelligence.  That was easy!  And, it carries Kohlberg’s statement about communicating across more than one level of morality to the next level![1]   If communicating across more than one level of morality at an intellectual level of consciousness is impossible, what about communicating across levels of consciousness?

There are those who speculate, perhaps believe, that Edward Leedskalnin was an alien, similar to the Ancient Astronauts.  He was small in stature, as are the “Grays” seen on TV.  But, he died of malnutrition from stomach cancer, in a very human way.  Possibly eaten alive by his resentment of immoral young men or his betrayal by Agnes.  Hearts may break, but love and hope remain.  It is love that makes us great!   We have a universe ahead of us!


[1] Kohlberg, Lawrence (1981). Essays on Moral Development, Vol. I: The Philosophy of Moral Development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.   Essentially, Kohlberg states that moral development is based on the five phases of childhood emotional development: dependence, co-dependence counter-dependence, independence and inter-dependence.  His stages of moral development are:

1. Obedience and punishment orientation

(How can I avoid punishment?)

2. Self-interest orientation

(What’s in it for me?)

(Paying for a benefit)

3. Interpersonal accord and conformity

(Social norms)

(The good boy/good girl attitude)

4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation

(Law and order morality)

5. Social contract orientation

6. Universal ethical principles

(Principled conscience)

He further states that communication across more than one level of morality is impossible.  You cannot talk to a child about universal principles.


%d bloggers like this: