Free Love
-
Is this about"gathering store of women"? Or men?
Check out the holy book.
Verse 61 of chapter 1 of The Book of the Law.
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=331&start=125">viewtopic.php?f=4&t=331&start=125</a><!-- l -->
-
@LD330 said
"What do you guys think of free love? Are any of you in open relationships?"
That has been "the rules" in most relationships I've had, at most periods of those relationships, for my entire life from age 19 onward. At the risk of drawing the ire of knee-jerk Thelemic fundamentalists who don't ever want anybody to be able to say that anybody else is, or isn't, a Thelemite, I'll say quite boldly that you just can't be a Thelemite unless you accept ideas consistent with no ownership of another person, and especially (especially!) no ownership in love and sex. (You caught the spirit exactly with the passage you quoted.)
All I'm really saying, though, is that an unbounded area of choice has to remain - that there be no outside rules imposed by society, social rules, etc. But people can make their own choices, and make agreements within a particular relationship. For example, you might choose to be with someone in a relationship where your agreement is monogamy - that's cool, too, if you enter into the agreement freely. However, entering into such an agreement (or its reverse) under duress will screw you up psychologically. Choice has to be free.
For example, in the many years I've been with my current mate, our rules have always been sexually free. However, neither of us has chosen to "take advantage" of that rule. There are no walls on the issue AND we both just want to be with each other (and that has lasted for years). See, it all comes down to choice.
I will say that in society's move from a mostly monogamous model to something more varied and free, there have been a lot of growing pains. Figuring out how all this works, from the late '60s and early '70s forward, has been a huge challenge, but, as a community, we've been doing it. Different models and approaches and ways of framing things have emerged, been tried, worked for some, been discarded by others. Decades later, society overall has become more accepting, and people (at least in some geographic areas) have more freedom from old expectations. Along the way, I've caused far more emotional pain than I like to think about, and I've been put through some emotional roller coasters of my own; that's just been part of the journey.
Today I need not be a sexual freedom activist (which I pretty much have been my whole adult life), because (at least in Southern California) a majority of the social barriers have been blown away.
-
I was monogamous for 7 years. I was pretty unhappy. Not because I couldn't have sex with other people, but because there was a sense of ownership and guilt. I found myself growing more shy and introverted, avoiding even non-sexual connection with others because I didn't want to risk making my partner jealous.
Eventually, we opened up our relationship, which helped me feel more able and willing to connect with others. But we still had our other relationship incompatibilities/problems. Eventually I realized that the two of us weren't really good for each other, and it would be best to part ways. Our (amicable) divorce should be finalized soon.
I will never go back to strict monogamy. I discovered that I am not a possessive lover (I don't get jealous, and I am happy for my partner experiencing connection). Being "monogamish" (similar to what Jim describes, a situational monogamy, with the freedom that one doesn't necessarily act on) is about as far as I would ever be willing to compromise in the future.
I really don't think all this is about sex, per se. I think it's about connection and human touch. And I think our culture creates a scarcity of love and touch that is really unhealthy for people.
This has been highlighted for me the last two months, when I took up Argentine tango. Despite its' American reputation as being a sensual, quasi-erotic dance (a reputation stemming from stage show performances which are designed to amp up drama), the dance in it's social context is not really a pick-up scene. It's much more about gentle connection. It's essentially a 10-minute-hug with a stranger on a crowded-but-moving dance floor. There is a whole set of social codes that are designed to make it more predictable and ritualistic. You can easily dance with a 5-10 different people over the course of the evening.
What I've seen in all of this, is that (a) it's a really healing, therapeutic experience to create such an intimate moment with another person (b) having these sorts of connections happening in so many permutations between different members is a really community building force.
This experience has just cemented some hunches I've had for a while. I think humans do better when we can safely, comfortable touch and connect with each other often. I think strict monogamy is an Osiris-age pragmatic choice that leads to disconnection and more predatory sexual behavior. I think our porn-obsessed hyper-sexual culture is just the flip side to our prudish restrictive culture.
So yeah, I believe in free love.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"...But we still had our other relationship incompatibilities/problems. Eventually I realized that the two of us weren't really good for each other, and it would be best to part ways. Our (amicable) divorce should be finalized soon."
If this had been public, I'd missed seeing it. I'm not sure what balance of congratulations (for freedom) and condolences (for loss) to extend. I like you both a lot, and it's not surprising that, if you're doing this step, you're doing it well.
"I really don't think all this is about sex, per se. I think it's about connection and human touch. And I think our culture creates a scarcity of love and touch that is really unhealthy for people."
Amen!
"What I've seen in all of this, is that (a) it's a really healing, therapeutic experience to create such an intimate moment with another person (b) having these sorts of connections happening in so many permutations between different members is a really community building force."
Amen!
-
@Jim Eshelman said
" If this had been public, I'd missed seeing it. I'm not sure what balance of congratulations (for freedom) and condolences (for loss) to extend. I like you both a lot, and it's not surprising that, if you're doing this step, you're doing it well."
Thank you on both counts.
It hasn't been public, but will be soon enough. Like all change, it's traumatic for the bits that are ending. But I'm happier already, and I know it will be for the best for everyone involved. As with most of the initially painful changes I've known, the scale tips further towards congratulations each passing day.
I guess I'm an adult now.
-
My view of this topic has grown to be more nuanced.
I think common male behavior towards females is the issue. Females are treated as given without a penis. This is incorrect. Females have a penis.
I always wondered why females aren't treated like males. That is to say, why do people project them as in a subservient role?
Females have a death drive interpellated. When you project them in a subservient role, which you are probably basically doing because that's how it works in America, you are using your projection of the society. In this sense they are implicitly coerced. But society is not a real thing.
I used to project females have a death drive interpellated (as in they are "fellow adventurers") but stopped a long time ago. That's what kids do.
If you project them in a subservient role consciously, when you do so, the female has to fold himself into your projection of him because you are operating with the force of the entire society and all of its inertia. The male can take advantage of the female place in society.
This is where people become "horny for a superego." They have to get turned on, they get wet, basically because evolution is preparing them to become raped.
If you read the book Come As You Are by Emily Nagoski, you will find that female arousal does not correlate with wanting sex. A girl being horny does not mean she wants sex. The correlation given in the book is around 50-50. Half the times a girl is aroused does not mean she wants sex.
They should probably invent two different words, one for "not-really" horny and another for actually turned on.
When "not-really" horny, the female is being libidinally coerced into cooperation. They implicitly agree with the scenario at hand- one because it's happening, and two because that is how you are projecting the society is operational.
I can't be passive energetically either, my natural state, for the same reason females can't. If females are allowed to operate naturally, with their penises interpellated, somebody's always going to freak out, it seems. Most males are not very attuned, and will fight to make sure females don't have penises. Somebody always wants to block the natural flows.
That's what I think the problem is. Females aren't allowed to be treated as individuals with their own penis, volition, self-consciousness, will, decision-making apparatus, etc.
Free love would be A-OK if we admitted girls have cocks.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"All I'm really saying, though, is that an unbounded area of choice has to remain - that there be no outside rules imposed by society, social rules, etc. But people can make their own choices, and make agreements within a particular relationship. For example, you might choose to be with someone in a relationship where your agreement is monogamy - that's cool, too, if you enter into the agreement freely. However, entering into such an agreement (or its reverse) under duress will screw you up psychologically. Choice has to be free."
We should be careful what we mean by 'free love', if that equates a busy-body sexually with different people during a short period of time while having the opportunity to be in a stable relationship then something is off. We should be neither exceedingly suppressing it, nor subliming it, as the Master himself said.
I'm also of the belief that spiritually sensitive people can't survive such lifestyle, as they create rapports easily and their auras become effected.
Eventually, as initiates, we'll have to meet our twin, and experience hieros gamos, the well known alchemical marriage. I doubt an entrance back to Shamballa is made alone, or is it?
-
"if that equates a busy-body sexually with different people during a short period of time while having the opportunity to be in a stable relationship then something is off"
What is off is the slut-shaming attitude about other people's choices.
Sexual promiscuity can be either toxic or holy. Stable monogamous relationships can be either toxic or holy.
-
@Ab-ul-Az said
"
We should be careful what we mean by 'free love', if that equates a busy-body sexually with different people during a short period of time while having the opportunity to be in a stable relationship then something is off. We should be neither exceedingly suppressing it, nor subliming it, as the Master himself said.
I'm also of the belief that spiritually sensitive people can't survive such lifestyle, as they create rapports easily and their auras become effected.
Eventually, as initiates, we'll have to meet our twin, and experience hieros gamos, the well known alchemical marriage. I doubt an entrance back to Shamballa is made alone, or is it?"
I agree with Avshalom, that's what girls do when they call each other sluts.
You think females-to-society don't have the same drive to attack and rape everything that moves that we do?
They do, that's their dick. They have to cover it up because people won't/don't recognize them. They get it taken away from them so constantly that that's what "female" becomes.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"What is off is the slut-shaming attitude about other people's choices.
Sexual promiscuity can be either toxic or holy. Stable monogamous relationships can be either toxic or holy."
The usual leftist sophistry.
I pointed out why I think this is not good for aspirants, even technically.
You tell me now what makes it 'holy' and safe?An ideal relationship is balanced and harmonized on all of these planes; the spiritual, mental, sexual, and emotional. Whether we like it nor not, this is how it is, we should be brave enough to admit it and deal with our inner solitude, not everyone is lucky (especially at these times) to have such relationship, it's rare indeed but it's the NATURAL way, and apparently many are not having it for karmic reasons, cultural/environmental influences are secondary.
You are definitely free to unite with anyone based on two or one of the aspects I mentioned, but it will still be lacking in regards to the concept of relationship and finally making a family. Do what you will, but take responsibility and acknowledge things as they are and don't sugar coat it.
I emphasize again on the busy-body (busy-mind too) mentioned in Liber Aleph and other works, try to understand it, as it's considered a hindrance of achieving one's True Will.
-
No, I don't need to defend someone's expression of consensual sexuality to you, and I don't accept that the relationship model you call natural is even that.
The nuclear family is an industrial age creation. If we had been in nuclear families for very long you wouldn't see such extreme variation in milk production, for one.
"Natural" for humans in general is a fluid mix of tribal links, monogamish pair bonding, and promiscuity. On the individual level, it can be anything. Humans do thrive on connection, but the form that connection takes can be varied.
I don't see the bias or sugarcoating in that. Any relationship, short or long, can by toxic or healthy.
I know it's a nazi tendency to prescribe one way of being and pretend it's the best for everyone, but nahhh it isn't.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"No, I don't need to defend someone's expression of consensual sexuality to you, and I don't accept that the relationship model you call natural is even that.
The nuclear family is an industrial age creation. If we had been in nuclear families for very long you wouldn't see such extreme variation in milk production, for one.
"Natural" for humans in general is a fluid mix of tribal links, monogamish pair bonding, and promiscuity. On the individual level, it can be anything. Humans do thrive on connection, but the form that connection takes can be varied.
I don't see the bias or sugarcoating in that. Any relationship, short or long, can by toxic or healthy.
I know it's a nazi tendency to prescribe one way of being and pretend it's the best for everyone, but nahhh it isn't."
I'm trying to be as practical as possible, pointing out why I think such approach is the one healthier and more beneficial for the mystic and aspirant to finally assist his initiation, I'm not acting like a moral authority over these matters as you'd like to believe.
Nature is dictated by the Tao, its laws and dynamics speak for themselves, not through any 'subjective' intellectual discourse and chatter. We should be humble enough to deal with it wisely.
You mention tribal and monogamous pairing, but yet, you want to make promiscuity as the exception and rule, while it isn't. I'm still waiting for your answer as why you think busy-body-based sexual promiscuity is holy, you seem to be confusing Liber AL passages and allegories with this. Remember that Liberty also is a responsibility and another kind of bond.
I am an idealist aristocrat, and when it comes to the common man, I don't care whom you are sleeping with so far you're not interfering and effecting your folk and nation's well being, unity and evolution (ie. continuity through family), something sadly most gay people for instance can't wrap their heads around.
-
I don't see a point in arguing about it. You clearly have a subjective personal belief that your committed to.
-
@Ab-ul-Az said
"I am an idealist aristocrat, and when it comes to the common man, I don't care whom you are sleeping with so far you're not interfering and effecting your folk and nation's well being, unity and evolution (ie. continuity through family), something sadly most gay people for instance can't wrap their heads around."
I'll only add that I think it an indefensible position that people need to be committed to procreation. We'd do much better as a species and part of the larger ecosystem if, say, half the people on the planet decided not to procreate for a generation or two. If we overdo that, recovery will be quite easy.
I'm not overly concerned with continued biological evolution. It will continue to happen - continue to tweak the mix a bit - but it's probably near its upper arc. I've known for decades that the human species needs to take its next evolutionary steps within each generation, which is what the training systems for spiritual acceleration are all about. We have enormous untapped genius within the biological structures we've already evolved.
-
@Takamba said
"It's all a phallacy!
All these labels (divisions) are the problem. Just simply be. Nature made you free. Love as thou wilt. - Thus spoketh the Law"
you always seem to say just what I need to hear, in less then 2 dozen words. thank you
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'll only add that I think it an indefensible position that people need to be committed to procreation. We'd do much better as a species and part of the larger ecosystem if, say, half the people on the planet decided not to procreate for a generation or two. If we overdo that, recovery will be quite easy.
I'm not overly concerned with continued biological evolution. It will continue to happen - continue to tweak the mix a bit - but it's probably near its upper arc. I've known for decades that the human species needs to take its next evolutionary steps within each generation, which is what the training systems for spiritual acceleration are all about. We have enormous untapped genius within the biological structures we've already evolved."
Hear! Hear!!
hallelujah and amen to that!!!the natural feast famine cycle of our beloved planet used to do a wonderful job of self regulating population. they we imposed a constant food source and now our numbers are off the chart.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"We'd do much better as a species and part of the larger ecosystem if, say, half the people on the planet decided not to procreate for a generation or two. If we overdo that, recovery will be quite easy."
That sounds great in theory, but who's going to deal with the disproportionate increase in the elderly population? Declining birthrates in the developed world have recently made this a pressing issue. Most Western nations currently try to solve this problem by importing increasing amounts of cheap foreign labor. To me it sounds like a Ponzi scheme.
Then there's the problem of a shrinking tax base. Fewer people having kids means fewer people entering the work force and an ever smaller tax intake. Sure, you can increase taxes, but it can only go so far before the young are financially crippled. Do we ban retirement and institute a "work until you drop" policy for the elderly until balance is restored? We're already heading in that direction anyway without a drastic reduction in the future young population!
