![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Sex & Emotional Need
Reflecting on Gandhi’s words about sex has lead me to further clarity on the subject: that most of what we consider to be the “sex-drive” in fact is not ’sexual’ or biological at all, but is composed of emotional needs expressed physically. That is, being incomplete unto ourselves curses us to seek completion in others - I believe wrongly so.
I am aware that pointing such things out will likely generate a high degree of resistance, but it seems to me to be worth talking about. Please note that I am not arguing against people having sex. Rather, I am advocating that people understand the true roots of their desires and behaviors and how they thwart or enhance our true goals.
When you seek sex or have sex, what is your true goal? What are you trying to feel, share or accomplish with yourself and with others? Is it possible that there may be other, more direct and meaningful ways to accomplish those goals? Is it even possible that another person can’t ever really give you what you might be looking for? I’m not talking about masturbation. I’m talking about being complete in and of yourself, and from that foundation learning how to give *all* to others, as you have no need of anything else in your life.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
I’m mentally mixing this with your post about the objectification of women, and I think there is kind of a stairway to heaven you can walk with sex drives. It starts with objectifying and idealism, then becomes crushes, loose sexual romantic love, purer romantic love, and then pure universal love, which doesn’t require sex.
But I say stairway because its important to walk one step at a time. I think a person whose in the objectification stage needs to focus on getting in a loving romantic relationship, not celibabacy. I speak from experience of my youth: the person who plays the celibate saint because they’re not getting any (and its convenient) is not gonna last, just like the poor guy who renounces wealth…
October 9th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Yes! Exactly.
And this is so elegantly put:
The keyword being “pure universal love” doesn’t *require* sex: but it doesn’t necessarily need to negate it either. At that point sex can be a true celebration and divine event because it is not controlled or driven by anything but abundant joy.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Also, I think this “stairway to Heaven” with sex & love is exactly what the Arthurian Legends and the Courtly Romances and Knights of the Round Table and Grail Quests are all about very directly, clothing it in symbolic form.
October 9th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I think your totally right. What’s really a shame is that we’ve gotten rid of these ideas from our life for things like Britney Spears. It really leaves a gaping hole in our culture.
October 9th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I’m not going to post a link to her vag shots, but it’s tempting for the purposes of illustration.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
We really don’t have ritual type stuff in our culture.
I think we got into individualism, and then from individualism we went into commercialism.
But I don’t know many people who want to live in a community.
Even the intentional housing people don’t want to live in a community; They just do individualism really really close to each other, and occasionally eating with each other.
I don’t sense that pagan sense that I get when I hear Kiya talk about living in tribal Mali (Africa.)
“We’re gunna do what?!“
October 9th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
A culture is defined by its rituals. That there appears not to be any shows how deeply ingrained they are.
So you don’t have any friends then?
October 9th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
jeez………
the coincedance.
a client admitted her attraction to me today.
i have been having similar feelings, and so the next few minutes ended our professional relationship, and being that she is married ended our physical one too.
celebacy has it`s merits.
the sheer noise of obligation in some people`s minds and fear of rejection makes the physical attraction a real issue between us.
it was very difficult to see her leave this morning.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
shoulda banged her. Come on, life is short!
October 9th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
You’re so cool. Honor is better than sex.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Hilarious. I’m reminded of the Joe Rogan bit in relation to Julia’s response:
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/01/14/joe-rogan-on-sex-porn-society/
October 9th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
hey, wait a minute! maybe he did bang her?!? What happened in those “few minnutes”? To end a physical relationship you have to have one no?
October 9th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Hee, hee, hee. I’m just doing my best to keep men brainwashed.
October 10th, 2007 at 11:35 am
I don’t think it’s wrong to seek completion in others. “Meaning” divorced from society (others) seems weak, to me. When I hear this conversation, I hear “self” vs. “society.” The whole “nobility is independence” vs. “co-dependency.”
The brainwashing story says, “society is ripping you off, man; it’s just using you.”
When I think of society as my friends, though, the arrangement suddenly doesn’t sound so abusive. Living without restraints is fun in fiction and fantasy play, but when it comes down to real friends, known or otherwise, it’s just heartless.
Myself, in alistair’s situation, I would have had the affair. (Though we don’t know yet whether he did or didn’t.) But that’s because I have an open relationship with Amber, have real arguments with the marriage/love system, and, oh yeah, life deprived me for a couple decades of sex that I think I should have had. (The “social karmic balance system.” If the 40 year old virgin’s only opportunity is a married woman who’s not getting any at home, then clearly, to my judgment, they get to have sex.)
October 10th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I’m not saying so much that it is “wrong” as that it simply doesn’t work. It always fails.
I’m not sure where you’re deriving this out of what has been said so far.
Could you elaborate on that as well?
This I think is just wrong. We’re definitely not talking about that.
Again, where is this coming from?
Yeah, I don’t think we’re talking about living without restraints either.
If you’re not achieving completion in another person already, why would including more players in the picture help you do that?
Love is not a system.
So, “Life owes you sex” simply because you exist?
“They get to have sex”? Sex is not a reward. And it should not be a matter of reconciling accounts. It is the primary act which humans are given to take part in the creative power of the Godhead itself.
October 10th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I don’t think alistair’s issue is monogamy. In his chosen profession maintaining integrity is a must and damage can be done to clients when the therapist violates the rules. Maybe not to this client but this is the role he has chosen to enact in this world and if he wants something different he knows what he has to do. The rules are there to protect both parties and the progress of the profession as a whole. If avarage people think therapists are corrupt they won’t seek help and the knowledge will go to waste because of the failure to police themselves. Society could actually suffer because of a selfish decision.
The same is true for police depts. Immigrant communities suffer higher rates of crime because criminals know the residents are afraid to go to the police. When corrupt police are not dealt with this notion is reinforced.
I read an article about Pagan gatherings where they described the problem of policing themselves. It was hard won knowledge that every once in a while someone would claim to be part of their community in order to gain access to younger/significantly younger than legal girls/boys for sexual purposes. This damages their community. The freer than avarage sex has an intention behind it and preditory behavior isn’t the intention.
October 10th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
This I think is a more elegant rebuttal to Lion’s points above, especially regarding the “40 year old virgin and the housewife who ain’t getting any” point. It doesn’t fucking matter if people are getting laid or not, or have been getting laid. The point is that people should live according to their intentions, because that is the fastest path to honesty and to the cessation of suffering. One of the ways in which we most effectively manifest our intentions is through the agreements we make with one another. And even if you have disagreements with the institution of marriage, it’s important to me to recognize the nature of that agreement and stick to it. Or else, if the agreement no longer suits either party, the agreement must be terminated.
But then, I also don’t see marriage as something to be entered into lightly with the understanding that if it doesn’t go the way you like it (ie, if you’re “not getting laid enough”), you should just end it. Marriage is raised above many other types of contracts in my eyes because it is a contract whose purpose is to act as a vessel for Love and for the bounty of emotions which other people enable us to experience within our lives. It’s not something you just throw away because you’re horny, have opportunity and you can’t control yourself.
October 11th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
the highest value in my work is trust. without it nothing works. my client had those feelings partly as a result of that trust. for me to seek or take advantage via that trust would diminish my role in what i see as a position in the community.
i have not lost the relationship with my client either. she has since contacted me and acknowledges my position regarding what happened.
frankly, my unconditional love for myself includes her safety and so i act in accordance with that.
it is a position that is tested regularly and it is well known in the psychology of therapy that feelings are transferred between client and therapist and vise versa and we as professionals are counceled on this in our training and support.
and julia, honour lasts longer too. if you do it right it lasts a lifetime.
i suppose i`m an honourable and righteous man. it is the clearest signal in the anglican message. being true to it can be difficult though.