The greatest (?) ideal of all: love (not sex!)

Hope Johnson wrote:

Through my early experiences in dating and relationships, I learned to pretend like I was enjoying sex even when I was not. I tried being honest about what sensations I was feeling up until I was about 21 years old, but after being rejected a few times for not “getting into it enough” with guys I thought were really great, I decided that in order to be accepted by any man I needed to express pleasure in response to All of his sexual efforts.

It’s not that I didn’t enjoy sex much of the time…it’s just that when I wasn’t enjoying it, I chose to keep egos intact instead of being authentic…because I was afraid of being rejected. Following this choice, I became a believer in the “fake it till you make it” philosophy because I experienced that my body did respond favorably…often leading to one or many orgasms.

In this way, much of my sexual practice was really a form self masturbation…using a partner sort of as a sexual object…while helping to feed his illusion that he was “making me cum”…oh yeah baby! Lol!

I can see that this strategy was quite valuable, useful and served me well for the time I believed in certain illusions….And it’s now apparent to me that said strategy was also a barrier to deepening intimacy and awakening the mind.

I’ve also come to recognize that pursuing or initiating sex has never felt natural for me, and I only did it because I believed it was what I needed to do in order to get love.

As soon as I became aware that these strategies were playing themselves out through me, they could no longer persist. At first there was a bit of anxiety about this, but over time my mind has become perfectly content with sexual authenticity…even it speaks to sexual insecurity…and even it means I’ll have experiences of being rejected.

After all, every interaction can either awaken the mind or perpetuate illusions…and sex is no exception.

May everyone be free to express themselves authentically. Blessings!

JR wrote:

Interesting…. Regarding “what I needed to do in order to get love,” I thought what does Hope mean by “love?”

We witness attention, interest, and validation or approval and we may call it love. Or maybe only when there is an economic investment behind it, like buying dinner or paying rent.

For a guy, it may be “of course I know for sure that she loves me because we finally had sex.” It is such a “charged” (sacred) word: love.

However, do we say that an employer loves us? They may appreciate us. But love?

Love to me implies an aspect of a relaxed, casual, spontaneous fun process. Sometimes, to role-play and “pretend” (like Hope referenced) can be “fun” and relaxing, which can lead to greater enjoyment of physical arousal.

I am reminded of other intriguing references to love like “he intentionally burned me with a cigarette, but at least he loves me!” Other people say things like “I cut in to my skin with a razor blade day after day because it feels familiar and reassuring.”

As for “responding favorably” eventually and having orgasms, that sounds to me like enjoyment. Was there joy in “tricking” the guy? Maybe, but I am not aware of anything so repressed and taboo in modern cultures as sexual pleasure (oddly enough).

We may be constantly stimulated, but that is actually part of the repression programming. We get stimulated (like by pornographic beer commercials for men or romantic comedies for women), but then we are discouraged from pursuing the arousal. Even simple masturbation is discouraged in most settings. Pleasure is shamed as “selfish” … for it distracts from the indoctrination programs of schools etc…. Spontaneous learning (or experimental exploring for pleasure) is at least “off-task” and conforming to the holy curriculum (being on task) is rewarded.

We live in high density civilization in which certain forms of nudity in public is a crime. In some cultures, a woman must cover her face in public or face criminal penalties, right?

The LAST thing that public schools should produce is fertile females who are sensitive to physical pleasure. We need focused employees for the centrally-planned economy!

“I had a girlfriend who made me erect, but I did not like it. (Or that is what I later said to my mom out of shame). However, I pretended to like it and soon I had a real orgasm.”

To me, that entire commentary sounds like “ego.” That means a neurological protective mechanism to minimize social anxiety and avoid punishment. It means “displaying that I am a good person- how i should be according to a social idealism.”

Comments?

To connect the two comments, there is also the ideal that “a woman should not enjoy sex unless she is in love. Otherwise, she is a slut or whore. The best sex requires love between the two (?) people. Unconditional love is the best thing ever. By the way, if only you were more unconditional in your love toward me, then on that condition, I would give you unconditional love!”

The modern concept of “love” is allegedly only a few hundred years old and is not worldwide. It is the core of certain propaganda systems like “love is the ONLY natural way for two spiritually advanced creatures to relate.”

Love is the object of worship. Love is the target of utopian idolatries: “god is love!”

Really? “There is a time for love and a time for hate.” – Ecclesiastes, chapter 3

15 mins · Edited · Like · 1

The idealism about love becomes a mechanism for guilt and for shaming:
“If there is any problem in your life at all, the only possible thing that is wrong with you (!) is that you need to be more loving. For instance, if you have been diagnosed with asthma, Gregg Braden said that Louise Hay said that it is CAUSED by your unwillingness to love others. You should more ashamed of yourself… you know, like as ashamed of you as I am ashamed of you.”

The New Age idolatries contain a lot of “friendly-sounding” psychological warfare. I am not saying that modern psychiatry is any “kinder” or “friendlier,” but, in regard to something like a correlation between asthma and “fear of expressing love,” finding a correlation does NOT establish causality.

If all public school students are traumatized to associate sexual arousal with physical punishment and social shaming, then yes, in extreme cases, even moderate amounts of sexual arousal will lead to a panic attack- they will both experience a panic of hyperventilation (“asthma”) as well as a compulsive retreat from intimacy or sexual pleasure. Certainly, there are other biochemical risk factors, but those are only focused on by people who do not understand the simplicity of how to produce an epidemic of asthma. If asthma can EVER be produced just through social conditioning (like the Pavlovian indoctrination methods of public schools), then no biochemical “causes” are actually causes.

If you watched a lot of Friday the 13th movies, those movies are packed with “stacking” sexuality (softcore pornography) with violence (murder). Any young man (in particular) watching those movies is being programmed to associate sexual arousal with danger. The message of “sex = death” is similar to the message of *unauthorized* sex = eternal tortures in hell.

Even without all of that, can it be scary to experience intense physical sensations? Sure! Should there ever be social anxiety about “what if I get caught?!?!” (by my parents, my spouse, my priest, Santa Claus, St. Peter, etc….) If there ever is, then there is.

>>>

Also, I am reminded here of one of my friend’s frequent references to “manipulation and deception as things that are WRONG- that should not be.” Why would someone ever say that “religiously?”

Because you were programmed with that reflexive denial response by public schools, right? Why was it so important that you reactively condemn all deceptions and manipulations? Because otherwise you would be confronted with the “Mr. Obvious simplicity” that the entire design of school systems is manipulative. Since you were trained that schools are holy and manipulation/deception is unholy, then “obviously” schools could not be manipulative or deceptive, right?

That is the standard usage of what social psychologists call “cognitive dissonance” – the standard protocol in the psychological warfare programs known as public education. Those methods cause trauma, disassociation, “compartmentalization,” hypnotic “delusions,” chronic distress disorders, etc….

It is standard practice. It is very effective.

Manipulation is called wrong because if it was not demonized as wrong (named as a taboo), then you might notice that it is the standard practice not just in schools or mass media, but in a huge portion of human interactions. “Sincerity” is called holy not only to cripple you with guilt for natural humorous insincerity, but to hide the systematic insincerity of the “rulers.”

Advertisements

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: