Kub933's Journal

[cross.chrono]

This has been a very pertinent discussion.

@Kub933

I can see that in my life I invested into becoming a ‘someone in relation to others’, this is ‘my’ apparent individuality. So initially when allowing intimacy it seems as if I am giving up my very individuality, yet when I look at just what this ‘individuality’ consists of, it is based in separation.

I can very much relate to this. In fact, recently when I tried to allow the unfolding of intimacy that Richard described, there was an immediate block. The block first took the form of (yet again) resentment. But this time the resentment was that I had to be a someone in relation to my partner at all. I am angry that I have to be a man in order to relate with her as a woman. The feeling is that ‘I’ am bound to be this way. When I ask myself what if I wasn’t a man, then I feel the anger rise up a little more. It feels like then I cannot be intimate at all, because my partner is expressing herself through her conditioning as a woman. If I don’t meet her this way, then I am being callous (such is the feeling). So the way that I experience it right now isn’t that I would lose power and authority, but rather that I will be alone. Which aloneness seems to be the condition deep within. But I have on occasion also experienced the fear of this loss of power/authority. If I were not to maintain this identity (man), then I would become inept, impotent, and be a pushover. Notwithstanding all of this, what I really want is to be genuine, open, and straightforward. Perhaps there is a dare here. That despite what those feelings are, I proceed with my intent to be naive.

Of course underneath the cognitive acrobatics of being a man is the power source itself (the libido). One of the characteristics that sticks out about this is the disregard of the other. A complete opposite of appreciation. It’s expression is a fueling of fantasy and illusion. It promises an instinctual fulfillment that will never come. It can be readily discernible as the epitome of ‘Blind Nature’. This about sums it up:

Peter: Nature, or more accurately blind nature, wants only reproduction – the survival of the species – and it doesn’t give a damn for my happiness. The physical enjoyment of sex and the euphoric orgasmic climax is a by-product of the reproductive process itself. As a male animal I am programmed with a sexual instinct which drives me to impregnate as many women as possible. Crudely put (for it is indeed crude): find woman, fuck woman, move on; find woman, fuck woman, move on… [link]

I’ve been wondering if libido itself is perhaps possessing the ‘arousal’ that this physical body is capable of and thus giving the impression that one would not be able to have sex without its drive .

Just yesterday I had an inkling that despite what this conditioning may say or what the libido drives one towards, that my partner also desires the same intimacy that I am also desiring. She recalls being able to be at ease as a child and expressing fun in an uninhibited way that she is no longer able to do. Which ease she wants to be able to express with me. And I became aware of the gulf created between us with the conditioning of man and woman. So if she also desires this, then what really do I have to be afraid of? Despite that though, I am seeing once again the unilateral nature of this endeavor. Again there is a daring aspect. And that is exciting!

@Vineeto

Whereas you could nourish and foster a naïve excitement of a beneficial discovery operating – think of how young children are eager to learn about the world they find themselves in (until their enthusiasm gets more and more stifled and oppressed. This is the kind of naiveté albeit with adult sensibilities which is the next exploration, and don’t be discouraged when you feel a bit shy or foolish – it’s part of the package – as you quoted Richard in your next message.

Ha this is very funny as I was talking with my partner about exactly this yesterday. Time to put my money where my mouth is .