Sex, Sexy, Sexual, Sexuality

by Christopher Lovejoy on March 23, 2019

so what does it mean to be a maker of meaning?
quite simply, it means to be on the side of caring,
to be attentive and responsive, rarely dismissive;
to be a maker of meaning is to be a giver of care,
to be a taker of care, and to be a plumber of care

From the earliest of days, in that critical period of growth in our infancy between the ages of six weeks and ten months, we could not help but test the waters with our mothers (or other primary caregivers) with various signals and movements to establish secure contact with expectations that they attend to our needs with sensitivity, meeting them as promptly and consistently as they were able.

At first, the contact was secure; we felt secure, so secure in fact that we smiled. I mean, we just couldn’t help ourselves. Granted, some of these smiles were barely perceptible, but some of them were huge! In fact, these smiles made us appear so loveable, our caregivers became ever more sensitive, attentive, and responsive, which compelled us to smile even more; what a beautiful, harmonious feedback loop!

But then one day, they slipped up: not so sensitive, not so attentive, not so responsive. What the fook is going on?, we would ask ourselves. We became sensitized to more such WTF moments, wondering if they were just temporary glitches in the matrix or if they were becoming a regular feature of our lives as infants. Sometimes, these crazy scary creepy moments persisted for an entire day or night!

Where’s … my … momma?! we wailed, and so upon being reunited with our caregivers, we felt what any natural, normal baby would feel in the face of such injustice: indifference. No smile for you!

Fortunately, in the weeks and months ahead, we found our daily and nightly rhythms with our caregivers. We felt secure in our contact ~ most of the time; we felt satisfied with their caregiving ~ much of the time; we even felt confident in our playful explorations ~ some of the time.

When our playmates Johnny and Mary came over to play, we were naturally fascinated by them, at first, but as we grew more accustomed to their presence, we began to wonder: Johnny seems strangely indifferent, even avoidant, to the comings and goings of his caregiver; Mary, on the other hand, seems rather clingy with the comings and goings of her caregiver and rather anxious in her explorations.

It seemed as if Johnny had been consistently denied; it seemed as if Mary had been inconsistently denied. Poor Johnny, poor Mary. Why couldn’t they be playful and happy-go-lucky like me?

*

Let’s entertain a scenario that meets the one need that runs deeper than any other.

Attentive, attending with care to the one need that runs deeper than any other, I remain responsive to this need with a vital body, a clear mind, a buoyant mood, a serene outlook, and a soul of gratitude in a spirit of generosity, and I meet this need with the aim to please, delighting to the point of ecstasy, and so, what is this need? And how do I meet it beautifully, harmoniously, and prosperously, day after day?

The one need that runs deeper than any other is one that has persisted on this planet since the dawn of self-consciousness, a need that can be expressed in 7 words: the need to be seen, heard, touched.

This persistent need to be seen, heard, touched has four ever-deepening layers ~ visibility, empathy, reciprocity, vulnerability ~ and we can thank the forces that sow the seeds of separation, division, exclusion, and isolation for keeping us all from meeting this need truly, deeply, and consistently.

Loneliness is the first clue that this need is not getting met in a meaningful way.

Loneliness is the feeling that people are not with you or do not understand you.

You feel lonely because you don’t feel as if you belong, and because you don’t feel connected to others in any meaningful way; this feeling is in contrast to the fact of going solo, where one does not feel lonely away from the company of others or even in the company of others, but also to the feeling that a social interaction or a series of such interactions is going well or has ended well.

There are benefits to be enjoyed from being alone where no such benefits are perceived when you feel lonely, even if you are surrounded by many people or surrounded by people closely related by bond or blood. A feeling of loneliness arises from the unwillingness or inability to feel vulnerable with another, an unwillingness or inability to open up and share facts and feelings that leave you feeling vulnerable.

Granted, who really wants to open up and talk about the imperfections of being human when one is “connected” via social media? There are two parts to this: am I willing to broach an imperfection with care, knowing the other is willing and able to receive it in a caring, meaningful way? Conversely, is the other willing to broach an imperfection with care, knowing I am willing and able to receive it in a caring, meaningful way? Always a two-way street, where communication is concerned.

Where making meaning is concerned, that is, where giving and receiving care is concerned, a sturdy, stable bridge of trust comes highly recommended if it is your intention to genuinely care and … to feel genuinely cared for. The making of meaning thrives on such a bridge.

There are those who insist that the antidote to loneliness is to reach out, listen up, and offer help ~ to stop asking what others can do for you and start asking what you can do for them ~ but this unbalanced view chokes the two-way current of giving and receiving in favor of giving. In reality, it is better to welcome opportunities to give and receive care with an ever-deepening trust that flows organically from natural moments of true visibility to acts of genuine empathy to fair-minded acts of reciprocity to exquisite moments of vulnerability ~ and back up again.

Such intimate sharing is the ideal in making meaning that lasts, but not everyone wants to be intimate much if not most of the time; sharing intimately need not be the be-all and end-all of getting and keeping the flow of communication moving in both directions. I know this sounds obvious to many people, but to those of us who thrive on intimacy, it’s a point well worth making and remembering.

To be intimate is to be and become visible with and through acts of empathy and reciprocity to the point of vulnerability ~ to see and be seen, to hear and be heard, to touch and be touched, even to the point of being intimate with sacred intent; to be intimate with sacred intent is to be present with self and other to give and receive care truly and deeply enough to gaze, speak, and/or touch with sacred intent.

This sacred intent can be passionate or compassionate.

In essence, this means that the need to be seen, heard, touched (which goes hand in hand with the need to see, hear, touch) can either be passionate or compassionate: a passionate need to be seen, heard, touched or a compassionate need to be seen, heard, touched.

I invite you to pause and feel into what I am saying here.

*

Passion navigates through perfection; compassion negotiates with imperfection.

Where passion in relationship arises as an exchange of sharing pleasure and desire in pursuit of meaning, compassion in relationship arises as an exchange of sharing tender loving care in pursuit of meaning.

Negotiations with imperfection, perceived or otherwise, require acts of speaking and listening without judgment, without imposing conditions or expectations. As such, compassionate questions arise in tandem with the caregiving of compassionate listening: was there a reason why you …? Is there a reason why you’re …? Is there a reason why you’re going to …? If so, is there anything I can say or do for you now? Sometimes, it’s enough just to listen.

In being compassionate with oneself, the same questions can be posed and explored privately in written or spoken dialogue: was there a reason why I …? Is there a reason why I’m …? Is there a reason why I’m going to …? If so, is there anything I can do for myself now?

In a crisis, perceived or otherwise, the tenor of compassionate questioning changes: are you okay? how can I help? is there something you need? is there somewhere you need to be right now? is there somewhere you need to go? is there anything I can do for you now?

If compassion is empathy in action, then empathy is the gateway to compassion (where empathy is necessary but not sufficient); listening without the imposition of condition or expectation is actionable, so that compassionate listening without filtering becomes possible.

Compassionate listening is not about changing anyone; it’s about being with someone. To be compassionate is to give and receive what finds itself in need of saying or doing through a sharing with caring, knowing what an honor and a privilege it is to receive an open heart.

Loneliness, unfortunately, carries a stigma, a connotation that you’re “a loser” if you feel lonely, and therefore, no one wants to talk about it; the truth is more humane: we know the feeling of loneliness in the face of lack or loss; we also know that some are better equipped at moving beyond feelings of loneliness before they become acute or chronic. The lonely ones among us are simply in a state in need of support. This isn’t just about connecting; it’s about connecting in meaningful (caring) ways.

This might mean re-connecting and cultivating with compassion that one (neglected) relationship where you know deep down that meaningful (caring) connection is still possible, alongside the meaning (and caring) that you already seek and find in your life or with life in general.

This one (neglected) relationship might even be the relationship you have with yourself, in which case, you might benefit from downloading the app known as woebot. Although woebot is a less-than-ideal substitute for a pair of compassionate ears, it might serve as a quick fix for climbing out of the dumpster and getting the + energy moving and flowing again, treating it as a crutch for only as long as you need it. The last thing you need is to breastfeed on yet another app that reinforces disconnection.

In support of others, this might mean giving them a chance to come clean with any feelings of loneliness by showing up ~ again and again ~ with the message that “you are not alone” with a listening and a questioning that comes with and from a genuinely compassionate space.

It might also mean steering a lonely soul in the direction of getting help if this seems called for (i.e., feeling lonely much if not most of the time beyond feelings of loneliness that are a normal part of life in response to loss) before such loneliness finds itself in the grips of depression.

It might also mean giving psychological first aid with compassionate questioning to anyone who appears in crisis intent on leaving this life: are you ok? how can I help? is there someone I can call? is there something you need? is there somewhere you need to be? Those who have attempted to put an end to their lives have said they would have welcomed such questioning, even from someone they didn’t know.

*

Passion and compassion: compatible?

I’ll be the first to admit: without adequate discernment, this is a tricky question. In the analysis that follows, I will explore the contrast between passion and compassion in an intimate relationship.

To be intimate is to be visible with empathy and reciprocity to the point of vulnerability, i.e., to see and be seen, to hear and be heard, to touch and be touched; to be intimate with sacred intent is to care enough to be present enough to gaze, speak, and/or touch with sacred intent.

Again, this sacred intent can either be passionate or compassionate. A passionate need to be seen, heard, and/or touched through pleasure and desire is in stark contrast to a compassionate need to be seen, heard, and/or touched through sharing with caring. Why? Again, because where intimate passion is a mutual exchange of intense pleasuring and desiring in pursuit of meaning with a navigation through perfection, intimate compassion is a mutual exchange of intense caring and sharing in pursuit of meaning through a negotiation with imperfection.

Making time and space for compassion requires an ongoing forebearance of imperfection, perceived or otherwise, or, at the very least, an ongoing tolerance of imperfection, perceived or otherwise. Without either, compassionate questioning and listening are simply not possible.

Making time and space for passion, by contrast, requires an ongoing navigation through perfection, perceived or otherwise, one that conditions the navigator to expect perfection up to a certain standard, without which passion feels rather inclined to die a quick and merciless death.

In light of this contrast, I invite you to compare and contrast these two scenarios:

Scenario 1: intimate passion (with sacred intent)

I met her intense gaze with a hunger to meet her half way, feeling drawn into the liquid depths of her eyes, alive with desire. I fingered the rim of her ear tenderly to signal my intent; leaning forward, I spoke my words in a whisper most intimate, provoking her to sigh with pleasure …

Scenario 2: intimate compassion (with sacred intent)

I met her intense gaze with a tearing of my eyes in response to a tearing in her eyes. Having sustained a serious loss, she searched my soul with her eyes. A lone tear trickled down her cheek; in bringing my lips to it as a delicate offering of my compassion, she sighed with relief …

In each of these scenarios, the need to be seen, heard, and/or touched is satisfied, if only momentarily, but the intimate energies shared feel very different. In the first scenario, I remain present to the promise of a power to effect a passionate exchange of pleasure and desire that is premised on seeking, finding, and holding captive that perfect moment. In the second scenario, I remain present to the promise of a power to effect a compassionate exchange of sharing in the loss of perfection without judgment, without the imposition of condition or expectation.

Yet the question goes begging: are passion and compassion compatible?

Your answer very much depends on a context of personal discovery in life, love, and lust, where inquiry and advocacy are concerned. Where is your primary focus in life, love, and lust? Is it on seeking to navigate through perfection or is it on seeking to negotiate with imperfection?

One can be compassionate more often than not without sacrificing passion, polarized or polarizing more often than not in service to others; conversely, one can be passionate most of the time, polarized or polarizing in service to self, and still be compassionate on occasion.

In negotiating successfully with imperfection, compassionate ones realize their inherent perfection; in seeking to navigate through perfection, the passionate ones learn and grow through imperfection.

I codify this difference as follows:

compassion first, passion second: 51%+ STO
51%+ of the time in favor of compassion in service to others

passion first, compassion second: 95%+ STS
95%+ of the time in favor of passion in service to self

An example of the first is someone who is happily married with a growing family, working in a service-oriented profession or occupation. An example of the second is someone who works in the business of entertainment, happily bent on remaining “footloose and fancy free.”

Know, too, that someone who cares little or not at all about compassion or passion, or about striking a balance between compassion and passion, is either (a) unpolarized; (b) depolarized; or (c) polarizing only slightly in the direction of being compassionate or passionate.

The question “passion and compassion: compatible?” can be addressed in light of the distinction above. Passion and compassion are compatible, but this compatibility depends on the orientation in question: for someone polarized or polarizing in service to others, passion plays second fiddle to compassion; for someone polarized or polarizing in service to self, compassion remains but a peripheral concern.

For STO individuals, there is a risk that passion will overtake compassion, causing them to depolarize; for STS individuals, there is a risk that passion will overwhelm a consistent, persistent service to self, causing them to depolarize. For these reasons, both must remain wary of the fire that is passion. In keeping passion in its place, according to orientation, passion and compassion remain compatible.

*

In polarizing and crystalizing in favor of STS or STO, above and beyond STN (service to neither self nor other), I propose a fourth service orientation ~ service to creation (STC) ~ one that extends yet transcends the work of polarizing in favor of either STS or STO.

STC is an extension of STS or STO, not a replacement. One must already be polarized and crystalized (or polarizing and crystalizing) in the direction of one (STS) or the other (STO), such that passion and compassion remain compatible within these respective orientations.

In view of this qualification, the distinction between “service to creation” (the dream) and “service to my creation” (my dream) goes hand in hand with the distinction between practical grandiosity and fantastical grandiosity. Where the first honors the blessed mystery, the second honors personal mastery. As such, a service to creation is a service to my creation and a service to my creation is a service to creation.

In offering the gaze, the voice, or the touch with sacred intent, so as to meet the need to be seen, heard, or touched on a sacramental level, and … in transcending yet including the push and pull of STS and STO, what does STC itself have to offer? In a word? Perspective.

To extend and transcend the STO or STS orientation with the STC orientation is to learn and grow from both STO and STS. That is, what can STO teach us about keeping the balance in favor of compassion? What can STS teach us about testing the balance in favor of passion?

Let us view this balance in a slightly different light …

STO: compassion first, passion second: < 49%+ STS
< 49% of the time in favor of passion in service to self

STS: passion first, compassion second: < 5%+ STO
< 5% of the time in favor of compassion in service to others

Where those in service to self (STS) put a premium on passion almost to the exclusion of compassion, those in service to other (STO) have more room to grow into compassion in relation to passion. In light of this comparison, I have two telling questions to pose and ponder:

1) at what point do STS individuals depolarize and lose their edge?
2) at what point do STO individuals depolarize and lose their balance?

In exploring contrasting responses to these uncomfortable questions, we acquire a finer appreciation of what it means to serve and of what it means to meet the one need that runs deeper than any other.

When STO individuals become more passionate than compassionate, they tend to depolarize away from serving others, losing their balance; when STS individuals become more than a little compassionate, they tend to depolarize away from serving themselves, losing their edge.

In losing their balance, STO individuals become less ready, willing, and able to negotiate with imperfection to realize an inherent perfection; in losing their edge, STS individuals become less ready, willing, and able to navigate through perfection to learn and grow through imperfection.

In losing their balance, STO individuals become less caring, sharing with less caring or sharing less with caring, less able to love the other as they would themselves. In losing their edge, STS individuals become less able to be passionately and pleasurably in love with themselves.

In losing their balance, STO individuals have forsaken their compassion in favor of passion; in losing their edge, STS individuals have not only forsaken their passion for compassion, they have put themselves at risk of overwhelming their love of self with passion as compensation.

In restoring balance, STO individuals realize that they need not sacrifice passion, only that they temper passion for the sake of compassion, asking “in being compassionate, just how passionate?”; in restoring their edge, STS individuals realize that they can still be compassionate on occasion, but not to the point of losing their edge with passion, asking “in being passionate, just how much more passionate can I be?”

Herewith, a quick summary of the differences …

primary focus
STO: negotiate successfully with imperfection to realize an inherent perfection
STS: navigate successfuly through perfection to learn and grow through imperfection

primary means
STO: giving or sharing with caring; caring through giving or sharing
STS: remain passionately in love with self; to love self is to love all

primary risk factor
STO: an objectifying passion can overtake the capacity for compassion
STS: an objectifying passion can overwhelm, even destroy a love of self

primary question
STO: in being compassionate, just how passionate?
STS: in being passionate, how much more passionate?

primary consolation
STO: need not sacrifice passion for the sake of compassion
STS: can still refrain from objectification; can still be compassionate on occasion

In light of these distinctions, the key questions for STC are as follows:

STC via STO: how much passion in service to self can I afford to gain before I lose my balance and my love of others in relation to others, or conversely, how much compassion in service to others can I afford to give before I lose my balance and my love of self in relation to others?

STC via STS: how much compassion in service to others can I afford to give before I lose my edge and my love of self in relation to others, or conversely, how much passion in service to self can I afford to gain before I overwhelm my capacity to love the self and lose my edge?

In bringing the STC orientation into focus, I revisit these questions:

Attentive, attending with care to the one need that runs deeper than any other, I remain responsive to this need with a vital body, a clear mind, a buoyant mood, a serene outlook, and a soul of gratitude in a spirit of generosity, and I meet this need with the aim to please, delighting to the point of ecstasy, and so, what is this need? And how do I meet it beautifully, harmoniously, and prosperously, day after day?

I have already discussed at length an answer to the first question, what is this need? (refresher: the need to be seen, heard, touched). In view of this answer, I will now address the second question: And how do I meet it beautifully, harmoniously, and prosperously, day after day?

In being STC, in being of service to creation, a higher perspective is required.

First, I need not ask, “And how do I meet the one need that runs deeper than any other beautifully, harmoniously, and prosperously, day after day?” Rather, I continue to affirm in no uncertain terms: “I am meeting this need beautifully, harmoniously, and prosperously, day after day.”

Second, I reframe my affirmations from a higher perspective in the present tense: “I continue to experience the fulfillment of my aim to please, delighting to the point of ecstasy, even as I continue to experience the fulfillment of my aim to see, hear, touch and be seen, heard, touched.”

Third, since I cannot simultaneously be both in service to other (so as to not lose my balance) and in service to self (so as to not lose my edge), I must be clear about which service orientation I am pressing into service for the sake of creation (if STO) or my creation (if STS).

In being STC, in being of service to creation, this higher perspective affords me some room (and the luxury) to contemplate what it might be like to be STO or STS in any given situation or interaction.

In being STC, I can do this because I know that STO and STS share 3 criteria for polarizing to the point of crystalization: (1) I must act in service to other or self with a motive that has a firm and pure intent; (2) I must obtain and/or maintain the tacit or explicit consent of those with whom I interact; and (3) I must continue to enact perspectives that are culturally appropriate or, better yet, universally shareable.

Those in service to other (STO) cannot presume to serve another without a motive that contains a firm and pure intent if the intention is to polarize or remain polarized as STO; neither can those in service to other presume to serve another without tacit or explicit consent; neither can those in service to other serve others from a perspective that cannot be shared universally with others. A teacher, for example, cannot presume to have sexual relations with a student under a legally recognized age of consent and still expect to serve as a teacher.

Those in service to self (STS) cannot presume to serve themselves through others without a motive that contains a firm and pure intent if the intention is to polarize or remain polarized as STS; neither can those in service to self presume to serve themselves through others without tacit or explicit consent; neither can those in service to self serve themselves from a perspective that is universally unshareable. An actor, for example, cannot presume to pull a gun on stage and wave it around without prior notice to the audience and still expect to perform.

In both scenarios, passion is problematic, the first because it forsakes compassion; the second because it overwhelms the capacity to love the self in relation to others; and both because the passion objectifies both those who presume to serve and those they presume to serve.

And herein lies the problematic nature of passion: objectification.

Which is another way of saying a prideful, presuming ownership.

When a subject to universal law pridefully presumes and pressures someone into being or becoming an object, and does so with coercion or without consent, or with a manipulated consent, the subject in question is enacting a perspective that cannot be shared universally.

Conversely, when a subject of universal law presumes and pressures someone to be an object, enacting a perspective that cannot be shared universally, even with manipulated consent, the subject cannot polarize any further in the service orientation to which the subject is subject.

That is to say, (a) I cannot turn you into an object without your consent and still polarize or remain polarized as STO or STS, and (b) I cannot enact, even with your consent, a perspective that cannot be shared universally, and still polarize or remain polarized as STO or STS.

the litmus test for gauging service to other or service to self:

how might I best behave here and now to best accommodate
the concerns or interests of this person or this group of people,

keeping in mind that I must obtain and/or maintain pure consent,
while enacting a perspective that remains universally shareable,

if it is my intention to polarize or remain polarized in my service?

With this litmus test, consider this STC affirmation …

In meeting the need to be seen, heard, and touched
beautifully, harmoniously, prosperously, day after day,
I fulfill a deep desire to see, hear, and touch creation,
to please creation, delighting to the point of ecstasy

Keeping in mind that this need can be met physically and/or emotionally in any given encounter or interaction, and keeping in mind that seeing, hearing, and touching creation can be construed in physical and/or emotional terms, and keeping in mind that meeting this universal need with sacred intent is tantamount to lending deep respect to the 3 criteria of universal service, how might this need be met in service to creation?

Perceptions of perfect and imperfect sights, sounds, tastes, touches, and smells arise in the creation and the illusion without any effort on my part. I have no choice but to notice them, to navigate through them or around them, to negotiate for them or with them. Some are pleasurable, some not so pleasurable; some are pleasant, some not so pleasant. As I retain my equanimity, I remain open to being at peace with love and joy by way of bliss through grace and ease in awe and wonder. In service to creation, this opening is the focus of a life lived in lovelust.

In extending and transcending STO or STS in service to creation, one remains informed and inspired to anticipate and participate in perpetual and perpetuating streams of sensorial cultivation, progression, calibration, acceleration, manifestation, consummation, and celebration.

For those crystalized or crystalizing in favor of STO, compassion is given precedence in meeting the need to be seen, heard, touched in a beautiful, harmonious, prosperous way, day after day, fulfilling a desire to see, hear, and touch creation compassionately, pleasing creation, delighting creation to the point of ecstasy, while also serving to temper and tame passionate expansion, exploration, and expression.

For those crystalized or crystalizing in favor of STS, passion is given precedence in meeting the need to be seen, heard, and touched in a beautiful, harmonious, prosperous way, day after day, fulfilling a desire to see, hear, and touch creation passionately, pleasing creation in its own way, delighting creation to the point of ecstasy, allowing compassion to tame passionate expansion, exploration, and expression.

The differences, while subtle, are also quite profound.

*

Let us now explore and contrast the differences between the respective contributions of an STO and STS orientation in the context of finding joy in a sensuous, romantic, erotic, sensual, sexual encounter.

I’d like to do this in the context of worship, of worth-ship, of negotiating and navigating a relationship of worth, of worthiness, of feeling worthy and deserving, of exploring what is really and truly worthwhile, and do so while reserving judgment about which service orientation is best.

Herewith, a heartfelt fictional portrayal to convey my meaning (and caring):

She had need of worship and I had need to worship.

We yearned to hold a space to see and be seen, to hear and be heard, to touch and be touched, truly and deeply with sacred and divine intent in the interests of love and lust, pleasure and desire, passion and compassion, to experience a merging most intimate, to experience a merging most exquisite, to experience a merging most ecstastic; we wondered: how might this merging be restored, renewed, and refreshed daily?

She remains in service to creation as I remain in service to creation. We are both aware of the contributions that STO and STS can make to any given encounter: navigating moments of perfection in service to self while negotiating moments of imperfection in service to other.

We each retain equanimity in the face of sensations pleasurable and not so pleasurable, in the face of feelings pleasant and not so pleasant, even as we remain open to vibrating at the speed of peace with love and joy by way of bliss through grace and ease in awe and wonder.

Circumstances matter, but state of being matters more. We take our cues, not from circumstances, but from our preferred states of being. We each retain a habit of asking ourselves and each other this question: does this moment feel meaningful, purposeful, masterful, worshipful?

In our sacred encounters with divine experience, we have come to know ourselves to be meaningful, purposeful, masterful, worshipful beings, attending with care to the one need that runs deeper than any other ~ the need to be seen, heard, and touched, physically and emotionally.

In our sacred encounters with divine experience, we are heavenly creatures, giving ourselves over to moments of pure peace, sweet love, pure joy, sweet bliss, pure grace, sweetly and easily, beautifully, harmoniously, and prosperously, intimately, exquisitely, and ecstatically.

We are not of this world and yet we continue to live in this world.

And by we, I mean us, and everyone with whom we can identify.

In this rather exalted light, who are we? What roles do we play?

We are sacred intimate lovers who exude a divine presence; we are sacred intimate artists, authors, writers, and researchers; we are sacred intimate practitioners, counsellors, consultants, and facilitators; we are sacred intimate students and masters of human nature; we are experts on the personality; we are mood specialists; we are heavenly creatures, and lovers of heavenly creatures; we are masseuses and masseurs extraordinaire; we are bodyworkers of all types; we are sacred intimate boundary breakers, boundary expanders, and boundary removers.

Speaking to those who are on the fence about becoming sacred intimate lovers: whether you are comfortable with this fact or not, you are an erotic, sensual, sexual creature, and healthy erotic, sensual, sexual exploration and expression are essential to living a deeply fulfilling life.

Know, too, that this type of exploration and expression involves more than mere pleasure and passion, whose returns on investment diminish with time due to a pattern known as hedonic adaptation. Fractionation (adding time between events) helps, but the effect pattern persists.

Erotic, sensual, sexual activation and stimulation can occur tangibly or intangibly; you either feel a resonance with obvious qualities that are physical (e.g., an attractive body), emotional (e.g., a warm, charismatic presence), mental (e.g., a quick, sharp mind), and spiritual (e.g., a presence most divine) and/or you feel a resonance with those qualities that support a mutually loving, trusting, caring, sharing, lusting relation. In giving precedence to the intangible factors (compassionately, loving the other for who they are in consciousness) over the tangible physical, emotional, mental, spiritual qualities (loving the other for what they can provide in terms of security, satiety, and significance), mutual attraction and stimulation can increase over time with an active, dynamic spiritual practice informed and inspired by philosophical and psychological points of view.

A mutually submissive, transmissive posture of being facilitates the intention and inspiration to understand and appreciate as much about a partner as humanly possible, one that relies on a sacred intimate bond that plumbs meaning through caring by way of giving and sharing.

What do you really, truly love and appreciate about your partner?

I love that he can sustain his peace with joy in awe and wonder

I love that she can express the joy of bliss with grace and ease

Bringing these types of responses to an intimate encounter can only serve to sustain and increase the affective and erotic charge; fueling these types of responses with divine intent can only serve to consolidate, reinforce, and establish the sacred intimate bond over time.

Attending with sensitivity to these intangibles serves the creation by keeping it everfresh, provided each partner to the intimacy continues to grow and flow through time. The tangibles, however, tend to remain fairly static, at least for a while, before losing their edge over time.

In keeping the focus on the intangibles, aging need not be construed as ugly. As STS fades with time through the loss and lack of tangibles, STO rises through time with a firm focus on affirming the intangibles, reinforcing the commonplace notion that “true love is forever.”

*

The research is clear: the factors that spark sexual attraction and lead to more sexual satisfaction are almost completely within the control of both mind and heart. This is the good news. The bad news is that there are costs to be paid in bringing them both under near-total control.

But first the good news.

Researchers of human sexuality have found that more sex and better sex do not always go hand in hand. The research measures “more sex” as “more sexual partners” or “a greater frequency of sex”; “better sex” is taken to mean “the experience of greater sexual satisfaction.”

The results around number of sex partners are a bit surprising: those with more sex partners over a lifetime are less satisfied sexually; the research suggests that those in pursuit of new sex partners might actually be seeking more satisfying sex, indicating that having more sex partners does not necessarily translate into having better sex. More surprising is that married individuals have more frequent sex than their single counterparts, and those with only one sexual partner are the happiest. To secure and ensure more and better sex, the way to go is clear: commit to one compatible partner over a lifetime. But what makes for a happy and stable union over a lifetime? Let us count the ways …

For one, it always helps to pay close attention to attachment style. Those with secure attachment styles describe their relationships as happy and supportive, whereas those with avoidant attachment styles tend to shy away from intimacy (or too much intimacy) and those with anxious attachment styles worry that their partners might not love them (or love them well enough). A secure attachment style is associated with the likelihood of having more satisfying sex, whereas those with avoidant or anxious attachment styles experience less sexual satisfaction.

For two, couples who express more physical affection (kissing and cuddling) in their relationships report more sexual satisfaction (could it be that more such affection leads to more sexual satisfaction or is it that more sexual satisfaction leads to more such affection?). It was also found that men who concern themselves with their partner’s sexual experience feel more sexually satisfied themselves, and positive behaviors exhibited by men (saying “I love you” or giving compliments to partners) are associated with more frequent sex and more sexual satisfaction.

For three, personality traits figure into having more or better sex. Not surprisingly, extroverts (“more sociable, more talkative, more active socially”) tend to experience stronger sexual desire, engage in more frequent sex, and have more sex partners (all of which don’t necessarily translate into having better or more satisfying sex). Neurotic persons (described as “more anxious, angry, and/or insecure”) feel less satisfied sexually in their encounters compared to those who tend to be calm, poised, and emotionally stable (this relates back to attachment style).

Finally, a partner’s characteristics have a bearing on more or better sex: women who have more attractive and masculine partners are more likely to experience orgasms; men who are more concerned with their partner’s orgasm also experience more sexual satisfaction themselves; and people with happy partners experience more sexual satisfaction than those with unhappy partners (no surprise there). Not surprisingly, those identified with female-friendly attitudes tend to have more satisfying sex in the context of having a long-term, committed relationship.

For more and better sex, then, it pays to have a secure attachment style and to be mindful that more sex partners doesn’t necessarily mean better sex, recalling that those with more sex partners are less satisfied sexually; it also pays to be married and stay committed; to express affection and be supportive of each other’s satisfaction, emotional and sexual; to favor and/or practice being calm, poised, and emotionally stable; to be happy generally; and to be masculine or feminine with your partner while being attentive to one another’s sexual satisfaction.

And now for the bad news.

In taking all of these factors into account where bringing sexual attraction and satisfaction under near-total control is concerned, certain costs become apparent: fewer or even no sex partners except the one partner you know to be the one for you; enough attention paid to the emotional and sexual satisfaction of your partner even at the expense of paying more attention to career advancement; less indulgence in angry, anxious, and insecure behavior in favor of a calmer, more poised and emotionally stable character; and more time spent on assessing character.

All of which sounds like advice someone might have given in 1950s America at the height of its post-war prosperity, but this time with the corrective, instructive support of promoting female-friendly attitudes with respect to female awakening, enlightenment, and empowerment.

Before I broach the so-called perversions of sex and gender, extracting valuable lessons for the making of meaning, let’s do a quick deep dive into the contributions of personal character in the making, shaping, and consolidating of personal meaning (through caring and sharing).

*

In his masterful work, The Laws of Human Nature, the author Robert Greene explores the nature and origins of human character (interestingly, the etymology of the term “character” taken from ancient Greece refers to an engraving or stamping instrument), describing it as “something so deeply engrained or stamped within us that it compels us to act in certain ways, beyond our awareness and control.”

Character is a composite of 4 layers of influence: genetic, maternal, strategic, tactical.

The genetic instructions that construct a brain in a developing fetus wire the brain in ways that predispose it to certain states or traits: being prone, under stress, to anxiety or depression; being inclined to turn inward or outward; being open or closed; being greedy or generous.

In the first three to four years after birth, the brain is especially malleable and susceptible to intense emotion as the infant is imprinted and impressed by its mother or caregivers with certain ways of being and behaving in the world. The engravings made here are profound.

Four such engravings (patterns of attachment or attachment styles) were apparent to early researchers: free and autonomous; dismissing; enmeshed and ambivalent; and disorganized. The first engraving is made by mothers or caregivers who give their infants freedom of discovery, while being sensitive to their needs and protecting them as necessary; the second engraving arises from mothers or caregivers who are often distant and sometimes hostile and rejecting (such infants are stamped with feelings of abandonment, of having to fend for themselves); the third engraving is made by mothers or caregivers who are inconsistent with their attention, sometimes suffocating and overinvolved, other times retreating because of problems and anxieties of their own; the fourth engraving is made by mothers or caregivers who are disorganized in their caregiving, sending conflicting signals to the infant or child, reflecting their own inner chaos and perhaps early emotional traumas of their own; in such cases, nothing their infants or children do is right, and such infants or children develop intractable emotional problems as a result.

These attachment styles govern the ways in which growing children handle or modulate their stress and stressors in relationship with others. For example, children of a dismissing mother or caregiver will tend to avoid any kind of negative emotional situation and to defend themselves against feelings of dependency, finding it especially hard to commit to a long-term relationship or pushing people away unconsciously, while children of the enmeshed variety will experience a great deal of ambivalence in relationship and experience many conflicting emotions.

These four schemas pave the way for the third layer of influence, involving the formation of strategies to handle people, to seek pleasure and avoid pain, and to cope or deal with daily pressures and stressors. It is also here that so-called “choices” are made; because we’re compelled to make them, these “choices” are repeated and reinforced over time, becoming patterns of behavior that morph into strong tendencies. These “choices” become unconscious habits, and it is out of thousands of such “choices” that the habits of character are formed and reinforced.

In light of the foregoing, it’s not too difficult to understand and appreciate why the subject matter of “character, virtue, and choice” is glossed over in popular culture as anything worthy of significance, except perhaps by those whose attachment style is secure and confident. It would be an interesting study to see what percentage of a given population is secure and confident in its attachment style, what percentage tends to be avoidant (distant, dismissive, and/or aggressive), ambivalent (inconsistent, needy, and/or enmeshed), and anxious (disorganized, conflicted).

As people become aware of their character flaws in late childhood and early adolescence, a more tactical approach to character, by way of compensation, is called for. Here, the presence or absence of a father or father figure figures prominently. Generally, young people do what they can to cover up or minimize the flaws in character. In their interactions with others, if they come to sense they are too timid and anxious, for example, they also come to realize that this is not a socially acceptable trait; the same with being too hostile and aggressive or too needy and enmeshing. Many if not most young people are more than capable of coming to the realization that the more secure and confident ones among them get most of the positive attention and constructive validation, and so they soon realize the value of doing what they can with what they have to compensate, adding a fourth layer to the development of their character, albeit a layer that tries to cover over existing flaws.

Needless to say, this adds to the complexity of discerning someone’s character, but then, those with a secure and confident attachment style don’t have it easy, either. They may, for example, be inclined to receptivity and generosity, empathy and reciprocity, as well as resilience under pressure, but these stronger, more flexible qualities often require some vigilance through awareness and practice. As they get older, life tends to weaken even the best among them: being reflexively open and generous can lead to trouble (like being scammed); empathy and reciprocity become harder to maintain in an ever changing and complex world; confidence without sufficient awareness and control can degenerate into grandiosity. Without conscious effort, these strengths eventually wear down or even turn into weaknesses, and the weakest, most vulnerable qualities of character are the ones that generate habits and compulsive behaviors because they require no effort to practice or maintain.

Adding to the complexity of character even further is the fact that we sometimes develop conflicting character traits; perhaps our genetic strengths are undermined by early parental influences; perhaps one parent compensates for another; perhaps the influence of friends, mentors, or relatives helps to offset any serious flaws developed; perhaps we become especially good actors in cultivating an acceptable front. We might be open and generous in some situations or interactions, and closed and stingy in others; we might feel secure and confident in some scenarios, but insecure and hesitant in others; we might tend to be hostile and aggressive with some types of people, but be quite endearing and accommodating with others; we might put up an idealistic front some of the time, but then revert back to being realistic at other times.

It is beyond the scope of this post to examine how best to shape character, rooting out the less-than-positive influences, while applying a compensating awareness and/or practice to the more negative ones that run too deep to be excised. It is also beyond the scope of this post to offer tips on how to accurately read quality of character in others, as seen in their actions and patterns over time, while viewing character as more valuable than charm, intelligence, or reputation, while also remaining wary of judgments based on what is most apparent, as a confident front can mask ignorance or arrogance; a frank and sincere manner can mask a lack of true consideration; a prudent and thoughtful approach can mask timidity and a fear of being criticized constructively; and a veneer of grace and charm can mask malevolent intentions.

Character is complex. Without a secure and confident attachment style, shaping character is not easy; reading character accurately is even harder. Even with a secure and confident attachment style, retaining character requires effort and reading character is rarely if ever easy.

The one need that runs deeper than any other ~ the need to see and be seen, hear and be heard, touch and be touched, which is the need to know and be known through time ~ is best met with a secure and confident attachment style, or at least a style that approaches a secure and confident style of attachment (while keeping in mind that neurotic behavior can sometimes offer some catalyzing contrast to reinforce secure and confident behavior). Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, this security and confidence cannot be faked, not over time and not without a considerable amount of effort and practice. But then, why “fake it ’til you make it” when you can inquire thoughtfully and thoroughly into the nature and origins of your own attachment style, making adjustments to more fully embody security and confidence?

*

The one need that runs deeper than any other is met through an array of acts and activities that involves or engages all manner of capacities and abilities along a continuum of experience that stretches all the way from ekotic to sensuous to romantic to erotic to sensual to sexual.

Aside: “ekotic” refers to the ecology of a place or space that conditions experience; in other words, where are you when you engage the sensuous, romantic, erotic, sensual, and/or sexual facets of life? And, when engaged, is your sense of place or space to your liking?

The one need that runs deeper than any other is met sensuously, with someone for whom sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch can be deeply affecting; romantically, with someone for whom a loving, trusting, giving, caring sentimentality matters; erotically, with someone for whom mutual gazing, speaking intimately, and touching exquisitely can be quite arousing; sensually, with someone for whom cupping, pressing, squeezing, and kneading flesh can be even more arousing; and/or sexually, with someone for whom a love and lust for life come naturally and easily.

Would you engage someone prone to being avoidant, dismissive, hostile, and/or aggressive? How about ambivalent, inconsistent, needy, and/or enmeshing? Anxious, disorganized, and/or conflicted? (these are rhetorical questions). What do you suppose happens to those who are so prone? Might they pursue ekotic, sensuous, erotic, sensual, and/or sexual pleasures in unconventional ways? Assuming they do, how might they meet the one need that runs deeper than any other? Perhaps through erotic, sensual, and/or sexual acts not deemed natural or normal?

Here, I have no wish to judge anyone, but I do feel it’s important to bring these questions to the surface, to explore and examine them in the light of day. One effective way to do this, in my view, is by setting what I call a vanilla sex standard, while making it clear from the outset that it not be used in any way as an instrument to enforce compliance. With a vanilla sex standard, deviations from the norm can be explored and examined free of judgment. With such a standard, the so-called perversions of sex and gender can be broached usefully and dispassionately.

This standard will be premised on a secure and confident attachment style, applicable to those who are able to give others the freedom to inquire, advocate, and/or discover within reasonable, shareable limits, while remaining sensitive to their needs and protective of their interests where necessary. Not being able to give others the freedom to inquire, advocate, and/or discover within reasonable, shareable limits, while being sensitive to needs and protective of interests where necessary, is a sign of an attachment style that is neither secure nor confident.

The question, however, is begged: what is reasonable and shareable?

*

Exceptions to the heterosexual norms of sex and gender are fraught with controversy, pitting the marginalizers of “perversion” against the normalizers of “deviation” in the ongoing culture wars.

This controversial and potentially explosive subject matter requires, in my mind, a light and respectful touch, with an informed sensitivity that takes account of a wide range of sexual behavior and conduct, some of it difficult to respect or even accept with any measure of equanimity.

In broaching this subject matter, vital lessons can be extracted that serve the endeavor of making, taking, and plumbing the depths of meaning through sharing with caring. Let us begin with this description …

A man and a woman with secure and confident attachment styles. A courtship, a wedding, and a marriage. Pleasurable sex, but strictly for the purpose of reproduction. A family. A community of families. A nation of communities full of families. I trust you know where I am going with this.

Taken together, these attributions accord with the standards of more and better sex. Every single one. But then, what about the outliers? The singles who can’t or won’t date, relate, state, and mate; the couples who don’t marry; the couples who don’t, can’t, or won’t reproduce?

What about them?

Marginalize? Or … Normalize?

Is this not the question du jour?

Marginalize? Or … Normalize?

Ethically, politically, economically, culturally, is this not the question?

Attempts to marginalize lead to one set of consequences; attempts to normalize lead to yet another. In perusing the items on the following list, ask yourself: do I want to live in a society where they are driven underground or a society where they are given freedom of discovery?

masturbation
fellatio
cunnilingus
anilingus
anal sex
frottage
pornography
prostitution
sexual addiction
asexuality
homosexuality
bisexuality
pansexuality
fetish sexuality
kinky sexuality
rough sexuality
transexualism
transgenderism
transvestism
gender bending
bondage and discipline
domination and submission
sadomasochism
exhibitionism
fetishism
frotteurism
sexual masochism
sexual sadism
voyeurism
transvestic fetishism
paraphilia, NOS
pederasty
pedophilia
bestiality

Marginalize? Or … Normalize?

What makes each item so compelling is that it presents an innocent aspect and a violent aspect. What I mean by this is that each item carries the potential to be approached and/or conducted innocently or associated with the potential for violence in using, accusing, and/or abusing.

Marginalize? Or … Normalize?

Those on the side of “marginalize” might say “look at the current global crisis of child sex trafficking brought on by loose moral standards.” Those on the side of “normalize” might say “look at the current fallout of broken homes worldwide from the global depopulation agenda.”

Meanwhile, ongoing attempts at harmonizing immigration for the sake of integration are raising cultural and racial tensions from conflicting points of view. Again, … Marginalize? Or … Normalize?

But there’s more, much more.

In the wake of the global fallout of stressed and broken families, a cacaphony of voices is rising to grapple with issues of sexual consent, reasonability and shareability in the realms of sex and gender, as well as objectification with respect to sexual behavior and conduct.

Rarely are there sharp lines, except in the minds of those who grasp for certainty.

In the wake of a global fallout of broken families, how many more mothers who are often distant and sometimes hostile and rejecting, raising children stamped with feelings of abandonment, of having to fend for themselves? How many more mothers who are inconsistent with their attention, sometimes suffocating and overinvolved, other times retreating because of problems and anxieties of their own? How many more mothers who are disorganized in their caregiving, sending conflicting signals to their children, reflecting their inner chaos and perhaps early emotional traumas of their own, where nothing their children do is right, causing intractable emotional problems to form as a result?

To those who aim to normalize the outliers so as to obliterate the standard: are you not willing to concede that male and female are legitimate gender categories that add to the diversity of humanity? Are you not willing to give a voice to those who regret changing sex or gender? Are you not willing to concede that nuclear families strengthen the moral and social fabrics of the societies in which they live and dwell? And by weaponizing the female to undermine and cockblock the male, can you not see the eventual elimination of your kind from the gene pool? But then, I understand that in replacing the male with the she-male, what about the females who can no longer compete with the she-males?

To those who aim to marginalize the outliers so as to reinforce the standard: what are you going to do with the countless millions from broken homes, who insist on freedom of discovery with sex and gender expression? What are you going to do with all those compulsive masturbators, sex addicts, sodomizers, gender benders, prostitutes, and pornographers? Will you segregate, reeducate, incarcerate, or execute? And by suppressing the feminine in favor of the masculine, can you not see the eventual impoverishment of your kind within the social fabric? But then, I understand that you have come a long way in honoring the feminine woman, but what about those womyn who are not so feminine?

To say that “humanity is caught between a rock and a hard place” would be the understatement to end all understatements. The temptation to simply “do your own thing” is stronger than ever, but it also tempts the dreaded prospect of a civilization collapsing under its own weight.

*

Away from the madding crowds, I conclude this post on a note of hope.

In a world on the brink, with tensions rising between its diverse peoples, what could it mean to be a maker of meaning? Is it still possible to care? Is it still possible to fulfill the promise, meaning, and purpose of life? Or are we are all doomed to go down fighting, fleeing, freezing?

I am just one person, and so are you. What can we possibly do? More to the point, who can we possibly be? Who can we possibly be to be persons of care, makers of meaning wholly committed to living, loving, learning, and fulfilling the promise, meaning, and purpose of this life?

Those in service to self (STS), in service to loving themselves pleasurably and passionately, must objectify the other with a focus on navigating perfection with physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual tangibles, so as to learn and grow from imperfection. Those in service to other (STO), in service to loving the other enjoyably yet compassionately, must subjectify the other with a focus on negotiating imperfection with intrinsic, intangible qualities that can stand the test of time so as to more wholly embody and realize an inherent perfection. Those in service neither to themselves nor any other (STN), in service neither to loving themselves nor loving others, because of their avoidant, dismissive, hostile, and aggressive tendencies or because of their ambivalent, needy, and enmeshing tendencies or because of their anxious, conflicted tendencies, must, for as long as they remain unpolarized or depolarized, remain at the mercy of those who can either serve themselves or other selves.

From the point of view of someone who is in service to creation (STC), secure and confident and crystalizing, this broader, higher perspective can be profitably applied: for STS, a passionate edge is key; for STO, a compassionate balance is key; for STN, healing and caring are key.

The bulk of humanity at this time is STN: they are either tentatively polarizing in favor of STS or STO or depolarizing away from STS or STO; they are either in the grips of living from an avoidant, ambivalent, or anxious attachment style or coming to grips with a secure and confident attachment style; they are either resisting the so-called perversions of sex and gender or indulging one or more shamelessly or shamefully.

This complexity is actually quite staggering the more in-depth the exploration. In such a world as this, it is all too easy to settle, all too easy to do your own thing, all too easy to merely be your own person, all too easy to ignore, dismiss, avoid, or bypass the mess and the madness.

Wherein lies the value, promise, meaning, and purpose of a life lived in love and lust? Wherein lies the motivation and inspiration? Wherein lies the incentive to persist or even persevere daily and diligently in the face of challenge, in the face of inadequacy, difficulty, or insufficiency?

In a world full of pitfalls and conflicts, the challenge of reconciliation between diverse attitudes and attachment styles can not and will not go away. Pitfalls and conflicts, while instructive, cannot instruct if they continue to grow and overwhelm instructors and instructees alike. And by “overwhelm,” I simply mean “overwhelm the human capacity and ability to make meaning through giving, caring, and sharing in daily life.” At the heart of this overwhelm is a sheering effect that threatens to rip humanity apart. The most obvious and interesting manifestation of this sheering effect are the attempts being made to either marginalize wayward expressions of sexuality in light of the current (hidden) global crisis of child sex trafficking for the purposes of ritual abuse, rape, and murder, or … normalize said expressions in light of the current (hidden) fallout of broken homes and families from decades-long policies implemented worldwide through the global depopulation agenda (also hidden).

This agenda is hidden simply because the overseers would not, and perhaps could not, trust human nature to regulate its own nature, and by this I mean “regulate its own reproductive capacity long-term for the good of all” and by “the good of all”, I mean “the good of current and future generations of humanity.” On the one hand, overseers of the agenda resorted to extreme measures to keep the agenda hidden, which included horrific human compromise operations, which necessitated the nefarious use of children to appease, blackmail, and silence those in the know. On the other hand, because of socially engineered methods to curtail population numbers, which necessitated putting pressure on individuals not to have families and on families not to bear more than two or three children, concerted attempts were made to normalize and regularize as many expressions of sexuality and gender as possible. In going against human nature, however, certain consequences have arisen:

1) more individuals who are not secure and confident in their attachments
2) less pure expressions of those polarizing either in service to self or other
3) more pressure on secure, confident persons to withdraw from public life
4) less concern for those falling by the wayside, socially and economically
5) ever more diverse yet challenging expressions of sexuality and gender
6) ever less respect given to those who maintain the vanilla sex standard

It would be easy to pass this off as “conspiracy theory,” at least until you realize just how stagnant humanity has become owing to the many thousands of patents to advance technology that have been sequestered in the interests of global security, and by “global security” I mean “slowing the rate of human population growth to sustainable levels to prevent global resource depletion and environmental devastation.” Sure, the overseers could allow humanity to go full tilt by releasing many of the patents and allowing the world to advance technologically at a breakneck speed, thereby increasing the rate of human population growth past sustainable levels, but what would this accomplish? Who would be able to keep up? Who would be able to keep up with advances in artificial intelligence? Who would be able to keep up with the human spirit going full tilt at the expense of its heart and soul? Who would be able to keep up with the changes in culture and society? Would you?

Could you?

Perhaps you could, but what about everyone else, if indeed you still care.

In light of all this, with all that’s going on (and not going on), what does it mean to be a maker of meaning, to be a person of care, when the world seems stuck between a rock and a hard place?

Expose the agenda? If so, to what end?

Bypass the agenda? If so, to what end?

I respectfully trust you get the point.

And now for the glimmer of hope …

I understand all too well that the perspective offered in this post is beyond the processing capacity of most people on this planet, and so I am left with a bit of a conundrum: in bypassing the Agenda, at least for now, and letting it play out as it must, who must I be in the meantime?

The posts I have written and published on this site over the past 8 weeks have been attempts at tapping my mind and heart to offer up some semblance of an answer to this rather personal question. For ease of reference, here they are, ordered from least recent to most recent:

Too Nice for My Own Good?

The Fine Art of Doing Nothing

Above and Beyond the Rise

Submissive Enlightenment

I Am a Being of Infinite Worth

A Pic is Worth Many 1000s

Let’s Be Clear About Service

Beauty, Harmony, Intimacy

At this point, I feel it’s useful to make the following distinction:

* a growing quagmire that threatens to sink humanity (in 3D)

* a growing presence that promises to free humanity (in 4D)

Might it be possible to bypass the first and align with the second?

In this graphic, I offer a symbolic way through the growing quagmire into a growing presence that would free humanity of its tendencies to bypass its heart, to target its own kind, and to be other than human, while bringing more sanctity and divinity into the heart of humanity.

Students of the Law of One, in their understanding of the nature of densities, which I’ve explored at length in other posts, will appreciate at least some of what is depicted in this graphical representation.

In the meantime, I shall continue to plumb the depths of human character and sexuality in its many diverse expressions. Here’s a preview of where my rainbow forest mind could be growing and going …

* a deep exploration of the sacred intimate lover
* a resource for the sacred intimate lovers of life

* a deep excavation of toxic human personalities
* a mastery of human nature in all of its complexity

* a beautiful, harmonious life lived in love and lust
* a realization of the ultimate in personal fulfillment

Moving onward and upward, I can presently see myself bringing a sacred intimate perspective to the vanilla sex standard, exploring when and where this standard can be profitably expanded and extended.

In light of this seeing, I remain in wonder: what could it mean to be a maker of meaning (with caring) in a world whose meaning (and caring) is being lost to the past in the present at the expense of the future?

But then, maybe it’s not as bad as all that, just so long as one can continue to care enough to mean well, and do so with presence, and without undue pride, pretense, pressure, prejudice, and presumption.

I mean, … almost anything is possible in the moment, yes?

/

A preview of my published work can be found here.

An outline of my masterwork in progress can be found here.

A listing of my posts on this site can be found here.

Previous post:

Next post: