'Sex' is a lie

Submitted by Love Gnosis on
Printer-friendly version

I have come to the realisation that for a long time, our societies have been preaching a great lie about sex and the act of generation between man and woman. It is a great lie, but a very subtle and unconscious one that has been reinforced in our psyche. This is primarily that of the male psyche, as well as prescribed by those who desire power and control and aggression.

In sex, man has been taught to approach woman in a controlling and dominating fashion. He is encouraged to make love 'to' her rather than 'with' her. Any thing he 'gets' from the woman is what he can take and is a bonus, rather than a mutual give-receive connection. The longer he enjoys her, pushes into her with an ego-driven authoritative lust and makes her quiver with orgasmic submission; the more he re-asserts his own sense of ego and 'masculinity'. She herself becomes selfish and more lustful as she becomes conditioned to wanting to be treated almost like a child; with orgasmic sex the end....she becomes more agitated and demanding of more and more sex and more orgasms to silence this 'need' she has. The real 'need' of course being mutual union - the 'one flesh' reality that all the true spiritual paths preach. Man behind his socially-enforced conscious wants this too; but in him as been wrought a dark egoist desire to possess woman. Woman are to be 'fucked'; not loved.

The reality is of course...is that men are restless and the most in-need. Their subtle purpose in life has been distorted by long institutions that enforce it. In reality, the strength of men is to protect but also to support women as EQUAL partners. It is not a strength to dominate, but to put into use. Women's powers lie in her grace, her creative insight and her nourishing energy that makes everything possible as well as of course contributes the feminine aspect that keeps the world in a state of balance. To be equal is not for men and women to become the same; but to realise each others' complementary qualities that differ but are equally important.

The problem is that when a man loves a woman; a lot of this love and the desire for 'one-ness' degrades into selfish possessive emotionality which also influences the woman. This happens after copulation; with the orgasmic focus creating a potential demonic level of psycho-somatic suppressed energy in both genders which eventually is released (to varying degrees) in the form of arguments, irrational statements, restlessness, crying, aggressive sexual intercourse and even violence and self-harm in extreme cases. The 'wanting' overcomes both genders and this carries on into intimacy where excitement and expectance overtake the mind rather than both remaining present in the act of union. When the man enters the woman it becomes a frustrated drive towards orgasm, and for the woman....it often becomes the same; but crucially...submissive. Our society teaches man to excite her clitoris or her g-spot; when in reality such potrusions are more subtle and to apply pressure on these organs will only agitate the energies that travel through these nerve channels. The clitoris is analogus to the penis; and it has a subtle symbolic and functional meaning which I will not discuss here. All I will say is that it is a distraction and to 'excite' it is a path to emotional ruin. The g-spot too...another distraction of the orgasmic-lie that has been taught to us - analagous to the male prostate; it actually is related to the fluid and blood that builds in the vaginal tissue to help prevent urination during sex. Stimulating such an area is only likely to agitate it, and eventually force it to release said build-up of excited energy. In fact, any orgasm that the body experiences...moreso in a woman...is the nerve-channel 'release' of excited, emotionally expectant and selfish energy that should not have built-up in those regions in the first place. Kind of a psycho-somatic response or an attempt to push-out those energies that impinge the gentle and subtle flow of womens energies out of their body.

So how should one replace sex? Well...with love and being now. This is NOT my idea, and neither is it new either. But it has been covered up, distorted and misinterpreted or construed by many. Even arousal; the idea that women neccessarily need to be exclusively given attention to by the man is also a lie. This too should be a mutual affair, of gentle caressing on both parties and of gentle kissing and hugging. Mutual breathing and focussing on each other's sexual organs will get both the man and woman aroused with equal response time. What is crucial however, is this arousal is an entirely different sort of arosual. It is not the conventional arousal of 'wanting' or 'excitement' or 'expectance'. It is an arousal of selfless passion; the desire to connect, the desire to give, the desire to receive....all rolled into one perplexing and subtle dynamic current of mutual energy and electricity. The 'current' between lovers who have meditative sex can become so powerful that it is possible for them to leave their physical bodies and travel upwards to the higher astral realms. Oxytocin of course will increase; but this is not just about the changing in the nature of body chemicals (although this has clearly been demonstrated as important!) - its about being present and connecting with the principal that is reflected in each other. It is NOT an easy task; the mind must be continuosly guarded against and the focus must be on the union. Distractions can even involve focusing on energy or pleasure in certain parts of the body, desire to make movements, to become submissive or dominant, etc. Each member of the couple is acting as a warrior against their own ego during this connection; perhaps the man moreso because of his greater need and restlessness in his situation.

The principles that I have briefly described are mentioned in books by those who espouse Karezza as well as some forms of Tantric union that do not involve the conventional neo-tantric distraction of focussing on orgasms. The goal is not physical pleasure; but a psycho-spiritual union where both man and woman become 'garments' for each other as the Holy Quran states. Become One; and know thy Lord.

Peace

Abdullah

xxxx

Thanks for your beautiful post

Well said. Yes, we have been led down the wrong path, but I see it with a lot of compassion. We've lost the lifestyle for which our primitive brains are best suited (millions of years of living in tribes), and so we're looking for "comfort" any place we can find it. Unfortunately high-dopamine comfort (drugs, sexual satiation, gambling, alcohol) is not very comforting...just sets off subsequent waves of craving.

But, at last, some of us are starting to find gentler, but more sustaining pleasures...with each other's help. That's encouraging. It's nice to know that we're "wearing the ruby slippers," and have the capacity for true pleasure built right into us.

I would like to hear more about this:
"both man and woman become 'garments' for each other as the Holy Quran states."

I've looked in vain for anything about sacred sexuality in Islam. This sounds very promising. It's not too late for me to include it in my next book. (I'm including a mention of Sufi mystical poetry, too.) Can you tell me more?

PS

I agree that the neurochemical understanding is merely a signpost...a helpful scientific bit of info, so that people can find the motivation to try something new. The mutual, generous practice itself is ultimately its own proof.

And you're right that women can get just as hooked on orgasm, and just as demanding. that kind of escalation is not sustainable...but it sure is enticing! Smile

Thankyou. "According to the

Thankyou.

:)

"According to the God’s Messenger sex between married couple is not any lecherous attitude but is a ’sadaqa’-worship through giving. This is something which raise human beings above the animal level.

Instead treating sex life as a mean to satisfy one’s physical gratification, it is regarded as an act of pleasing Almighty by unselfish care for one’s life partner. Marriage is something sacred, which require sincerity, respect and true love between a husband and wife so as to attain happiness and mental peace."
- Bhawana Negi, http://www.themuslimwoman.org/entry/sex-is-a-sacred-spiritual-pleasure-i...

There is also this article: -
http://www.crescentlife.com/thisthat/interesting%20stuff/sacred_sex_in_i...

I must state however, that literature on sacred sex in Islam is very very sparse primarily because of the very patriarchal context in which this religion was introduced into. The religion was speaking to this very patriarchal society; and therefore had to gradually persuade the people into the higher purity. A lot of its statements in the regard of man and woman are contextual, as well as normative. It is also required to note that there is no book written by a Muslim on sacred-sex alone; it is usally found within long passages of general subjects or hidden within greater works. This of course makes research harder, but I'm considering it my job to perform 'itjihad' and write about this very subject.

I first want to clear up the issues about women being seen as 'inferior' in Islam. In no way is this the case, as the Quran clearly states the equality of men and women in terms of spiritual potential and social responsibility. The Prophet even had two women fighters who protected him during battle believe it or not, his first wife was a business woman whom he served, and he only married other wives at the time after she died in order to appease and resolve political issues with the tribes. The verse on taking up to four wives, was contextual and NOT normative - in relation to the war in which a lot of men had died and there were quite a few vulnerable young women who needed supporting as they had lost their fathers and husbands. The Quran says that if you fear you cannot be just to these women then you should only take one wife. It then goes on to say in another verse; that you will never be just to more than one wife. Thus polygamy is highly discouraged - one MUST support your wife. In matters of veiling also...it never says women should cover their face; and neither does it even mention women needing to be confined to the home. The verse about 'men are protectors and maintainers' is both normative and contextual. Women need protecting in public as this is the condition that they are the physically weaker sex; but also maintaining when she is looking after her baby or pregnant. The translation as 'maintaining' is not a strict translation and can be regarded as such in its social context and that of childbirth; it can also be translated as 'supporting' generally outside the context when she is busy nourishing her children. Finally, with regard to 'beating' ones wife...then this is never said in the Quran and the translation is incorrect. Penkat Ali says "The meaning of the original Arabic verb "idrib" (< daraba, basically 'to strike'), which most translations have presented as meaning 'beat!' has a great many subtle shades of meaning in Arabic, sometimes even opposite meanings (e.g. 'to mix, mingle'; 'to separate'; 'to oscillate'; 'to fly'; 'to incline towards'; 'to throb'; 'to multiply'; 'to play music'; 'to quote a wise saying'; 'to move, go for a walk, migrate'; 'to settle down and dwell'; etc.), sensitive to the context. When you baldly replace that range of meanings with the single word "beat!" you lose the original intent. You have to understand the Quran in light of the Qurân, and also in the light of the Prophet's Sunnah. It could not possibly mean striking to hurt with violence, given the teachings of the Prophet to be kind to women, including a hadith in which he specifically prohibited wife-beating".

With regards to sex; my commentary on the second link I posted where it says "women are a tilth unto you" is both normative and contextual. Remember, we are talking about a very patriarchal society which the Quran is addressing....as well as the ambiguity and flexibility of Arabic words and translations. It can also be translated as women being a source of nourishment, a fertile refuge, etc. The verse was revealed in response to a contextual question being asked with regard to sexual positions; and due to the need at the time to speak to people at the level of their understanding it was said that they can approach wife in different positions but to be respectful and do some good act before approaching and to fear and respect their Lord. In another hadith, the Prophet says "Do not approach your wife like an animal..." so this should be seen as such.

There is another hadith where the Prophet says that when man and woman make love, they are surrounded by praying angels. And indeed, they should be....for they are performing a noble and majestic act.

Salams,

~Abdullah.

How enlightening

I knew much of that, but not all of it. I'll put it to good use.

Fundamentalists can be such a nuisance. The ones in this country are behaving in a scary fashion, too. It seems that like attracts like. *shakes head sadly* It's sad that well-intentioned people can go so far off track.

My girlfriend in the UK says that a new understanding about sex is the way to defuse such ideological clouds...because all of us are up against the same "enemy." Our dear old mammalian programming and its inherent challenges (and potential gifts).

Abdullah, I must appreciate

Abdullah,

I must appreciate your open and nonbiased outlook on Islam (despite having an Islamic upbringing, I presume). Most people simply assume the religion they were born into to be the religion of the highest truth. A lot written in the scriptures is contextual. There is especially a lot of misconception about Islam today, and Islamic views on sex, doubly so.

As for masculine domination, frankly, I've never really had those kind of feelings in me, I've always believed in the male-female complementarity, but it is true that nearly every religion has a masculine bias. The leaders of the major religions have been predominantly male. I guess they factored in even "domination" into the complementarity scheme, so that one side would have to dominate while the other would have to submit for it to be a complementary pair.

Thank you so much, Abdullah

Your post was very healing for me to read. As you must realize, American culture is extremely patriarchal, and is a greedy audience for how the Quran has been misinterpreted. We prefer our misogyny served up in a sexually exploitive way. -Galileo

I realized that I also

meant to share a story from a visit to Egypt many years ago, when I was single. I was traveling with a tour group from Belgium, but I spent some time on my own - for example, visiting the pyramids with a guide.

I think I received about 10 proposals of marriage during that 8-day tour...one of which was "will you marry me for an hour?" I wasn't sure that one was true love...

The men clearly seemed to think that "a lone woman shouldn't be wandering around on her own." That was amusing to me, since I was a lawyer and an executive in those days. And yet...it seemed to me, upon reflection, that there was an element of courtliness and even genuine concern behind this belief that I should be on someone's leash. Perhaps it wasn't my charms, but rather the Prophet's admonition to take care of women, which was the biggest factor in those proposals.

In any case, a woman on her own was clearly perceived as a dangerous state of affairs...which it was, perhaps. (I did manage to get left behind out in the desert at Abu Simbel, for example.)

In any case, I enjoyed the people, and wasn't even too upset when the driver who took me to the pyramids also stole my camera. I wonder how many pictures of the pyramids he has in his collection by now. Wink

In western societies

women can wander around unattended in the streets mainly due to the fact that not only do we have a public who are courteous enough to respond if she is attacked; but also police. The idea of 'protecting' was particularly contextual as women were treated in those days as chattel in pre-Islamic Arabia and still are in many places. Since the prevailing laws did not care about them, it came to noble men to serve as their protectors. Do you think famous people would go out into the street without a bodyguard? So...in some hostile environments one may regard women too with that special degree of attention.

As for patriarchy and male-female complementarity; this is a truth however one must understand how difficult it is to persuade most men to realise this - as they are too much focussed on their superior height and strength as well as their own sense of superiority of knowledge. It is a superficial arrogance and lack of understanding and a clinging onto the old ego. To look down on women or treat her almost as a child is to insult her very being.

To finally resolve the issue of sexual equality in all aspects is to contemplate this meditation by Penkat Ali: -

"The etymology of the divine name al-Rahman (the All-Merciful) is connected to the word for �womb� (rahim). There is a hadith qudsi that specifically addresses that: Allah says, "I am al-Rahman. I created the womb and I derived its name from My name. I will be connected to whoever stays connected to it, and I will be cut off from whoever stays cut off from it."

Here, "staying connected to the womb" is usually interpreted to mean maintaining family ties in the social world. Its the extension of loving, honoring, and caring for one's mother, which is the supreme social duty in Islam. But in a metacosmic sense it also reminds me of the all-encompassing importance of the Yoni in Tantra (Yoni = womb).

Verse 4:1 in the Quran commands us to "Reverence your Lord . . . and (reverence) the wombs (al-rahman)."

Right up front, Allah puts reverence for the Yoni immediately after that of Himself. Allah is the Ultimate Reality, the Absolute One, in which there is no differentiation of duality. But on the very next level, He puts in first place the Eternal Feminine. Looking at the footnote to this verse in A. Yusuf Ali�s translation, it appears that he understood the Tantric esoterism deep within Islam.

"Among the most wonderful mysteries of our nature is that of sex. The unregenerate male is apt, in the pride of his physical strength, to forget the all-important part which the female plays in his very existence, and in all the social relationships that arise in our collective human lives. The mother that bore us must ever have our reverence. The wife, through whom we enter parentage, must have our reverence. Sex, which governs so much our physical life, and has so much influence on our emotional and higher nature, deserves�not our fear or contempt, or our amused indulgence, but�our reverence in the highest sense of the term."
- Taken from: -
http://web.archive.org/web/20030802103922/www.penkatali.org/yoni.html

Really, thank you

Abdullah, I hope you stick around in this forum (vocally). You have a fine way with words.

When I lived in Turkey, the man I was dating, who was by no means a mysogynist, also had this very protective attitude towards me. I would walk around in a shirt with no bra (I have small breasts so no need for such contraptions), and he was very concerned that I was drawing too much attention to myself. I probably would not have been so overt in a smaller Turkish town, but I was in the western part of the most modern Turkish city (Taksim). I was also often walking in the streets when there were no women about, which seemed to be before 8am and after 6 or 7pm. I simply explained to him that it didn't bother me if the men felt sexual desire when seeing me, not becuase I was trying to encourage that in them, but because I feel that's for them to manage.

Although my lover Melik's concern came out of a real sense of care for my wellbeing, I also feel that it did reinforce the idea that it is a woman's, and not a man's responsibility to regulate male desire. I felt almost like I was doing these men a service by being myself, which happened to be sexy - not overtly so, not agressively so, and not intentionally so, just naturally so. Men need to learn to be in the presence of their desire without thinking that that desire gives them a right to act on it every time. By encouraging me to cover up and stay in at certain hours, I feel like Melik was reinforcing the status quo in his own way.

One could say that he was only being practical, having a more firm cultural reference for the implications of such provocative behavior. What I was doing could have put me in danger of being raped, the old admonishment goes. Personally, I would rather take that risk than limit myself so as to manage someone else's sexuality for them. And my courageous behavior never resulted in anything more than the usual leers, which I would have experienced in any country.

I had just been living in Brooklyn, and had sucessfully convinced numerous drunken men on the streets late at night that they actually didn't want to be that agressive with me, but wanted instead to allow me to walk peacefully home. I didn't have the power of words in Turkey to navigate this territory, but I did have the confidence from having dealt with agressive male attention in New York. This confidence was not just a confidence in myself, in my own value, in the stating of that value by living freely, it was also a confidence in them, that they did not have to embody their culture's values, and could be free of trying to imprison other people.

Everything turned out fine. I have travelled far and wide, alone, and in every country, someone warned me that I was crazy and asking for trouble. Nothing particularly bad has happened to me, and I am glad I had the common sense to dismiss their fears as their own.