Sex and Evolution
Niklas Wilkens
I was just watching some clips on YouTube by the Pussycat Dolls. I really enjoy them. I love their sensuality, the fun that they seem to have moving their bodies, the excellence and harmony in their dancing, the rhythm in the movements, the music and the editing of the clips. The lyrics though... remind me of pain associated with attempts to get my needs for intimacy, closeness and sex met. Memories, that I'm about to resolve for myself and have peace with.
For example, something that puzzled me for a long while was the (typically female) complaint "He ONLY wants sex with me." I always took that as blaming me for wanting sex, as though this was something bad, maybe even hurtful, in any case something I shouldn't have. Only recently I found out that this statement can be interpreted as "He only wants sex with me... and I would love that, but I want my needs for closeness, intimacy, understanding and connection to be met as well." This turned my whole worldview about women around.
Being scared of myself wanting sex (which was actually the fear that my belief that it's a bad thing and shouldn't be there could be confirmed), I always tried to avoid to be interested sexually in a girl. If I was, I would either not pursue it or justify the interest through other things about her that I liked. But never, never, never would I have the courage to admit, that I'm drawn to her just or mainly because of a gut- or "lower"-feeling. Being rejected, i.e. me rejecting my own sexual interest, was just too painful to risk it.
Now using NVC as a criterion for whether I'm clear about my needs and the needs of others, I of course notice that "He only wants sex..." doesn't say what SHE wants in the POSITIVE. And what she wants might not be in conflict with what I want, if we get down to it: connection, empathy, openness, safety, you name it. I'm excited about what opens up, when I see this.
In my personal development I'm at a stage where I notice how much seeming safety from rejection I have in my head, and how little connection. I even notice, how my safety is endangered when I'm not connected to my whole being, because then I'm likely to not sense my power to take care of my needs and value them. And so I turn to my sexuality and I'm saying "Hey there... maybe it's time to take care of you better, to let you in, let you flow, let you be and love you."
This brings me to greater questions. I want to explore what it is in our culture, that let's us think that sex could be degrading, dangerous, something to avoid. Honestly, it puzzles me. I'm aware of some attempts to explain this, to empathize with it. But I'm sure there is more. I'd like to explore this with you. I'm convinced that the evolution of mankind is linked with integrating sexuality, accepting and enjoying it more than we are now. And I'd say that we're not complete without it. So let's deal with it!
Other topics linked to this are monogamy, non-monogamy, jealousy, life in community.
I'm eager to read your ideas and experiences.
Curiously
Niklas
--
GMX Kostenlose Spiele: Einfach online spielen und Spaß haben mit Pastry Passion!
http://games.entertainment.gmx.net/de/entertainment/games/free/puzzle/6169196
Gedding
intimacy that Niklas shared.
There are 3 main blocks i have notices around this.
Firstly the fear of rejection. Not being able to see the need behind
the "no", instead interpreting it as rejection, that "i" am not good
enough.
This is amplified because of the fairy tales in many societies that
say that we must chose ONE person with whom to be physically intimate.
This is blatently competitive, leading people to judge person's worth
relative to the worth of others. "If i only get to choose one person
i must chose the "best" person." And "I was not chosen because i was
not good enough".
"Also if i am not good enough maybe i will never be able to meet these
needs?!"
This is the opposite to cooperation, to sharing and connecting with
others as much as posible, which is much more helpful to individuals
and society.
The second is to do with more fairy tales. Ones around the roles and
responcibilities of relationships that involve physical intimacy.
People thinking that if we have sex that means there are obligations
to get married, or hang out alot, or only connect on that level with
one person"
Or that "because he slept with me it means he has to...."
Also the IMAGES that are tied to it.
A person who connects physically to more than one person is a "slut".
A "christian" does not have sex before marriage.
The last hang up that i have noticed is when people learn that
sexuality is "bad". Generally this happens when authority figures
have personal hang ups that they teach to others.
For example it is almost cliche now that the preacher who tells his
parish and anyone else who will listen that homosexuallity is bad
turns out to be himself homosexual, and struggling with this himself.
Parents and other teachers also often do not know how to "deal" with
sexuality and therefore try to aviod the subject or become very
uncomfortable or angry. This sort of behaviour gives very strong
impressions to children that there is something wrong with it.
Also, due to the overwhelming litigious nature of our current society,
there are arbitraty rules and punishments in place.
I see this letigiousness as people asking "if we were all very stupid,
what rules would need to be in place to make sure we can live
together."
Or "people are inherently stupid/greedy/violent/mean, and we, as
lawmakers are (for some reason) not like this, we are smart and wise
and compassionate, so we should make laws for others to follow so we
can all get along".
We have laws for everything, the assumption being that if we all
followed all the laws, like a computer program follows all its llines
of code, then society would work.
The problem is that there can NEVER be laws for everything, most
things are context based that don't fit into laws. Of course there
are MANY problems with this letigious strategy so i wont go into that
right now.
One thing that is impossible to put laws around is sexuality, but
people have tried. Age limits, that change from place to place, is
another reason why sexuality is thought of as "bad". Indeed if it is
to be punished by the legal system it needs to first be "bad" or
"wrong" to deserve punishment.
This legal crap would also put further pressure on parents who have
sexually expressive children, which leads to more (subtle,
unconscious) teachings by them to these children that there is
something wrong with it.
Also added to this "wrongness" is the way domination authority gangs
use it to instill guilt which is benificial to make people easily
controlled.
Some religious gangs teach that it is wrong to connect with women,
even hold hands, but if you kill an infadel you get 72 virgins to
connect with in heaven.
Now this is VERY psycologically damaging seeing as sex needs are as
natural and important as any other biological function.
Many religions have their own taboos and roles tied to sex that they
teach people, all arbitrary and have the side effect of confusion,
guilt, frustration and psycological venerability that makes
brainwashing easier.
Basically it can be summed up as this;
Images and roles and responcibilities around sexual needs or physical
intimacy prevent or hinder natural expression and connection.
It is easier to meet these needs and connect if there is honesty and
awearness of present needs without obligations, roles or images (as
well as awearness of the present needs behind the "no").
However it is in the interest of a controlling minority to prevent
connection and instill guilt to maintain their domination.
As for all the instilled beliefs, images, roles and obligations that
prevent natural and fun connection, expression and play..... well
sometimes its easier to remove them, and other times it might require
deep self reflection perhaps with the help of friends, councellers, or
one's own dreams to gain the insight needed to discover the root of
when and where these believes were learnt and how to remove them.
Thoughts?
Gedding
As for the "evolution" part.
My thoughts about evolution is that beings are evolving towards the
most ideal way of connecting with all other beings in existance.
I think this can be shown by how many of the NVC Needs are based
around connection, play, expression, intimacy, being heard, etc.
I have heard some say that connection underlies all needs, except
those that are required for physical survival which is needed to meet
the connection need.
Some on the "spiritual" quest try and meet this need internally,
turning the mind about on itself and connecting with it directly.
Connecting with one's "true self" void of any thought images of the
self.
Indeed NVC teaches how natural, life-serving behaviour comes out of
actions not done out of duty or obligation.
That obligations are tied to roles we may adopt.
And that roles are tied to images (and labels) we have of ourselves.
Also labeling (or assigning images) to others often prevents
connection, and results in defenciveness or aggression.
So this sort of "spiritual quest" is very much in line with NVC.
This direct connection to mind or self, seems to be the inward
manifestation of the outward desire to connect honestly, presently,
and directly to others.
When this happens well, then a "gestalt" happens.
Whereby the resulting whole is greater than the sum of the individual
parts.
Think of how a sports team, when connected well, plays much better
than
the sum of the skills of the individual players.
Or a band sounds better than the sum of all the instruments played
seperately.
This is how i understand "evolution".
And sexuality is one form of connection that can be honest, present
and deep.
However for a controlling minority to maintain power over tactics
connection is not wanted.
What is more preferable is disconnected workers, with many roles and
enemy images, not unified, persuing extrinsic rewards that they offer,
using jackal
language that implys wrongness and justifies violence, at home,
partaking in solitary activities like watching TV.
But so long as we can connect with our bio-feedback system (our
feelings) we will get awearness of when we do connect and form
gestalts.
And, so long as we stay intrinsically motivated, these feelings will
encourage further desire to persue connection, that will, i think,
reach a critical point where the whole process will snowball, gaining
more and more positive feelings from deeper connection that will
culminate at a point of total, autonomous connection with all other
energy in existance.
Infinity and oneness. All the universe all at once. The culmination
of the evolutionary process.
Thoughts?
Craig Sones Cornell
I thought I would start taking on your post with some personal
revelation and general reflections.
I am in a 10 year monogamous marriage. I am a fat old man (56). My
wife is 19 years younger and a Yoga princess. In an earlier time in
our marriage, she did a stint as a nude model at a local art college.
I have expressed to her that if she ever was discontented with our sex
life, especially since I am getting older with less testosterone, that
I would be open to her having outside lovers or at least fuckers. She
declined unless she is overwhelmed by passion in a one night stand,
which she could imagine happening. That is how in one giraffish
marriage we have negotiated our current understanding of who to do it
with. How to do it is a thicket for exploration and evolution. I have
not really dealt with sex in a workshop yet, but I would enjoy
exploring more on this evolutionary forum. So with that brief
introduction, I hope that this provides a context for more grist for
your mill. I hope it is responsive to your the monogamy, non-monogamy
question for just one couple.
I have really enjoyed two things that Marshall has said about sex and
children. One is that sex is mostly a strategy to meet a wide variety
of needs. I put this together in my moldy mind as: to fuck or not to
fuck, that’s a complex question. Who to fuck, to jack off, which
orifice one chooses to gratify one’s needs for “sex” is a question for
people to spend a life time evolving through. I would love to hear
those of you who have experienced more explicit NVC sex processing to
chime in.
Marshall also said in a workshop that children are also a strategy to
meet needs. That caused my wife to cheer and jump for joy. It was a
confirmation for her of our decision not to have children.
One of the trainers who helped my take my first baby giraffe steps
just got married. They were committed, living together, enjoying each
other. So why marriage? He noted in a recent teleconference group that
his actually marrying made a difference that he could not completely
describe in words to the level and kind of needs satisfaction that his
marriage is bringing them.
A dear giraffe lady friend who is in a sexually active and mostly
satisfying marriage with two children said in a workshop that sex,
marriage, and children were messy and organic. Even in a giraffe
family, there are no clear answers. Life is too full of dynamism and
surprises.
I think that raw sex is intended by evolution to propagate the
species. It is natural in that sense. But like all things hardwired
into our physiology by God or whoever or whatever it is subject to a
myriad of complex factors and not subject to a simple answer in the
reality of our human experience. Sex is a very live fact of our
domination-submission paradigms for living. My knowledge of our simian
cousins is that they have all kinds of dominance structures in their
sexual relationships. I hope we can evolve better ways than we have to
this point navigate this messy, fun, complex thicket in terms of NVC.
Aside from the personal aspects of your question which I will take on
point by point in a minute, I think the most direct answer is that sex
in life is a very live thing for honesty, empathy, and self-empathy
through OFNR and other strategies. It is too often left to the shadow
world below thought or ego as Tolle likes to put it. Sex becomes a
game full of power abuses, enemy images, and the like.
On Aug 29, 8:02 pm, "Niklas Wilkens" <Vor...@gmx.de> wrote:
> I'd like to introduce a new topic.
>
> I was just watching some clips on YouTube by the Pussycat Dolls. I really enjoy them. I love their sensuality, the fun that they seem to have moving their bodies, the excellence and harmony in their dancing, the rhythm in the movements, the music and the editing of the clips. The lyrics though... remind me of pain associated with attempts to get my needs for intimacy, closeness and sex met. Memories, that I'm about to resolve for myself and have peace with.
did get is that visual stimulation by beautiful women dancing and
undulating their bodies meets needs of yours. I read that the
experience met needs for fun watching them. I am guessing that there
are other needs and feelings that come alive. Perhaps beauty, sensory
stimulation, that breathless sense of desire or longing. I don’t know
about your relationships context, but I am guessing that they may
bring to life a yearning a quality and intensity of experience of
connection that you are not enjoying right now. That may bring alive
some pain or mourning. As to your comment about the lyrics, I don’t
grok it because I don’t know the lyrics.
> For example, something that puzzled me for a long while was the (typically female) complaint "He ONLY wants sex with me." I always took that as blaming me for wanting sex, as though this was something bad, maybe even hurtful, in any case something I shouldn't have. Only recently I found out that this statement can be interpreted as "He only wants sex with me... and I would love that, but I want my needs for closeness, intimacy, understanding and connection to be met as well." This turned my whole worldview about women around.
change to “and I would love that” to “I might love that”. No matter
how liberated and sexually active a woman may be, sex is invasive to
her body, in the natural world it leads to pregnancy with all of the
maternal concerns about sustenance, safety, protection that having a
baby with or by a man entails. Even a woman on birth control or a
couple using condoms may have this going on in her complex
physiologically based decision to do it or not. In an evolved NVC
world some of this is ripe to come to the surface in explicit
giraffish conversation, vulnerability, and connection.
> Being scared of myself wanting sex (which was actually the fear that my belief that it's a bad thing and shouldn't be there could be confirmed), I always tried to avoid to be interested sexually in a girl. If I was, I would either not pursue it or justify the interest through other things about her that I liked. But never, never, never would I have the courage to admit, that I'm drawn to her just or mainly because of a gut- or "lower"-feeling. Being rejected, i.e. me rejecting my own sexual interest, was just too painful to risk it.
vulnerable and honest. It really meets my value of transparency. I
really celebrate that you are allowing the possibility of the visceral
power of raw emotion. That you experience that “lower” feelings are
part of a completely lived life. I am curious about the source of the
“lower”. Was it an institutional religion or parents and the like. Or
is it more a new agey dichotomy between higher and lower
consciousness? Maybe it is something else.
> Now using NVC as a criterion for whether I'm clear about my needs and the needs of others, I of course notice that "He only wants sex..." doesn't say what SHE wants in the POSITIVE. And what she wants might not be in conflict with what I want, if we get down to it: connection, empathy, openness, safety, you name it. I'm excited about what opens up, when I see this.
things in the positive. The problem with most of us is that we live
below or without consciousness of what is really going on. It is hard
to make a positive or negative statement that truly reflects what is
going on. She may not know what she really wants. Even a female
giraffe may need a lot of trust and experience in a relationship
before she is really willing to explore and expose verbally what is
really going on. All of the profound consideration and revelation that
you are expressing and experiencing may be really be alive for her
also.
> In my personal development I'm at a stage where I notice how much seeming safety from rejection I have in my head, and how little connection. I even notice, how my safety is endangered when I'm not connected to my whole being, because then I'm likely to not sense my power to take care of my needs and value them. And so I turn to my sexuality and I'm saying "Hey there... maybe it's time to take care of you better, to let you in, let you flow, let you be and love you."
Wow. Amen brother.
> This brings me to greater questions. I want to explore what it is in our culture, that let's us think that sex could be degrading, dangerous, something to avoid. Honestly, it puzzles me. I'm aware of some attempts to explain this, to empathize with it. But I'm sure there is more. I'd like to explore this with you. I'm convinced that the evolution of mankind is linked with integrating sexuality, accepting and enjoying it more than we are now. And I'd say that we're not complete without it. So let's deal with it!
> Other topics linked to this are monogamy, non-monogamy, jealousy, life in community.
people who have or do. Jealousy is one of the most destructive human
propensities for blasting them apart. NVC gives us a dynamic
possibility for dealing with jealousy. Kelly Bryson also discusses
this, though if I have my stuff right, the intentional NVC community
he helped found did not survive. Jealousy is not really alive in my
life and marriage right now. I would love to join you in learning more
about how this works in an evolving NVC universe. I would love to make
or see a movie or novel explore jealousy from an NVC perspective. I
believe that modern myths are the role play of connective
consciousness. I would really like to see it addressed here more
fully.
> I'm eager to read your ideas and experiences.
>
> Curiously
> Niklas
> --
Craig Sones Cornell
you to disconnect from the domination power structure personally and
as a society or cluture.
I have a reflection or curiosity about laws. The laws about statutory
rape have a ridiculous feature that says a 18 year old having sex with
a 16 year old is illegal. One of my favorite TV series, Queer as Folk,
was focused on a 17 year old and his very complex, explicity erotic,
and in many ways life serving relationship with a man in his 40's.He
came out in one of the most powerful and dramatic sex scenes I have
seen in a long time. It really seems to illlustrate the inherent
futulity of the statutory rape law when applied to older teenagers..
However, the law also protects 12 year olds from 40 year olds. It
protects the same 12 year old from her step-father or father.I am
curious how your react to the purpose of such a law protecting that 12
year old.
Also, to Niklas I related the situation in brief that I will elaborate
a bit more now. While I worked in the family courts in Hawaii, the
thorniest most difficult problem I faced was the 10 and 11 year old
boys how were prostitutes for rich older gay men who sometime flew to
Hawaii just fo the thrill of this "illicit" connection, which
obviously met needs of theirs. The greatest conundrum was that once
the boys got over the disgust at having their anuses penetrated or
thier mouths filled with cock, they really got off on the one money,
power, and thrill of being in these relationships. It ws not really
the conscoiusly traumatic experience which most of might expect. Is
this a problem for you and and if so, how do we proscribe it?
Curious, Craig.
Craig Sones Cornell
What you wrote about evolution moves and inspires me. Meets my needs
for growth, mutuality, and possibilities. There is one paragraph that
left me puzzled and I would appreciate some clarification and
expansion.
> jackal language that implys wrongness and justifies violence, at home,
> partaking in solitary activities like watching TV.
concrete example.
All the best, Craig.
Niklas Wilkens
thanks a lot for your response. I'm intrigued and my needs for connection and companionship are met.
I really enjoy you're pointing out the fairy tale about the ONE and how that stimulates competition, a sense of scarcity and doubts about self-worth ability to get needs met. Since I have shed light on this fairy tale within myself, I find myself much more relaxed and open to meet my needs with someone that I don't find so hot yet, but that I'm willing to get to know better. And my hypothesis that attraction works by association ("he/she reminds me of someone I know how to connect and enjoy myself with") has been confirmed so far. When I can connect with the needs behind a certain behavior, my whole perception of that person and his/her appearance changes and I even like people better, whom I don't know yet, but who look a bit like people I know. Wonderful! So resolving that fairy tale definitely leads to more sharing and connection.
The responsibilities and future obligations that keep popping up in my mind, the moment I get a real possibility to have physical intimacy with someone, are definitely in the way of meeting my need for safety, autonomy and empathy. My way of going around that is that I talk about my philosophy as a topic that interests me and that I like to hear reactions to. That way I make clear how I see things and it gets easier to discuss it with her beforehand. It's kind of sneaky, to protect me from being disconnected with myself, when I'm confused about how to adress this fairy tale.
The images, rules and ideas about how relationships are supposed to be dealt with are of course always on the surface level and are easily grasped by people, who aren't aware about what's really going on. And that's where the growth edge is.
Authority figures with hang ups seem to be all around the world. I'm always puzzled and surprised when I learn that people are really putting their ideas out there that are coming from confusion and attachment and they are really transmitting that as truth... I would never want to do that, because I suffered from it too much myself and it's not in harmony with my value of responsibility and truthfulness. I seem to have a high standard there, but come on guys! How can you do that?!?
The awkwardness that comes from parents and teachers who talk about sex, non-verbally expressing either feelings of discomfort or anger is very familiar to me. Also not having a model that lives a sexual life with tenderness and care, but also with a lot of energy, contributes to a sense of danger around sex. I remember how I was sitting in my room 14 years old, my mother came in and saw I had pictures of nude women on my screen. She expressed her dismay (I don't remember the words), but somehow even before she said anything I got very scared. And that must have come from a preconception about this, really thinking it was bad, i.e. endangering my needs for belonging.
> I see this letigiousness as people asking "if we were all very stupid,
> what rules would need to be in place to make sure we can live
> together."
:-D I love this sentence! Expresses a deep frustration of mine to the point!
I have recently thought about the age limit of sex as well. And I wondered what kind of protection is needed for children and what actually should happen differently than it usually does, if we want a healthy relationship to our sexuality.
I believe children are as interested in sexuality as adults are - in their own, explorative ways. And what I can imagine is that children, as anybody else, need a safe, warm and trusting environment in order to have a healthy relationship to their power, to the power of sexual expression and how it nurtures and enriches life. I can imagine that seeing adults having wild sex might be scary for a child, that has yet to understand what these movements mean and how they feel like. So in order to introduce a child to getting to know itself sexually, I'd like it to have guidance and safety, so trust can develop.
I follow your argument, Gedding, that anything that is punishable must first be defined as bad. If it isn't bad, the only thing needed is education, not punishment. But the level of awareness isn't there, no education can be offered and then punishment seems like the best remaining option - with a steep price.
> However it is in the interest of a controlling minority to prevent
> connection and instill guilt to maintain their domination.
I'd like to add here, that this interest is obviously only superficial. If one would go deeper, one would see how self-defeating these strategies are for EVERYONE!
I'd like to ask you, Gedding, if you're willing to share your personal situation around women, like Craig did. I will do the same in the response to Craig's post. I like how this gets real, when I get to know the situation.
Thanks a lot and I'm eager to read your response.
Warmly
Niklas
--
Psssst! Schon das coole Video vom GMX MultiMessenger gesehen?
Der Eine für Alle: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/messenger03
Niklas Wilkens
thanks so much for your reply. I feel warm and tender and my needs for connection support, empathy and love are met by what you wrote.
First off my personal situation. I'm 23 and not in a monogamous relationship right now. About two years ago the girl that I was together with for 4 years left me and since then I committed myself to finding out what this was all about: where the hang ups were, what I needed, what I received, what I didn't get, what I contributed to the situation, what I had trouble connecting to in her. I find that I resolved a lot through this, for more and more often I'm one with the raw vulnerability of myself which tells me that I'm human. This means that I'm aware of the essential insecurity of life being the very same as its vitality. That I can't know what will come next and that the word eternity points to the NOW, not to time going on indefinitely. So I'm not looking for static and "secure" things anymore, but for eternal things. And that includes relationships.
While I was in the US at two NVC workshops I got in touch with my troubles around intimacy. I met two girls I got involved with, both living polyamorously. That inspired me to take care of my needs in different ways than before. Right now I'm involved with a girl in the city where I live and I really enjoy the learning about connecting through difficulties, sexual connection, freedom and closeness.
Just a few minutes ago, she shared that she has a hard time getting this straight, because she doesn't want to give up her needs for me, which is hard for her, when I'm clear about them. She wants to stay free, until there is someone where she might be willing to make different priorities again. She's also confused about how to understand for herself, how she can sleep with me, while looking for another guy as well. She's worried, that she can't really be open for a new monogamous relationship, while she's with me, because she would have to give up what we have, to be with another guy. And for that she actually would need time to heal and wouldn't be ready right away. That's at least where she's at now. So she considers to stop the sex and have less intimacy with me, while still being connected differently.
This really triggers me and my fears. I'm wondering "Will I ever find that openness and closeness with someone again? I want to trust so much, that I can have it. And it hurts deeply when I don't see how..." I really love how I got to know her better, opened up to her, enjoy her body and heart. I want to keep and develop that, not lose it...
I'm going to share this with her later, because she asked for it, wanting to hear it. We'll see what happens...
In any case, thanks for your personal description, Craig. It gives me a crisp and graspable idea of how this is like for you now with your yoga princess :-)
I also share Marshall's point of view on sex being a strategy for many different needs. I believe one need that is very intensely mixed in with sex, is the need for an honest connection, expressed through nakedness and physical vulnerability. With the girl I'm involved with, I noticed that sex met my need for connection and self-expression so deeply, because I don't see how to convey to her in any other way, how delighted and filled up with love I am, spending time with her. And I find also find when that connection is there through words or gestures, then sex becomes less urgent or important in that respect. It maybe stays as a way to celebrate the connection.
I have a gay friend who is also very pleased to see how children are a strategy for needs that can get met otherwise.
Concerning the trainer you know who got married, I'm guessing that marrying his partner might have created a safe environment for self-expression, development, depth that comes through continuity... but I guess your point is that you'd like to see the ability to express what's going on verbally as constantly evolving and something that is hardly perfect. So it would be easier to accept it as it is for now. Is that correct?
> Even in a giraffe family, there are no clear answers. Life is too full of dynamism and surprises.
I guess that depends on what questions you ask :-)
> I think that raw sex is intended by evolution to propagate the
> species. It is natural in that sense.
I'm not sure how it contributes to assert that raw sex is natural. I mean, this rings very much still like "It's dirt, but it's necessary..." - somehow admitting that you can't do away with it, because without it, we wouldn't be here.
Alan Watts makes a brilliant point that going on and propagating the species is pointless, if the "going"-part in "going on" is no fun. Why would you continue doing something that isn't worth doing in the first place? So why would you prolong life, when it is a drag? What would you be interested in, other than the fun you have while doing your thing? And I find this has to include sexuality too. It's wortwhile in and by itself! It's a celebration of how beautiful life can be, how vibrant and fascinating. And this makes it spiritual, since spiritual matters are those which deal with things that show us the greater beauty of life (in my definition for now).
Here's a clip by the Pussycat Dolls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF1ofPBj37M
One part of the lyrics I'm referring to is:
"Every boy's the same, since I’ve been in seventh grade
They been tryin’ to get with me, tryin’ to (hahaha hahaha)
They always got a plan, to be my one ‘n’ only man
Wanna hold me with their hands, wanna (hahaha hahaha)
I keep turnin’ them down, but they always come around
Askin’ me to go around, that’s not the way it’s goin’ down
‘Cos they only want, only want, my (nahaha nahaha)
Only want what they want, but (nahaha nahaha)"
I enjoyed the empathy so much, with which you were responding to my enjoyment of the Pussycat Dolls, Craig. It touches my emotional wounds around sexuality with care, consideration and understanding. I confirm that my needs for beauty, sensory stimulation, this breathless sense of desire or longing are met.
I particularly like this part.
> I don’t know about your relationships context, but I am guessing that they may
> bring to life a yearning a quality and intensity of experience of
> connection that you are not enjoying right now. That may bring alive
> some pain or mourning.
I can't remember anybody having guessed that so far, concerning these topics. And it hits right home! The pain is that I'm so little connected to these needs usually, considering them as "unmeetable" when the woman I associate these feelings with, seems to be so out of reach. Then it's hard to stand by my needs without telling myself how futile it is...
About "I MIGHT love sex with you": Are you saying that you'd like the woman's needs for safety and all the concerns about pregnancy to be taken into consideration as well, when I wonder what's behind "He only wants sex with me..."?
> Being scared about wanting sex touches me deeply as incredibly
> vulnerable and honest. It really meets my value of transparency. I
> really celebrate that you are allowing the possibility of the visceral
> power of raw emotion. That you experience that “lower” feelings are
> part of a completely lived life.
This is where my need for love is met, because your answer allowed me to see myself in this beautiful tenderness and rawness, that I didn't notice before. Thanks a lot for that!
> I am curious about the source of the
> “lower”. Was it an institutional religion or parents and the like. Or
> is it more a new agey dichotomy between higher and lower
> consciousness? Maybe it is something else.
I actually was really thinking about the chakras, the sexual chakra being the second one, lower in the body than the higher five. But nevertheless "lower" still rings a bell. There's a belief that it's less profound. That being interested sexually is "only" being interested in the body and not the whole person. Actually I find that "not being interested" is not an experience. The experience is better described by saying that I'm scared and needing connection. In that situation I might believe that I only really get that, when I have sex with the person, having too much trouble to find my way through her mind to her heart. But still, I want to be in touch with her heart, or rather, with her whole being.
I'd like to reframe sexual connection as a rawer and deeper kind of spiritual connection. Kelly Bryson calls it Spiritual Energy eXchange. I like that.
> She may not know what she really wants. Even a female
> giraffe may need a lot of trust and experience in a relationship
> before she is really willing to explore and expose verbally what is
> really going on. All of the profound consideration and revelation that
> you are expressing and experiencing may be really be alive for her
> also.
Yes, this is probably so. And the best way to support the expression of this, that I'm aware of, is to find it out and formulate it myself first and then ask whether it rings true for her as well. Then it's easier to feel safe for her, because I already opened the space for these things by naming them.
At least, I find myself driven by that commitment, also because I don't want the painful situation of non-communication that I had with my ex, when I was most vulnerable, ever to occur again (if I can help it). I want to be able to make sense of it, even when she's not literate in feelings and needs. I want to be able to enjoy all of humanity and life, not just people who are blessed by an access to marvelous tools like NVC.
I take the "Wow. Amen brother." as a deep expression of gratitude and communion :-)
> Jealousy is one of the most destructive human
> propensities for blasting [intentional communities] apart.
I agree. So far my reflection on jealousy has brought the following: jealousy has two components. The one is the result of comparing oneself to another by cultural standards. The feeling that comes from that, when the comparison concludes on me being inferior, is shame. Anyone who triggers shame in me, will probably be the target of my hatred, when the whole process stays below the surface-level of awareness - and me believing that the stimulus is actually the cause for the shame.
In the book "Violence" by James Gilligan, the author, who worked as a psychiatrist in prisons for about 25 years, shows how shame and the attempt to "get rid of it" is the source of a lot of violence, from murder to mutilation.
One other instant where this shows is, when one member of the community, who is hated for his or her power, makes a mistake, acts not in line with the rules of the community, spoken or unspoken. The reaction will be: "Out you go! You made a mistake, you committed a crime, you deserve to be punished!" And this is not about what this person did, but about the hatred that comes from the shame when people compare themselves unfavorably to him or her.
What is needed here is a sense of one's own power to enrich life, mine and that of others. When I don't see my power, I see it in others and the blindness towards my own hurts even more. So we need a connection to our own importance, power, and "hotness".
When this is missing the second factor comes in: a general fear about "will I ever get these needs met?" For that we need caring communities which show us that scarcity is not real, but dependent on the transparency people have with each other. In a community there is always someone willing to take care of my needs, without giving up his or her own. And from there a universal trust evolves in the light of which jealousy has no chance.
This is very much like what Gedding said about the fairy tale of the ONE, which creates scarcity and competition. We need something other than that, something that allows people to be present to the needs they have now and to choose freely how to meet them - it's way more fun.
> I would love to make or see a movie or novel explore jealousy from an NVC perspective.
This really inspires me. I want that too! I would love to create a story like that! I'm inspired by imagening how many people might have magic shift through that...
I'm looking forward to reading your response.
Warmly
Niklas
--
Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten
Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser
Gedding
I hear Craig saying that he see these sexual laws as rediculous and
harmful, but at the same time thinks that it offers protection to some
people.
Yesterday i read a story in the newspaper about a family who were
forced to live in the cellar of their house.
The father raped the daughter, and out of fear of punishment kept her
locked in the cellar along with the children of their union.
Now the law is in place, did it protect the daughter? No.
It did however prevent the father from expressing what had happened,
and possibly finding another way of meeting his need.
It did result in the daughter's needs for autonomy and freedom not
being met, as the father would surely have been punished if she had
been let out of the cellar and had expressed what had happened.
Laws are very jackal, in many ways. I understand thye are marketed to
the public as being in our own best interest, as all domination
authority's claim.
"The people need protection from themselves."
Im sure Marshal goes into this futher, but here is a one-liner that
might get people thinking;
"Who polices the police?"
Gedding
Craig, people are easier to conroll if they are not unified, or
connecting. Keeping people disconnected with enemy imagery, jackal
language, or solitary activities like TV are effective ways of
maintain controll over people.
"Divide and Conquer" is the expression.
An example is how cooperations try to make workers unions illegal.
Or how some companies like Coke murder union organisors.
Niklas;
Yay! I feel so happy hearing about the light you have shed on your own
beliefs and connections! Meets needs for connection and cooperation,
between me and you and also improving the potential for meeting these
needs in the whole human race!
Niklas wrote;
in and saw I had pictures of nude women on my screen. She expressed
her dismay (I don't remember the words), but somehow even before she
said anything I got very scared. And that must have come from a
preconception about this, really thinking it was bad, i.e. endangering
my needs for belonging."
because i can empathise with your mother and yourself in the story!
What a sticky situation!
The instant sence that there is something "uncomfortable" alive in mum
is something very powerful.
When kids notice a parent's mood, and ask "are you ok?"
often the parent will say that everything is fine, out of compassion
and not wanting to distress the child.
But this leads to children learning not to trust their intuitions and
feelings, perhaps thinking "there is something wrong with me if i
thought that and i am wrong..."
Some cultures think that this sort of behaviour teaches innate psychic
abilities out of children.
If parents were honest and open and accepting about what is present,
even when in pain, then the child would develop better as they would
not be getting all the mixed messages.
Teaching "empathy" over "sympathy" would help parents in this
situation.
"I can be in pain, thats ok, my child does not have to feel as i do to
empathise with me."
I loved hearing your responces Niklas! And i agree that these self-
defeating strategies harm everyone.
That domination strategies, while seeming superfiscially to meet
needs, really, when one thinks deeper, does not.
It is in everyone's actual best interest, even the controlling elite,
for cooperative connection to take place on all levels!
This is the social side of the idea in NVC of realising that there is
no "selfish/selfless" dichodomy, there is only "SELF-FULL".
Hopefully the domination authorities will realise the social structure
manifestation of this soon.
Perhaps they will when large and appealing enough gestalts are formed
between the non-elite!
Out of time, bbs!
Lea
of insight and touches me.
Now for something I was reading and enjoying recently, it's
essentially about sex as a strategy for meeting needs - though it was
not written in an NVC context. I've abbreviated a bit for this forum,
the full article is here (http://asexualunderground.blogspot.com/
2006/07/4-confessions-of-asexual-slut-part-2.html). Hope some of you
can relate:
--------begin quote----------
CONFESSIONS OF AN ASEXUAL SLUT
No offense to all my sexual people listening in. Seriously, you all
know I’ve got nothing but love and I know you know I know how to share
it. See I’ve gotten to know the sexual human being intimately, I’ve
gotten to see you all inside, backwards and upside down and I’ve drawn
myself a little conclusion: sex kinda makes you a prude.
Now it’s one thing to lick the inside of each others' faces or play
table tennis with bodily fluids, but when it comes to actual balls-to-
bone unadulterated nonsexual intimacy half of you are afraid to so
much as show a little ankle.
Let me be perfectly clear here: when I say "intimacy" I'm not talking
about when you stare into each other's eyes by candlelight and then
"just" cuddle. I'm talking about vulnerability, about seeking out the
most sensitive areas of your being and seeing what you can do with
them. Now in my experience if you can do that, if you can really do
that it’ll more intense than any sex they've had in their life,
because at the end of the day the sensitive bits in your pants are, at
best, just a cushy metaphor for what's happening deeper down.
Now I wanna talk to all my asexuals out there, ‘cause I want to back
up and take a look at the big picture. Now I love ‘em, but sexual folk
come prepackaged with an annoying inclination to pretend that we
asexual people don't exist. They start out denying the existence of
our whole population, and when they get over that they like to deny
our existence as potential partners. Some of the other theory dorks
from the community and I like to chalk this up to what we call the
"sexual/nonsexual binary," the idea that pleasures, desires and
relationships which are "sexual" are somehow different than pleasures,
desires and relationships which aren't.
You can do a quick experiment to see what I'm talking about. Start
telling someone about a close relationship that you're in, and create
genuine ambiguity about whether the relationship is "just a
friendship" or "something more." They'll start getting fidgety,
eventually they'll interrupt you mid-sentence and demand to know if
you and the party in question are bumping fenders, the same way they
would if you started talking about a newborn baby and failed to
mention the specifics of its genitalia.
Why? Because most sexual people can't think about relationships in any
serious way without thinking about sex. To them capital-r
"Relationships" are in one category, "friendships" are in another and
sex is the line that separates the two. They take one look at my (not
unattractive) asexual ass and lament the fact that we will never be
able to cross that line, writing me off as safely unable to
reciprocate whatever desires they might feel.
It's almost kind of cute.
We covered this back in part one, but I reciprocate more desire than
the barmaid at the Lusty Sailor Tavern on Whore Island. See, sex is
never just about sex. Anytime anyone feels a sexual desire for me
there are plenty of dirty little nonsexual desires just below the
surface, struggling to get out. Desires for things like validation,
safety, intimacy, power and release. They can pretend that these
desires don't exist, that their need for sex is pure and untarnished
by nastines like vulnerability. But repressing a desire will only make
it stronger, and strong desire is just what this little barmaid likes.
Here’s the dirty little secret: By itself, sex is always boring. I’ve
never known a sexual person, not one, who enjoyed sex simply because
they like it when the penis goes in the vagina. At bars, clubs and
drunken college parties people cruising for one-night stands are
simply bubbling with nonsexual energy- they want to show off to their
friends, they want to prove themselves, they want release, they want
to be close to someone without worrying about the inconvenience of
keeping them that way. New couples are practically overflowing with
the need to be affectionate, to make each other happy, to create
intimacy and to avoid it, to assert and give up power over one
another. Everyone who has sex has it for a reason. What’s interesting
is when people STOP having a reason to have sex. When they’re not
looking for anything, when everything in their relationship has been
figured out and hums along of its own accord sex drops right out of
the equation. It’s kind of like a bucket of water- the fluids are only
gonna slosh around when something’s shaking the handle.
All my asexual slutlets out there, listen up and listen good. Next
time someone starts hitting on you or starts complaining about how
much they need to get laid look at them out of the corner of your eye
and squint. See past the sex, past the anxious horniness and the
stress about bodies and the pent up tension, and get a good look at
what’s shaking that bucket. Call it out. See what happens.
----------end quote-----------
BTW a guy wrote this.
Niklas Wilkens
What I can relate to very well is how the categorical thinking about relationships seperates me from the real world and its inhabitants. After my last girlfriend broke up (probably the last girl I will call by her role for me) and noticing how much she didn't want to get back into a "Relationship" with me, I really started to wonder, what this actually means for me. And what it means for her in this context. And I noticed that we meant totally different things. While I wanted to keep the connection and stay in the dance of honesty and empathy, although being very scared of what might come up, she associated this with giving up her needs for the responsibility to take care of mine. From then on I told myself "What is this crap! Why do we have these definitions? Do they really help us to say what we experience and express what we want?" I see them as a kind of summary. Like the guy in the post said, the substitute a 20 minutes lecture by just one little word. At the same time, as with any kind of symbol for reality, it can be ascribed to many meanings.
As I wrote, I'm "involved" with a girl right now, where I refuse to think about "what this is". I focus on what we do concretely. How we spend our time, what needs get met, what needs don't, what I like to do with her, what she likes to do with me. I find that any definition of this relationship gets us into a space where we lose power, because we assign the other to a role. And then the other gets the job to meet our needs. The result is very likely, that I lose touch with my needs and my power to meet them. And I don't like that deal.
That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy my needs getting met by something she does or says. It just means I want to be aware of that universal quality. And as Carl Rogers said: "What is most personal is most general."
Apart from that, I'm not sure whether asexuality isn't a strategy that is tried by people who see through the real needs behind the superficial desire for sex. And they want to adress these needs directly instead of compensating or going around the real issue. My point is, once that is done, sexuality can be enjoyed differently, directly as a spiritual connection of openly vulnerable human beings, which is in fact and in the real world "to enjoy having the penis in a vagina." This is what happens on the outside. On the inside it is complete surrender to life, to change, to vitality, to connection and love.
I'm curious for other reactions.
--
GMX Kostenlose Spiele: Einfach online spielen und Spaß haben mit Pastry Passion!
http://games.entertainment.gmx.net/de/entertainment/games/free/puzzle/6169196
Craig Sones Cornell
In thinking more and hearing something in a workshop, I am interested
in what I proposed in terms of the protective use of force as a part
of our laws. I get the criminalization of behavior leads to fear of
punishment that makes a father who raped his daughter want to hide.
Such laws do not stop such horrors, obviously. But the same sets of
laws allow the state via police, social workers, and the like
intervene in such a situation to remove the girl from her father for
her protection. It is the same in the case of the law protecting a 12
year old from a father or any adult really having sex with her. Even
though not ideal, is not the intervention made possible by laws
desireable and in concert with NVC? There are laws requiring the
report of suspected abuse of children in the US. They also require a
quick investigation or followup by the police or a social worker. Is
this not a law intended to make possible the protective use of force.
Finally to the workshop, the laws setting an age limit on driving are
designed to protect young teenages and the public from dangerous or
irresponsible driving. Similarly, a law or regulation that bans soda
and junk food vending at schools is meant to protect kids from the
"lies of coca-cola" as you put it. How do we protect kids from such
lies if not by the protective use of force in a law or regulation?
Thoughts?
Craig
Craig Sones Cornell
point of tears that my post about your question could have had such
profound impact on you. It adds new dimension and possiblity to making
profound connection in a written form. (I have been sceptical that NVC
deep connection could be made on this level via the internet. I am now
inspired.) It really confirms my personal confidence as a writer that
I can make a powerful, life serving impact.
Monogamy or not can wait for later, if ever. You are so young and open
that you will I predict connect in ways that serve life and your
desire for a high quality of relationships. . I so admire your honest,
vulnerable, heart filled exploration of yourself and those you want to
connect with . I imagine that a lot of ladies will be touched if not
blessed by their encounters with you, sexual or not.
I will try to responde more later.
Thanks from the depths of my heart and soul, Craig.
>
> read more »
Lea
> What I can relate to very well is how the categorical thinking about relationships seperates me from the real world and its inhabitants.
other makes it easier to disconnect from what is happening in the
present moment.
>it means for her in this context. And I noticed that we meant totally different things. While I wanted to keep the connection and stay in the dance of honesty and empathy, although being very scared of what might come up, she >associated this with giving up her needs for the responsibility to take care of mine.
the definition of the relationship between us, she thought you wanted
her to take care of your needs...? This part is just not clear to me,
but I think in general I get your point about substituting symbols for
reality.
> As I wrote, I'm "involved" with a girl right now, where I refuse to think about "what this is"...
I really like that attitude! :) It's delightful for me to see that
level of honesty and willingness to engage with immediate reality.
> Apart from that, I'm not sure whether asexuality isn't a strategy that is tried by people who see through the real needs behind the superficial desire for sex. And they want to adress these needs directly instead of compensating or >going around the real issue. My point is, once that is done, sexuality can be enjoyed differently, directly as a spiritual connection of openly vulnerable human beings, which is in fact and in the real world "to enjoy having the penis in >a vagina." This is what happens on the outside. On the inside it is complete surrender to life, to change, to vitality, to connection and love.
post, what sex means to you and how deeply you experience the
connection and surrender. It sounds very alive and powerful in you.
It's a celebration for me whenever I see that depth of feeling and
passion. I enjoy very much the way you describe the vulnerability,
openness and spiritual connection.
I think for an inherently sexual being who leaves sex to address the
needs behind superficial desire for it directly, and then returns to
sexuality to enjoy it at a much deeper and clearer level, this must be
a wonderfully fulfilling experience.
The people who declare themselves "asexual" are quite a diverse bunch
and my impression is not all of them are coming from the same place.
So there is no unified "They", really. But it seems that some people
(and in particular the guy who wrote this article) are in fact
biologically not wired to experience what is normally called "sexual
attraction" - a desire to have sexual activity with a particular
person. To many "asexual" people, the act of rubbing genitalia is no
more interesting than, as somebody said, continuously sticking a
finger up another person's nose. :) It's not necessarily unpleasant,
but why anyone would want to keep doing it puzzling. Somehow the brain
chemistry that associates this with love doesn't get triggered.
For me, knowing about this just brings one more realization how much
we assume about other people's realities necessarily being like ours.
Wow.
Niklas Wilkens
let's see how we can clarify this further.
> Absolutely. Agree 100%. Assigning categories to what we are to each
> other makes it easier to disconnect from what is happening in the
> present moment.
That's exactly it. Actually for a while these categories were an attempt to protect me from the inherent insecurity in life. That is, while there IS (static) such a thing as a love relationship, the fulfillment of my needs for love and intimacy is guaranteed and I don't have to think about it anymore, don't have to be connected to it, while my lover is around.
Now, this has two downsides: first, nothing is real but what happens concretely, what happens specifically. So the vagueness of categories like "love relationship" doesn't help me to be in touch with that and sooner or later real life surprises me and gets me again (like she is about to spend time with someone else she likes). After I understood that, I started to see how important present requests really are. Something has to happen anyway, so I might as well say what I'd like to happen. Before that, I was scared of the unforeseen consequences of my requests, basically that they might ruin my life and it's my fault.
Second, when I'm not connected to my needs, I'm not connected to my power. And then being in touch with my partner and having her around all the time is an attempt to meet my need for seeing, accepting and owning my power. That way I'm screwed when she wants to meet her needs in ways that don't imply me. So I rather want a direct connection to my needs. And that tends to work better without categorical thinking.
About the meaning of the word "relationship" in context with my ex:
I'm glad you ask, because I wasn't so sure either what I meant ;-) Let's see... well, basically I was scared, because I wanted to keep our connection and I wanted to be authentic while I was with her. I understood that she would receive my desire to touch her, be with her, sleep with her as a threat to her autonomy, or rather her self-connection. So I was confused about how we could spend time with each other while that is so. So saying I want the relationship back meant actually, that I wanted to be authentic with her. And if she didn't want the closeness anymore, I wanted to be received with empathy and not with her thinking that she did something wrong or was to blame. That would make it even worse for me, like I couldn't even have these needs without hurting her.
But for her, going back to the relationship meant, that she would have to give up her chance for autonomy, personal freedom and emotional safety, that she was longing for. And I've found that autonomy and safety are best guaranteed, when I'm aware of my needs and their importance and beauty. Then I'm not so likely to be overun by the requests or demands of others, but I will stand up for what I want. And that's the same as being free and (emotionally) safe. So in the end it is this, that she was needing and she was confused about how to stay in touch with herself, while she was with me. By the way, this is still the case. Is that clearer?
> > As I wrote, I'm "involved" with a girl right now, where I refuse to
> > think about "what this is"...
> I really like that attitude! :) It's delightful for me to see that
> level of honesty and willingness to engage with immediate reality.
And I'm delighted by that heartfelt encouragement!
> I'm touched Niklas by the way you describe in this post and a previous
> post, what sex means to you and how deeply you experience the
> connection and surrender. It sounds very alive and powerful in you.
> It's a celebration for me whenever I see that depth of feeling and
> passion. I enjoy very much the way you describe the vulnerability,
> openness and spiritual connection.
Thanks again, I'm grateful for this feedback as it encourages me and supports me in what I love and what's alive in me.
About asexuality and the wiring in the brain:
I was assuming already that the people calling themselves asexual don't have all the same motives. As always, there can be different backgrounds and motivations for the same strategy. But thanks for calling that back into my awareness.
As for the wiring in the brain and the brain chemistry, my position is, that what happens in my brain doesn't cause what happens in my experience, but it goes along with that. So if I get a hard-on and certain amounts of dopamine and other chemicals get released in the brain, this is the outside, the exterior side of a process in my immediate experience. The interior might be described as a longing for giving myself, for being with one another without having to lie, being authentically together. Nakedness can be an expression this vulnerability and honesty, provided my attention is really in my body and not on some dream or story that I'm holding on to. Being completely in my body requires trust that I won't get hurt. That my body is not a device that only receives pain, but one that receives nurturing, touch, soothing, empathy and love. Only then I will feel safe enough to let myself go and enjoy the sensuality.
Now, I experienced how it is like to NOT be in my body. And I can see how sex might not be so interesting under these circumstances. It really is just like poking bodys. But this has, in my opinion, less to do with a fixed orientation, but with a need for love, understanding, empathy, caring and safety. That being there, I would be surprised, if people who are understanding themselves as asexual, wouldn't enjoy a sexual connection.
Warmly
Niklas
--
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
Craig Sones Cornell
Slut reflection you poated. I am so jazzed and bubbling with life
energy at this exchange. I wanted to share that because of NVC and
things brought alive on this board, my wife and I shared on the most
powerfull, life serving, intimate, and physical exchanges of our
lives. No sex. For her it was a revelation, because as we shared our
walk on the beach the next morning, she has never had that kind of
intensity without it leading to sex. We were both aware tha the little
man was alive and looking for a warm wet place to squirm in and our
non-consumation was not something we talked about or decided on. It
just happened. I will remember and treasure that moment for the rest
of my life. If I died tomorrow I would be in the afterglow of bliss.
This is the kind of evolution I dream of and pray for in everyone's
life. I am so overjoyed that it is happeing on the board.
Thank you Lea, Niklas, and Gedding
Horney for connection, Craig.
Craig Sones Cornell
Wow, I feel a little like a peeping Tom as I revel in this exchange.
The only book in NVC that I know of which speaks to this depth of
yearnign for clarity and transcendence that you are so movingly
describing is Being Genuine by Thomas D'Ansembourg available form
PuddleDancer Press. I urge you to bathe in it as I am doing now.
Thomas raises a point that speaks to the monogamy quandry. I do not
have the time or inclination to get the exact quote. But in
paraphrase, it is an intricate challenge to keep ones self-fullness
when focused intensely on the needs of the other. It is difficult to
focus on the needs of the other when fully focused on one’s own
needs.
The kind of intimacy you describe is very complex in achievement. I
have had in passing with two prostitutes I encountered in my life. It
was a one night stand so to speak. But the depth of fullness I
experience with my wife has been the crowing achievement of a decade
of striving together, suffering in the misery of misunderstanding and
still hanging in there, weeping alone about inadequacies, jackal
voices and the like. Unrequired yearning for what Martin Buber
descirbes as the I-Thou relationships. As you both so eloquently
illucidate, such is not found in static models that are focused on
labels. But I-Thou takes a lot of clarity, honesty, vulnerability,
trust, and experience. It most often comes from mature couplings (not
just man woman, but man man, woman woman, adult child, gramdmother
grandson).
NVC is sometimes misunderstood to require depth with everyone, There
is pain, confusion, disappointment when one’s overture for deep
intimacy is rejected in a practice group or in public. I imagine that
is something of what was happening with the young lady with whom you
did not want to be intimate. When our intimacy juices and yearnings
are fully bubbling, non-fulfillment can have a heavy dose of pain. Not
having sufficient experience to process this with NVC skill or others
leads to jealousy, jackals ears in or out, and a whole slew of other
problems and difficulties.
As much as I want a repeat of the intensity of closeness I had with my
wife, I am painfully aware that it won't ever be repeated in the same
way. We can not replicate it by assuming the same positions so to
speak. I am certain, however,that if we continue in our for now
monogamous giraffe dance, we will again be suprised by joy.
Yearning for more and different fulfillment, Craig.
Gedding
> But the same sets of
> laws allow the state via police, social workers, and the like
> intervene in such a situation to remove the girl from her father for
> her protection.
punishing the father. Its the retributive form of justice. Punishing
the bad, as opposed to Restoritive Justice (as taught in NVC) which is
restoring peace.
Punishing people does not connect to helping others.
Think of the many scenarios whereby the wife wants help meeting needs
of safety if the husband is bashing her, but dares not speak out
because she loves him, or needs the financial support, and punishing
the husband will not meet any of her needs.
A more need-meeting strategy is simply identifing present needs, and
working to meet them. WITHOUT inflicting pain.
Sure if a need is present we can bust in real fast, sirens blazing,
with a swat team of heavily trained need-identifiers!
Just without the intent to blame and punish.
When one thinks about it punitive strategys are a contradiction;
Someone is being hit, their needs for heath are not being met.
One person meeting a need at the expence of another's need.
So to remedy this we punish the hitter.
We meet our need to help AT THE EXPENCE of the person's needs who we
are punishing.
Its a contradiction, or hypocracy.
>"Similarly, a law or regulation that bans soda
and junk food vending at schools is meant to protect kids from the
"lies of coca-cola" as you put it. How do we protect kids from such
lies if not by the protective use of force in a law or regulation? "
First off the easy answer is information.
Rather than BANNING something, we inform people.
Rather than banning sex, we education people about it.
Rather than banning drugs, we education people about it.
Banning things never work, its a demand, people either submit or
rebel, lose/lose.
And it amplifies enemy imagery and gets people responding in fear.
Like the "war on drugs". Drugs help many many people, but if people
only understand that they are bad... then we have a mob of brainwashed
people ready to FIGHT FOR WHAT'S RIGHT without and real understanding.
But when it comes to economic things, well here's where it gets
interesting for me.
We have an economic system based on extrinsic motivation. Companies
MUST make money for shareholders.
Thats the be all and end all. Its a highly competitive game that
profits highly on misinformation.
Haliburton MUST maximise profits. Even if it means starting wars,
misinforming the public, training and funding terrorism.
Simply BANNING it misses the point.
Who is going to enforce this ban, and how? Owners of Haliburton and
other war factories controll the largest armies and economies in the
world, EVER!
But lets not hate the player, hate the game.
These tactics are REWARDED by this economic system. The nature of
this capitalist economic system IS use power over tactics to
manipulate people.
There is no inherent benifit in a big mac, or a coke, or a war, but
its these products that have the most money and most powers of
controll!
SO! Now we realise this, what now?
What i am trying to find are cooperative, intrinsically motivated,
connection fostering economic games.
Does ANYONE know of any?
Know where i can find some?
Craig Sones Cornell
It is unfortunate and NVC offers restorative models. But how does one
get into the restorative justice system if not by the application of
the protective use of force. I know from a long time of study that the
fundamental assumption of chiild abuse laws and battery laws as they
are applied to spouse beating are intended to protect, whatever the
imperfections of the justice system. The laws are full of safeguards
for the "abuser." Anyway, how would you propose that individuals or a
society respond to a child or spouse abuser if not remove him or her
or remove the child? And by the way I agree that the protective use of
force and law is not fundamentally intended to connect with the
abuser. Even restorative justice is intended to restore the person to
a life-serving state not accept the strategy or behavior that prompted
the restoration.
On Sep 3, 11:24 pm, Gedding <three30li...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Craig and others!;
> A more need-meeting strategy is simply identifing present needs, and
> working to meet them. WITHOUT inflicting pain.
> Sure if a need is present we can bust in real fast, sirens blazing,
> with a swat team of heavily trained need-identifiers!
> Just without the intent to blame and punish.
for portection of the spouse or child.
> When one thinks about it punitive strategys are a contradiction;
>
> Someone is being hit, their needs for heath are not being met.
> One person meeting a need at the expence of another's need.
> So to remedy this we punish the hitter.
> We meet our need to help AT THE EXPENCE of the person's needs who we
> are punishing.
>
> Its a contradiction, or hypocracy.
agree?
> >"Similarly, a law or regulation that bans soda
>
> and junk food vending at schools is meant to protect kids from the
> "lies of coca-cola" as you put it. How do we protect kids from such
> lies if not by the protective use of force in a law or regulation? "
>
> Ahhhh! Here is where i like to explore!
> First off the easy answer is information.
> Rather than BANNING something, we inform people.
> Rather than banning sex, we education people about it.
> Rather than banning drugs, we education people about it.
still eat junk and go bareback. If people do not have compex skills
for consciousness they are prone to go with the fads, the advertising
manipulation, and so many other power over strategies. Anyway, the
LAUSD solution is to replace junk food with more healtful choices on
all campuses. It is a kind of modeling to educate. Kids follow it at
school and eat at McDonald's afterwards. Education without
consciousness evolution is generally ineffective especially with kids.
What do you think about this line of thinking.
> Banning things never work, its a demand, people either submit or
> rebel, lose/lose.
> And it amplifies enemy imagery and gets people responding in fear.
> Like the "war on drugs". Drugs help many many people, but if people
> only understand that they are bad... then we have a mob of brainwashed
> people ready to FIGHT FOR WHAT'S RIGHT without and real understanding.
> But when it comes to economic things, well here's where it gets
> interesting for me.
>
> We have an economic system based on extrinsic motivation. Companies
> MUST make money for shareholders.
> Thats the be all and end all. Its a highly competitive game that
> profits highly on misinformation.
>
> Haliburton MUST maximise profits. Even if it means starting wars,
> misinforming the public, training and funding terrorism.
> Simply BANNING it misses the point.
> Who is going to enforce this ban, and how? Owners of Haliburton and
> other war factories controll the largest armies and economies in the
> world, EVER!
> But lets not hate the player, hate the game.
as possible to see needs met. even by Halliburton and its higher-ups
> These tactics are REWARDED by this economic system. The nature of
> this capitalist economic system IS use power over tactics to
> manipulate people.
> There is no inherent benifit in a big mac, or a coke, or a war, but
> its these products that have the most money and most powers of
> controll!
of big macs, coke, and wars without an evolution of consciousness that
replaces hate as an operating principal.
> SO! Now we realise this, what now?
> What i am trying to find are cooperative, intrinsically motivated,
> connection fostering economic games.
>
> Does ANYONE know of any?
> Know where i can find some?
Gedding
> Anyway, how would you propose that individuals or a
> society respond to a child or spouse abuser if not remove him or her
> or remove the child?
and said "Billy's annoying me".
The regular approach (retributive) that i noticed in this kindy was to
tell Billy off. "Billy leave Jim alone" or "Billy we dont annoy
people".
Instead i turned the attention to Jim, "are you needing some space?".
Jim said "yea" and i told him he could sit next to me if he liked. He
did. Billy's face turned from one filled with guilt and fear of
something being done to him to one of... well interest.
The point is the focus was on the person with the unmet need. One way
of approaching your example would be to ask those present how we can
help the child or abusee meet their need for safety. This would help
meet the abusee's need as well as drawing the attention of the abuser
to the need, which might help him addapt his strategy of abuse.
Of course the abuser has an unmet needs also. Whatever the need was
in the first place that hitting was a strategy for.
AND the unmet need to help and support life that arose when he hit the
child/spouse.
So the need-police would want to put much energy to the abuser also,
because i imagine he would be in much pain with these unmet needs.
> > A more need-meeting strategy is simply identifing present needs, and
> > working to meet them. WITHOUT inflicting pain.
> > Sure if a need is present we can bust in real fast, sirens blazing,
> > with a swat team of heavily trained need-identifiers!
> > Just without the intent to blame and punish.
>
> I am a little lost here. Could you add more? The law assumes the need
> for portection of the spouse or child.
(ideally) is faster to just take the kid and may help meet his need
for safety quickly. This is the appeal of the "protective use of
force".
Of course this is a slippery slope, as many wars were started to
"protect the people" from some percieved threat.
This philosphy can (as is) extended to include the "preemptive
stike". America attacks whomever the controlling authority wants, and
justifies this as "they weren't attacking now, but they might later,
so attacking them first is a more effective strategy of the protective
use of force".
So, to remedy this i suggest the empathy police or need-identifier
squads have all the sirens and training and traffic privlidges that
the regular SWAT teams have.
>
> > When one thinks about it punitive strategys are a contradiction;
>
> > Someone is being hit, their needs for heath are not being met.
> > One person meeting a need at the expence of another's need.
> > So to remedy this we punish the hitter.
> > We meet our need to help AT THE EXPENCE of the person's needs who we
> > are punishing.
>
> > Its a contradiction, or hypocracy.
>
> Punishing the htter is a old strategy that needs evolution. Do we
> agree?
feature about this strategy is its easy... but in saying that its easy
in the sence that its an easy form of manipulation.
"Simple behavourism" its called, Alfie Kohn's book "Punished by
Rewards" investigates why such an opprestive strategy that causes the
opposite of what its intentions are is so prevalent.
Short answer; any idiot can understand it.
> There is a lot of education about junk food and concom use. The kids
> still eat junk and go bareback. If people do not have compex skills
> for consciousness they are prone to go with the fads, the advertising
> manipulation, and so many other power over strategies. Anyway, the
> LAUSD solution is to replace junk food with more healtful choices on
> all campuses. It is a kind of modeling to educate. Kids follow it at
> school and eat at McDonald's afterwards. Education without
> consciousness evolution is generally ineffective especially with kids.
> What do you think about this line of thinking.
They tend to be allong these lines;
"Its in people's best interests to eat certain foods. We need to make
them eat these foods."
And they tend to do so by trying to make these foods seem "cool", or
vilify the bad foods, or get an official looking character to list
facts, or scare people "this is your brain on drugs.... woo000ooo!".
Kids (well anyone not in a suit at a board meeting) see thru this
instantly.
They sence the intent of manipulation, and instantly rebell, or
dismiss it.
Its using marketing against marketing.
The problem isnt WHAT is marketed, its MARKETING ITSELF.
We dont want to fight image thinking with different image thinking
(the ones WE like).
Personally i would use need-consciousness. Identify what needs are
present and provide information that would help them make the most
informed choice, even if it is one we do not like.
Rather than telling me at school "Ged, dont drink coke", what i would
have liked is to be asked,
"Why are you drinking coke?"
And i would have like support to take a proactive stance towards my
diet. Rather than eating cause im hungry, i would have liked the
information and support to ask "what would i like my body to look
like?",
"how would i like to feel?",
"how much would i like to spend?".
Identify needs that i have, and make dietry choices based on that.
Is this what you call consciousness-evolution? Need identification,
information sharing, autonomy allowing, proactive attitude, honesty,
and choice?
Banning, or not providing it at school, does not promote choice, and
is a thinly veiled demand.
At my school when they banned coke all the kids would sneak to the
stores, or bring it with them, or go coke crazy as soon as we got away
from school. Coke consumption increased.
> > SO! Now we realise this, what now?
> > What i am trying to find are cooperative, intrinsically motivated,
> > connection fostering economic games.
>
> > Does ANYONE know of any?
> > Know where i can find some?
>
> We are going to have to roll up our sleves and evolve them ourselves.
There is something Marshal said about systems and the consciousness of
people in them.
Do we need to change the thoughts of people in the system for the
system to change, or do we change the system first to one that
encourages cooperation and connection?
He said the answer is both.
But i think that the needs for cooperation and connection and to
support life are there already! And that its the system that teaches
and brings out other qualities.
Let me put it this way;
If you asked any one person on the street if they would like clean air
and and water for all people, or if they would like to save the
environment, they would say yes.
EVERY person would say yes to this question.
But... they all drive cars, and make products that result in
environmental destruction.
The consciousness is THERE already, the games we play need to change.
I think.
Gedding
"Need identification, information sharing, autonomy allowing,
Sharing information and effort,
along with honest, accurate awearness of what is present (including
need and feeling awearness)
are what is required for effective gestalt forming. Or cooperative
and deep connections.
The other part of this is allowing choice and autonomy.
This is my understanding of the process of and final culmination of
"evolution". That i mentioned in an earlier post.
All energy/beings in existance CHOSING to completely and perfectly
share all energy.
I am excited that this cropped up again and seems to make so much
sence.
Craig Sones Cornell
Thanks for sharing what I perceive to be a beautiful vision and
summary.
Warmly, Craig.
Craig Sones Cornell
On Sep 4, 9:00 pm, Gedding <three30li...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Anyway, how would you propose that individuals or a
> > society respond to a child or spouse abuser if not remove him or her
> > or remove the child?
>
> I was working at a kindergarten the other day, and a boy came up to me
> and said "Billy's annoying me".
> The regular approach (retributive) that i noticed in this kindy was to
> tell Billy off. "Billy leave Jim alone" or "Billy we dont annoy
> people".
> Instead i turned the attention to Jim, "are you needing some space?".
> Jim said "yea" and i told him he could sit next to me if he liked. He
> did. Billy's face turned from one filled with guilt and fear of
> something being done to him to one of... well interest.
>
and connect.
> The point is the focus was on the person with the unmet need. One way
> of approaching your example would be to ask those present how we can
> help the child or abusee meet their need for safety. This would help
> meet the abusee's need as well as drawing the attention of the abuser
> to the need, which might help him addapt his strategy of abuse.
>
from a life-alienating behavior trap. I think removing the child or
the abuser or both from each other is the protective use of force. It
is the best we can do. I will continue to report abuse when I see it
(actually the law required teachers to do it), even though it is an
imperfect system. It meets my need for well-being and potection.
> Of course the abuser has an unmet needs also. Whatever the need was
> in the first place that hitting was a strategy for.
> AND the unmet need to help and support life that arose when he hit the
> child/spouse.
> So the need-police would want to put much energy to the abuser also,
> because i imagine he would be in much pain with these unmet needs.
could be explored and the adult learn a better strategy to meet his or
her needs?
> > > A more need-meeting strategy is simply identifing present needs, and
> > > working to meet them. WITHOUT inflicting pain.
> > > Sure if a need is present we can bust in real fast, sirens blazing,
> > > with a swat team of heavily trained need-identifiers!
> > > Just without the intent to blame and punish.
full of thorn as physical and sexual abuse. It is not a matter of
inflicting pain as reacing pain and other powerful and deep feelings
and needs. That's my opinion at least. Your reactions?
> > I am a little lost here. Could you add more? The law assumes the need
> > for portection of the spouse or child.
>
> Well, the apeal of the violent form of justice is its speed. It
> (ideally) is faster to just take the kid and may help meet his need
> for safety quickly. This is the appeal of the "protective use of
> force".
> Of course this is a slippery slope, as many wars were started to
> "protect the people" from some percieved threat.
abstract has not concrete meaning. Portecting a child from an abusing
adult is very immediate, lilmited and part of observation leading to
the need to protect. It is not philosophical.
> This philosphy can (as is) extended to include the "preemptive
> stike". America attacks whomever the controlling authority wants, and
> justifies this as "they weren't attacking now, but they might later,
> so attacking them first is a more effective strategy of the protective
> use of force".
protective use of force. Such was a distortion based on fear to
motivate the public to accept a war. Because protective use of force
is so often used as an implied slogan does not iimply to me that it
should not be used when the objective, observable indication of abuse.
That is my take on this. What is yours Gedding.
>
> So, to remedy this i suggest the empathy police or need-identifier
> squads have all the sirens and training and traffic privlidges that
> the regular SWAT teams have.
>
> > > When one thinks about it punitive strategys are a contradiction;
>
> > > Someone is being hit, their needs for heath are not being met.
> > > One person meeting a need at the expence of another's need.
> > > So to remedy this we punish the hitter.
> > > We meet our need to help AT THE EXPENCE of the person's needs who we
> > > are punishing.
hope, that does not serve life. I think we agree.
> > > Its a contradiction, or hypocracy.
>
> > Punishing the htter is a old strategy that needs evolution. Do we
> > agree?
>
> Evolution, well i think it needs abandoning.
> feature about this strategy is its easy... but in saying that its easy
> in the sence that its an easy form of manipulation.
> "Simple behavourism" its called, Alfie Kohn's book "Punished by
> Rewards" investigates why such an opprestive strategy that causes the
> opposite of what its intentions are is so prevalent.
> Short answer; any idiot can understand it.
>
> Can you elaborate more on what you mean here?
board to "evolve" or help imagine and create the kind of life serving
economic system that you want to create. Does that help?
>
> There is something Marshal said about systems and the consciousness of
> people in them.
> Do we need to change the thoughts of people in the system for the
> system to change, or do we change the system first to one that
> encourages cooperation and connection?
> He said the answer is both.
>
> But i think that the needs for cooperation and connection and to
> support life are there already! And that its the system that teaches
> and brings out other qualities.
interfere with consciousness about feelings and needs. Martshall says
that people alive with needs and feelings make poor slaves. I agree
whole heartedly. However, it seems to me that NVC posits that
ultimately no matter what the social circumstances, we are all
responsible for the choices we make. Is that not so?
> Let me put it this way;
> If you asked any one person on the street if they would like clean air
> and and water for all people, or if they would like to save the
> environment, they would say yes.
> EVERY person would say yes to this question.
>
> But... they all drive cars, and make products that result in
> environmental destruction.
air in the abstract, But they are not clear about their needs and
feelings. Lacking such consciousness, they make decisions based on a
muddle, meeting needs that are dimly precieved as best they can. Thus
they make decisions that do not support their preferences much less
any intentional processing of what is really going on inside.
> The consciousness is THERE already, the games we play need to change.
> I think.
those of us who are committed to doing it with more grace and
effectiveness. Just a change in external structures will not do it in
my opinion. There has to be a longing for the internal change as well
and that means facing a wall of loneliness, pain, and other harsh
feelings that most of us would rather not face.
Thanks Gedding for stimulating my thoughts and feelings and needs.