Recent Thoughts on Sex & Love

I have been thinking about all of this for a couple of months, and different things are gelling for me right now. Just a smattering of thoughts:

1- It is strange for me to encounter value judgements on different kinds of sex. For instance, in the small reading I have done on chakras, it seems that "tantric" sex is deemed the "highest" or "best" kind of sex. 

2- And yet, I have also been realizing, that for me: casual sex can be hot for certain encounters, but otherwise it is just kind of entertaining as an activity. Like watching a great movie.

3- They are each satisfying in their own way. I don't think I would ever be satisfied with only tantric-like sex or only casual sex. Both feed me in different ways, both contribute to my sexual satisfaction and sexual identity.

4- Tantric-like and casual sex aren't a binary, but define a spectrum for me. Depending on the connection with the person and the context and the meaning within the relationship, different experiences will fall at different points on that spectrum.

5- I love Aggie Sez's article on "Riding the relationship escalator." Just, love it. Even though I have been in a primary relationship, and enjoy the coupled relationship I have, I have been aggravated for the past couple of years trying to navigate how non-escalator relationships can look and act like. And aggravated when, in trying to figure out for myself what that non-escalator can look like, I frustrate others I am trying to relate to.

6- For me, love is distinct from the relationship model within which I find it. For instance, I deeply love J and have also decided within the past seven years that I feel compatible enough with him to have a long-term relationship. In other cases, I can feel sweet, intense, caring, passionate, friendly, fiery, gentle, or another kind of love for someone, see all the ways that we are compatible as friends, play partners, lovers, or some other kind of partner, and see all the ways that we aren't compatible to be a different kind of partner. For me, loving someone is not an indicator of the "seriousness" of the relationship. I think love is serious, but I also find it so easy to love another person, and I have been able to divorce loving feelings from needing to fit within the "right" relationship model (I have recognized the need to get off the relationship escalator if I am going to continue feeling love for other people- at least, I think I have been able to do this).

Adopting Poly Values: A Good Thing?

Today is Earth Day, and for some reason that reminded me of this article on Psychology Today by Deborah Anapol: "A Message in a Bottle." Alan at Poly in the News commented briefly about it a couple weeks ago (saying, "I can't agree with Deborah Anapol's argument...that the mainstreaming of poly ideas into conventional relationships only helps to perpetuate a failing, patriarchy-derived world."), and his comments inspired me to read her full article; overall, I agree with Alan.

Anapol finds no comfort in the idea of "mainstream" relationships benefiting from polyamorous or open relationship values. She sees "traditional" "monogamous" relationships coopting these values as a means of perpetuating a broken system of relationships and families. What she really wants is a complete break from the traditional system, and a completely new culutre around love, family, and relationships. She comments:

The ancient Chinese understood that the family is the building block of the culture. Hence it follows – change the family, change the culture. This was my reasoning anyway. But going from monogamous couples to non-monogamous couples preserves the structure of the family. As does polygamy. This is precisely why what was once considered sinful is now being promoted in some very strange places. I am not against families, but my life experience tells me that nothing less than a radical break with the past is what’s called for now, and I don’t believe creating a bigger comfort zone when what we need to do is step outside of our comfort zones, is going to get us out of our current dilemma before ecological disaster does us in.

[I think what must have been the link in my brain between Earth Day and her article is that last line that includes the phrase "ecological disaster." Also, I know I have read elsewhere about the link between ecological consciousness/awareness, sexuality, and relationships. There has been, in fact, a continuing conversation among some sex-positive folks in the area about "ecological sexuality." I think it is pretty fascinating to make a link among sexuality and relationships and the Earth's health. It makes a lot of sense to me that people ascribing to sacred sexuality, including paganism and other earth-based spiritualities, also find meaning in the polyamorous and open relationship philosophies, and vice versa.]

Anyway, I can understand where Anapol is coming from (when you have been at the forefront of the poly movement and have thus witnessed its mainstreaming and acceptance and awareness among a larger population, you probably feel a little tired of always being the "radical" and really just want radical change, and you may feel fearful that the movement you have worked so hard for is being undermined by traditional values of monogamy), but I also think that cultural values and norms change slowly. Maybe one day our culture around love and control and relationships and family will look radically different from today, but as things change, I don't see the harm in having "traditional" relationships benefit from the values inherent in open relationships. In fact, I can't really think of a better thing: my younger sister may want a monogamous relationship right now, but I know at least my conversations with her about my relationship have allowed her to make that choice consciously, and I am sure have allowed her to think more critically about her own needs and desires. What is wrong about more people thinking more consciously about what they want and then communicating with their partners (whether dating, friends with benefits, married, poly, etc)? I think it's better than unconsciously ascribing to societal norms about love, relationships, and family.

Sacred Sexuality

How interesting that I am posting this on Easter, which some contend results from Ishtar, the Babylonian goddess of fertility and sexuality and love. :D

I recently came across this post on Life on the Swingset, and then J saw this one. Both deal with the ideas of sacred sexuality and spiritual sex.

The first post is basically a rant- the author is frustrated that within the alternative sexualities community, and that even within the sacred sexuality community, people refer to sacred sexuality practices as "woo woo."

"So when you reduce what we they do, arts of many different wondrous varieties, down to this ONE derogatory term, does no one realize how much it devalues what they HAVE done, are doing, and hope to continue to do for sex positivity and sacred sexuality in the future? And it’s happening publicly on a massive scale, in front of listeners who are looking for authorities on what is worth trying or not. That’s not being sex positive and GGG to me, my fellow sex travelers."

I understand her complaint; I have also complained about folks in the alternative sexualities community "othering" one another. And even I used "woo woo" in my post a few weeks ago about Reid Mihalko's tantra workshop. I understand why she is offended by the term, when it feels demeaning or belittling to practices that have been an integral part of her expression of sexuality, love, and relationships. 

The second post was really cool to read- the author connects her experience delving into the world of Unitarian Universalism with her experience swinging. She uses some of the UU principles, like recognizing the inherent worth and dignity of every person, and letting each person discover their own path of truth of meaning, to describe her revelations at a recent swing party. Her big light bulb thought: "As I listened to the minister– the earnest and thoughtful minister– an epiphany hit me: swinging can be a path to discovering not only my own sexuality, but it can also be a model for how I want to interact with all people." I think that line of thought is exemplary. I have typically used other models, frameworks, and theories to guide my behavior in my open/poly journey (for example, the evolutionary psych stuff in Sex at Dawn or Taormino's or Labriola's frameworks for creating an open relationship), which would be analogous to the author of this post using UU principles to guide the way she treats play partners. Instead, she identifies swinging as the model which can direct her future interpersonal behavior, with not just other swingers, but with her broader community. I think it's pretty neat!