Solo Tantra
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
@gerry456 said
" watching this should produce an urge to flinch. "Should? By what metric?
."Congrats man, if you can watch the aforementioned videos without flinching.
I just want to add to my earlier points about misunderstanding about what Tantra is as I remembered something. Takamba raised this point i.e. Tantra is not only about "lasting longer" with your sex partner or yourself. It's about reintegrating our repulsions and aversions. Some say this is attaining "ultimate reality" i.e. non-dual perceptions. I am a hetero guy so watching gay porn for me was a task. Now, I am not prejudiced, one of my best friends is gay and I've taken flak for hanging out with him. Anyway I put my gay porn watching episodes in my diary and I noticed that when I went out I was getting closer to non dualism moreso. I would see women about in society at the shops etc but my desire -reaction was under wraps i.e. their bodies were becoming yin of the Tao; "form" of the God/Goddess behind form. Call it Siva, Shakti or Kali or whatever.
-
@gerry456 said
"Congrats man, if you can watch the aforementioned videos without flinching."
I'm not intending these questions as some sort of comparison or competition, I'm attempting to get you to look at the way you're presenting your evaluation of the world through your language. You state that these images "should" produce an urge to flinch and I'm asking what you're basing that "should" on? Put yourself in the shoes of a surgeon in the ER. "Should" s/he flinch at the sight of surgery? Do you think that a gay man "should" flinch at the sight of straight sex?
The particulars aren't important since different particulars will cause different people to flinch (for example, your set doesn't bother me that much but just the thought of slicing an achillies tendon sets me off), the important aspect is this "should" and why it seems that way to you.
And, ultimately, how you can get away from it.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
@gerry456 said
"Congrats man, if you can watch the aforementioned videos without flinching."I'm not intending these questions as some sort of comparison or competition, I'm attempting to get you to look at the way you're presenting your evaluation of the world through your language. You state that these images "should" produce an urge to flinch and I'm asking what you're basing that "should" on? Put yourself in the shoes of a surgeon in the ER. "Should" s/he flinch at the sight of surgery? Do you think that a gay man "should" flinch at the sight of straight sex?
The particulars aren't important since different particulars will cause different people to flinch (for example, your set doesn't bother me that much but just the thought of slicing an achillies tendon sets me off), the important aspect is this "should" and why it seems that way to you.
And, ultimately, how you can get away from it."
Oh yeah man I get you now. Yeah for sure man my metric thing was presumptive.
By the way Crowley told Achad to "root out all fear and desire"..words to that effect anyway.
Also, did you ever consider that our definitions of attractiveness in the opposite sex is actually conditioned and engrained? Maybe it started with the Greeks and their sense of proportion and balance?
Note how "primitive" communities have "initiation rituals" where "manhood" is tested. I forget the tribes but one in Africa carves sharp stones around the entire body of the boy and some Red Indians forced their boys to walk about a maypole which they were attached to by hooks in their skin. So on. This mentality is also seen among some biker gangs and criminal gangs per se. Where do you draw the line between spiritual aversion integration and twisted macho-endurance pursuits?
-
@gerry456 said
"Also, did you ever consider that our definitions of attractiveness in the opposite sex is actually conditioned and engrained? Maybe it started with the Greeks and their sense of proportion and balance?"
I'd say it started much earlier than that. Humans are the only mammals in which the female stores fat in the breast and buttocks creating the curvier, cushionier version common in the present-day species. Likewise, human penises are larger than every other primate, fully twice the size (on average) of our closest competition, the chimpanzee. These anomalies must've taken over the gene pool long before the Greeks were carving marble.
My guess (with absolutely no scientific data to back it up) is that, as our eyes took over as our dominant sense organ, we (males) started to show a preference for mates with the most visibly apparent versions of those things we first found sustenance from. Big round boobs attracted us and, since we weren't yet very adept at differentiation, big round butts had much the same effect. Unfortunately, aimed at doggie style, only those with long enough schlongs could successfully navigate the bountiful booties to plant the seed of the next generation of boob- and butt-lovers so cock-length became an important trait as well. Lather, rinse, repeat for several thousand generations and here we find ourselves, conditioned and engrained to desire things that show no obvious evolutionary advantage but that turn us all on in all the right ways.
Or, at least some of us. Some of us prefer sucking dick because it reminds us of our thumbs (?)
-
The female brain doesn't work like the male brain though. They usually won't admit it but females go for internal attributes in a male whereas for males it's vice versa initially. This has to do with the innate "Who would best father my children?" issue which is on the instinctive level. Also, women don't know a guy's penis length until the guy is naked so that theory is off. If women went for penis length then men from certain races who have comparatively smaller penises would never get to mate with "attractive women" but of course they do.
You forgot face. Face is the main part of attractiveness i.e proportion, so if I have a very big out of proportion nose or chin etc then i'm not conforming to that Greek ideal however , to reiterate in an example, Casanova was one ugly mutha I hear.
-
You seem to be taking my crackpot theory of human evolution and trying to apply it to modern humans. Mine applies to our early ancestors, "several thousand generations" ago. There were no clothes to take off or societal roles to care about. There were penises to put in vaginas and something happened at that stage of evolution that showed an evolutionary preference for bigger boobs, butts, and cocks.
However, as this seems to be wandering afar from the intended topic of Solo Tantra, I'll just leave that where it is and close with a hearty endorsement of Takamba's previous statement that the imagination is by far the largest sexual organ.
-
@Hermes said
"
@gerry456 said
" one has to get aroused by someone that one finds attractive"One has to get aroused by what is most useful to the great work.
As far as i know(far from all
)one estabilshes the yin and the yang in all things until everything except HGA(in that regard) becomes a mistake. Then can happen KCHGA. How could it happen if you have not tried every other possibility before? There would be a doubt persisting. Though all mistakes must happen before, one can limit the negative effects by being firstly as focused and sincere intention wise, then find ways to gain time, and to avoid actual manifestations of mistakes when possible. Balance these and advance with care, like a hermit who carries a lamp in the night. At the same time seek speed of advancement, and in the most safe way possible.
."Yeah man I like that, ultimately pre Tiparethic activity is just that; one star in sight!!
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
However, as this seems to be wandering afar from the intended topic of Solo Tantra, I'll just leave that where it is and close with a hearty endorsement of Takamba's previous statement that the imagination is by far the largest sexual organ."Yeah cool man, you were talking pre history and I wasn't, I get it. may I ask, you're not into orgasm-suspension but it's a traditional Thelemic route. Don't you feel you're lacking in that respect? I don't mean to be rude, just curious.
In fact if I'm not mistaken Jim said that Liber Al is a manual for tantic sex, symbolically.
-
I've practiced orgasm suspension quite extensively in the past. At the moment, I'm working on other experiments.
Thelema, as a fully formed philosophy, is barely a hundred years old so I don't know if we can call anything "traditional" yet. If we can... well, I've never been a big fan of tradition anyway; more into exploring the frontiers myself.
I don't know if Jim said the above or not but, either way, it doesn't really matter to me. As much as I admire the guy and as useful as I've found his writing, the Comment to Liber L was written the way it was for a reason. I find L to be many things but a "manual" is not one of them.
If you want it all to be about tantric sex, that's your right. It's already been pointed out to you, multiple times in this thread, that tantra is a much broader field but, to each their own. Do what thou wilt. Set the practices, record the results, discover what they tell you about yourself, adjust accordingly. If there is Thelemic tradition to follow, I would guess it would be that all this work should be toward the goal of discovering your True Will. If you've already managed that, then it should be toward doing it. And nothing else.
-
I now recall it was the BOok of Revelations that I think Jim said was the Tantra manual, not Al as iz said. Ha, so JOhn the Divine was tugging on his flesh-toadstool az a route to God eh?
Actually Dave Shoemaker states that AC has a few things to say about various phrases in AL az tantra instructions. In the new comment.
-
@Takamba said
"
@gerry456 said
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJLFMdXYcVgWell, here's a youtube clip. Could you see yourself getting into this?"
It had a nice rhythm and was easy to dance to. I give it a 3."
What? Out of 10? I meant could you see yourself joining in.
-
@gerry456 said
"
@Takamba said
"
@gerry456 said
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJLFMdXYcVgWell, here's a youtube clip. Could you see yourself getting into this?"
It had a nice rhythm and was easy to dance to. I give it a 3."
What? Out of 10? I meant could you see yourself joining in."
There is no reason I'd say no. That was only a token ceremony of what I'm sure involved a larger gathering of tables and workshops. Wouldn't be much of a "festival" if it were only one tent's rhythmic instructions. But I see no reason that I'd make an effort to go to it either. It would have to be like that pagan festival I attended in the 90s, or the Rainbow National Gathering I attended in the late 80s, or the OrCon game convention I attended in the early 80s; I'd have to stumble upon it and say "why the hell not? Something to enjoy."
-
@Takamba said
"For one thing, of course, tantra isn't only about the sexual practices. Tantra itself is the confrontation or resolutions of opposites. Love an ugly woman until she is beautiful to you, love a beautiful woman until she is ugly to you. Then you begin to see the solutions to your personality constructs. Then you see that all is illusion and you are the master."
I had a (spiritual) experience recently, due to my Tantic work, where I saw society's standards of beauty and attractiveness as bullsh1t.
-
-
@gerry456 said
"There's a lot of talk, within the tantric community of never ejaculating i.e. that's bad.
To ejaculate or not to ejaculate?
- Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt*"
To refresh your memory, nothing (but the sin of restriction) is bad. Now this here may confuse you because the idea of restricting "ejaculation" sounds bad, but lo, in some cases it is not bad. Yoga is restriction. Yet it is not a sin. The yoga of ejaculation is not about "good" or "bad," but intent.
I stop there.