Kuba: 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. (link)
Chrono: 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.
Hi Chrono,
It’s fascinating how you describe the emotional process – first a block, then resentment, then anger to have to be a man, then angry about being trapped, then a sort of resignation, then fear of being alone (=loneliness). It is well observed and described but it leads nowhere until you contemplate what you “really want” – to be “genuine, open, and straightforward”. I remember feeling being ‘Vineeto’ having this meme running in the background – Illegitimi non carborandum (don’t let the buggers get you down). There is indeed a “dare here”, the dare to care, and the growing confidence that it is possible.
Chrono: 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.
You classified blind nature’s libido well – “a complete opposite of appreciation”. It confirms what I wrote to Kuba yesterday –
Richard (to № 04): “(…) it is pertinent to note that libido (Latin, meaning ‘desire’, ‘lust’, and referring to the instinctual sex drive, urge or impulse to procreate and perpetuate the species) is not, and never has been nor ever will be, the driver of the longing for intimacy, the yearning for an end to separation, the vital interest in loss of self … nor even the means whereby altruism trumps selfism”. (Richard, List D, No. 4a, 23 Jun 2013).
You can experiment yourself experientially when you, with awareness, start backing off the instinctual urge of libido and replace it with a preference to sexual intimacy, thereby diminishing the self-centredness of the libidinous impulse with a more self-less inclination for closeness and sensuousness. Then you might get to a point where “sex takes care of itself and full attention can be paid to intimacy”. (see Richard, List D, No. 20, 9 Dec 2009).
Chrono: 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 endeavour. Again there is a daring aspect. And that is exciting!
What a wonderful opportunity that your partner “also desires the same intimacy”. ‘Vineeto’ experienced the same desire, ‘she’ just didn’t know how to bring it about until ‘she’ discovered naiveté. And Richard reports that women in general are more interested in intimacy than men –
Richard: As libido is null and void for me then being sexually active or not is purely a matter of preference. What this means in effect is that sexual congress, because of its utter proximity, has more to do with intimacy than anything else.
Now, here is where it becomes quite an intriguing matter because, and as a generalisation only, women tend to place more emphasis on intimacy than men. Indeed, many a woman has bewailed the dearth of men prepared to make the big commitment required for such connubial accord.
Yet they are deathly afraid of intimacy – the fear of intimacy is a subject most women have talked to me about – for it means loss of self. And therein lies the rub: the survival instincts can kick in big-time, especially during sexual congress, and the very opposite of the longed-for intimacy takes place (as in pulling-back, turning-away, closing-off, shutting-down, and so on). (Richard, List D, No. 14a, 9 Nov 2009)
You are correct “seeing once again the unilateral nature of this endeavour” and yet there is opportunity of exploring it together as well. Either way, a more and more self-less and less self-centric way of being sensuous is not to be missed –
Richard: To cut to the chase: as I have been gratuitously informed by more than just one female that my physical touch – even a caressive stroking of their bared back for example – is tangibly a non-possessive and actually caring touch (i.e., a literally selfless touching) please be assured that nothing of value will be lost upon the extinction of the masculinist capacity to be “affectionately touching” the female of the species. (Richard, List D, Martin, #2).
Richard described his own experience this way –
Richard: … just then, as he [Peter] remembered how to find me, his hand came through that flimsiest of films (which completely enclosed and isolated his bubble of actuality from the real-world reality) and actually stroked the left-side of my face with the most perfect touch; it was a caress of absolute perfection such as could only occur when this particular feeling ‘being’, tenderly feeling the utmost caring possible per favour being the near-innocence of naiveté personified, was thus granted privileged access to slip part of their host body through a compliantly temporaneous rent in their veil. (Announcement1, Tooltip after #magic).
He described the caress of absolute perfection further on in the same tooltip –
Richard: As this had been my experience twice before – once on the previous night, when another feeling ‘being’ had inadvertently slipped bodily through[1] a similarly compliant temporaneous rent in their bubble of actuality, and on a first occasion many years previously when my second wife (de jure) briefly had this privileged access …
[1] … being complete, as it was, with the most perfect bodily touching (a physical caressing of absolute perfection) … (Announcement1, Tooltip after #magic).
Vineeto to Kuba: 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 …
Chrono: 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. (link)
I wish you exquisite enjoyment and success in your new exciting adventure.
Cheers Vineeto