Extreme pain and letting go?

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

I have a few other thoughts on the topic, just broadly, which may or may not apply to the OP specifically. But which may also be helpful to some for consideration.

I feel that it's taking time for women to realise, love, and accept themselves as they are within this very degrading cultural context we live in. And the same for men but in their case it's the dominance and predation roles imposed on them that are dehumanising, if all too addictive for many.

Women do have a drive for love and companionship in all their relationships, not just partner-based ones. But until they've had kids or passed that era in their lives, the vast majority have some trouble sorting out the powerful and pervasive effect of that drive for children in their lives, as it operates at a subconscious level unless brought forward. Deep self-awareness and a penetrating level of self-reflection is needed by most women to more fully grasp the effect of this powerful drive on their behaviour, and I'm convinced we've barely scratched the surface here.

Our mainstream culture of predation and on-demand sexual compliance of women has a horrific effect on many women as they go about their woman's way of seeking loving connections -- or attempting to do so -- in a sea of predation, exploitation, and base utilitarianism. We need to have our full wits about us, so to speak. Clarity of thought and time spent on knowing and loving the self...so that we have the presence of mind, the integrity, and the strength to know what we truly want and need -- in fulfillment of our overriding basic drives: 1) to make authentically loving connections all round and 2) for kids.

Within this context, I have another concern, aside from cultural brainwashing ("your value is based on pleasing men at all costs regarding their demands for casual sex without love or commitment") and eroding of self-worth. Medicating ourselves primarily for men's use has the effect of tampering with our biochemistry and neurology in ways that affects our judgment of potential partners, according to recent studies, steering us toward casual or shorter-term partners at a subconscious level.

Like all psychotropic, systemic, and powerful drugs, they are potentially inhibiting our full capacity for good judgment and thus our free will and the full impact of this is likely not yet known. There are valid medical uses but I personally feel their psychotropic impact is vastly, hugely understated...and that amounts to a potentially almost criminal abrogation of a woman's judgment and free will.

So...I want to caution basically nigh every woman as they try to navigate:

1) a culture of predation and base exploitation, which gives rise to imbalance in relationships and to men's demands for casual sex via "dating", without love and typically without any meaningful commitment, and their insistence that this is both normative and "good" -- a claim that is meaningless to the individual woman if it is not in her best interests

and

2) ownership and awareness of their own fundamental drives for authentic love in partnership, and for family.

...all whilst frequently on powerful psychotropic medication, otherwise known as "hormonal birth control". Which tend to medicate, mask, skew, and misdirect a woman's judgment and decision-making regarding sex and partnership in fundamental ways we are only just begun to discover.

Peace & blessings
7L

IMO if women got the kind of control you advocate, it wouldn't be any better than what we have now. They would just use the power of the word 'no' to be domineering, same way as men use persuasion to get what they want now. Kinda like, swap one gender's woes for the other? It isn't a long-term solution and ONLY makes sense because whoever is currently on the down side seeks something better.

But all you get out of it in the end is a teeter totter, you go up and down and up and down and lasting peace is never reached.

There is always that thought in everyone's mind 'if only I could have what I want we would have peace'. But what everyone wants is always at the expense of someone else... and then eventually the someone else will be saying exactly the same thing you currently are, and once again things will go topsy turvy. peace is unreachable if you go about it this way.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

IMO if women got the kind of control you advocate, it wouldn't be any better than what we have now. They would just use the power of the word 'no' to be domineering, same way as men use persuasion to get what they want now. Kinda like, swap one gender's woes for the other? It isn't a long-term solution and ONLY makes sense because whoever is currently on the down side seeks something better.

Falling, hello there. I think it's actually very interesting and really quite tragic that anyone would see this as an issue of control over anyone else except oneself. I am not at all blaming you or anyone for seeing it this way, because I think that's exactly how our culture has raised us to see things...that it has to be a power-over situation where someone/group "wins" whilst everyone else suffers. But I believe there is a win-win alternative to all the power-over scenarios...it will just look and feel a little different, a little more caring and tender and freer, than what we've been accustomed to.

I am talking about self-love, self-awareness, and self-control for women, including better informed judgment and unimpeded free will to make decisions in their own highest good. This most private aspect doesn't actually have to do with men at all, not up front. That is a more external aspect, which comes after this.

From that most private aspect, moving outward, then with a greater degree of self-love and self-awareness, women can be truer to their own highest good when interacting with men. That IMO can only be to everyone's highest good.

Do you think that women who are more aware of who they are and what is in their highest good is a bad thing, or that it would be bad for relationships? I think it would be tremendously amazing I agree, though, that the most egregious and demanding gents might have a problem with women coming to a place of greater self-awareness and strength and informed judgment. But not most men.

But all you get out of it in the end is a teeter totter, you go up and down and up and down and lasting peace is never reached.

I think that looking at this as a "power over" situation is a limiting view, because it presumes or assumes that there is no way forward in authentic love that can hold the highest mutual good of all. Yet I do believe in that as a possibility and as a reality. It actually never occurred to me to visualise it as a reverse power-over structure. I see it as all on the same level plane, different folks and groups. That's probably because I already presume that we are all equally worthy...isn't that cheeky of me?

However, there is a natural exchange or back and forth that is to be expected as folks grow and interact, and the only way you get around this natural give-and-receive is either some or all of the folks are 1) dominated or coerced, 2) drugged, 3) programmed, or 4) some combo.

In order to allow for everyone's growth and free will, we will have to move away from domination and force (through whatever means). And this means that there will be a natural back-and-forth which can be as courteous and considerate and kind as each of us is in each moment . That IMO is a sign of growth and progress, as it means there are multiple voices being heard and valued.

There is always that thought in everyone's mind 'if only I could have what I want we would have peace'. But what everyone wants is always at the expense of someone else... and then eventually the someone else will be saying exactly the same thing you currently are, and once again things will go topsy turvy. peace is unreachable if you go about it this way.

I know you may not even realise it, but this sounds like you've already made a lot of underlying assumptions, in addition to assumptions of a universal, never-ending "power-over" structure, that I would never ascribe to. Like, someone's more important peace should always come at the expense of someone else's less important liberty and autonomy. This in turn directly implies some folks are less worthy than others, and I don't agree with that. I know that's what we've essentially been taught by means of what we see in the world around us. But just as with petitioning and standing against slavery or petitioning and standing for democratic rights and freedoms, we have to look beyond much of what we see all around us, forward to what we need to see all around us. And bring that into being in the same way.

I may not be in the same space as you as I put this out for consideration, so I will just take it from where I'm at. I hope that's alright with you and you can understand why your response IMO isn't quite getting at what I am discussing, which is:

women's self-knowledge and self-love, and exploring obstacles that women face in bringing clarity and good judgment to their journey.

So on that, I am talking about coming to know ourselves as women more truly, and to take decisions based on that, once we have a better idea of who we are at centre. You have already assumed (as I understand) that folks know what they want and where they are centred but in fact, many are not yet clear on all of the moving parts regarding themselves and their underlying drives and motives. Alongside the messages put out by mainstream culture, which further misdirect and outright lie to us -- to us all, but particularly I'm speaking of women here -- about how to better know ourselves or find our truth and happiness.

These factors all make for a very confusing stew in which we find ourselves. I was addressing that stew of confusion for women, and what IMO some of the main ingredients are in so many cases.

Peace & blessings
7L

[hellabomer]

Originally Posted by pluralone

Ayway, point is that for me the avoidance or resistance is not about protecting myself from my feelings; it's about maintaining things as they are so I don't have to do anything to resolve them. This isn't going to be true for everyone, but I thought I'd throw that out there anyway just to share a slightly different perspective.

I generally avoid my feelings, even if I feel unloved, because I generally hope that things might get alright with time. But when it doesn't get better, I choose to voice out what I want. If they choose to leave, at least, I know I was being authentic. It has taken me years of toxic love issues to realize that I am not as weak as I make myself out to be; that it's alright to lose someone who is causing you such pain.

[hellabomer]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

women's self-knowledge and self-love, and exploring obstacles that women face in bringing clarity and good judgment to their journey.

So on that, I am talking about coming to know ourselves as women more truly, and to take decisions based on that, once we have a better idea of who we are at centre. You have already assumed (as I understand) that folks know what they want and where they are centred but in fact, many are not yet clear on all of the moving parts regarding themselves and their underlying drives and motives. Alongside the messages put out by mainstream culture, which further misdirect and outright lie to us -- to us all, but particularly I'm speaking of women here -- about how to better know ourselves or find our truth and happiness.

These factors all make for a very confusing stew in which we find ourselves. I was addressing that stew of confusion for women, and what IMO some of the main ingredients are in so many cases.

Peace & blessings
7L

I really enjoyed reading your responses. Thank you so much. It has certainly made me think something.

It is so easy to talk about wanting sex and physical intimacy even at an early stage of a relationship. It's considered okay if someone desires you physically and want to make a physical connection. I dare say, people consider it some kind of liberation or freedom to have a sexual relationship with someone without any strings attached.

But when it comes to expressing our desires to have a loving relationship with a COMPANION, a lot of people label that as a desire to be tied down, lack of freedom. In fact, some people shut those desires down by claiming that it is a societal structure for reproduction.

When people are in the courtship period especially, it is considered to be clingy to express the desire to want a relationship from someone, but why is it not considered negative to want sex from someone? Why is the latter seen as chill, but the former sets the other person running to another end?

Why is that a need to have a loving relationship as long-term companions is not seen as liberation as well? Having casual sex, while jumping from one person to another, is seen as freeing, but choosing to be one person is seen in quite an opposite way.

As much as I know, authentic love is something that sets us free. Emotional relationships these days have become selfish, but so are physical relationships.

[FairyCrystal]

During courtship period you're often not sure yet if you want a relationship with the other or you're still seeing through pink-coloured glasses. It usually isn't till after some time has gone by that you truly start to see the other for who they are and are able to say you can or cannot live with them.
Also, most men have this innate fear of giving up their freedom, so addressing a relationship will scare them away.
On the other hand side, I've had a first date with a man who was so happy with me that he twice ended up saying something like "Oh, wow, when we move in together we can XYZ"
Scared the Bejesus out of me, haha. Okay, at the time I wasn't ready for a relationship, but to mention moving in together on a first date is pushing it!

Sex is different yet again. Men can have sex without making a commitment / feeling the need to commit. They're wired to impregnate as many as possible. For women, however, sex is a form of bonding and commitment. And some subconsciously assume the man will commit when she has sex with him. Or that he has committed when they've had sex, which is not the case. Not unless there's other emotionally bonding factors involved.

[hellabomer]

Originally Posted by FairyCrystal

During courtship period you're often not sure yet if you want a relationship with the other or you're still seeing through pink-coloured glasses. It usually isn't till after some time has gone by that you truly start to see the other for who they are and are able to say you can or cannot live with them.
Also, most men have this innate fear of giving up their freedom, so addressing a relationship will scare them away.
On the other hand side, I've had a first date with a man who was so happy with me that he twice ended up saying something like "Oh, wow, when we move in together we can XYZ"
Scared the Bejesus out of me, haha. Okay, at the time I wasn't ready for a relationship, but to mention moving in together on a first date is pushing it!

Sex is different yet again. Men can have sex without making a commitment / feeling the need to commit. They're wired to impregnate as many as possible. For women, however, sex is a form of bonding and commitment. And some subconsciously assume the man will commit when she has sex with him. Or that he has committed when they've had sex, which is not the case. Not unless there's other emotionally bonding factors involved.

That's what I am saying. It seems more like a conditioning.

Love = being tied down
Casual sex = freedom

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by hellabomer

I really enjoyed reading your responses. Thank you so much. It has certainly made me think something.

Hellabomer, you're very welcome and glad to have helped stir the pot of thought and contemplation.

It is so easy to talk about wanting sex and physical intimacy even at an early stage of a relationship. It's considered okay if someone desires you physically and want to make a physical connection. I dare say, people consider it some kind of liberation or freedom to have a sexual relationship with someone without any strings attached.

Yes...it's considered okay to shag without love [or money] IMO due to the social conditioning you mentioned. Various labels are affixed to make it seem the glamorous option...pure window dressing of no ultimate meaning, clearly used to market it or sell it. Next we need to ask why and who benefits?

Prior to widespread availability of hormonal BC for women, men had to refrain from widespread use of women purely for sex -- because of pregnancy and the need for men's ownership and responsibility.

As Gandhi said, and it's most unfortunate that he was spot on in this way, it [has] unmanned the man -- by making it easy for men to dehumanise women and remain infantile. To use women primarily as receptacles, and to avoid a man's responsibility emotionally and spiritually that attends when physically penetrating another sentient being.

And he was only speaking of condoms in his day. At least then the man had to manage that much.

But when it comes to expressing our desires to have a loving relationship with a COMPANION, a lot of people label that as a desire to be tied down, lack of freedom. In fact, some people shut those desires down by claiming that it is a societal structure for reproduction.

Those same folks would, many of them, say the same of any committed relationship, gay or straight, whether civil unions, handfastings, common law, etc. They have not yet IMO realised their centre, nor that no multitude of other sex partners will bring "lasting joy" when they've not attained that for themselves, by themselves.

More to the point, they see an opportunity to blatantly exploit others for casual sexual experiences which in past eras they would have had to pay for. And which frankly were more honestly owned in those days, as a result. No one thought he was morally superior to you for his promiscuity or his incapacity to authentically love and commit to another, hahaha...but now...now they do, don't they? Pretty arrogant and smug of them IMO, whilst callously using others as if subhuman, LOL...but I try to reign that instinct of loathing and disgust in as much as possible.

The danger is in participating in dehumanising others whilst also actually thinking it's "OK". Conditioning, dehumanization, random or intermittent reinforcement, use of coercion or force or drugs -- all of these are well-known tools of torture and control...both of individuals and of societies. And IMO...that's what we have right now.

When people are in the courtship period especially, it is considered to be clingy to express the desire to want a relationship from someone, but why is it not considered negative to want sex from someone? Why is the latter seen as chill, but the former sets the other person running to another end?

That's the social conditioning, which is being manipulated and perpetrated onto society at large to serve the ends of some whilst exploiting and poorly using others. When you say, well, that's not good for me and I prefer sex with a mutual love and commitment, that goes over quite poorly for quite a few. Despite loads of up-front screening, I've had many on coffee dates over the years get very nasty, get angry, yell or interrogate me (in public). Many others have made loads of insulting, crass remarks, even if they didn't get upset...in other words, they were oblivious and saw me as a piece of meat. Others have been very into dating me until they saw they would not be getting sex after a handful of dates...and why? I barely had got to know them and how they take their coffee or who they were. Where is the desire in that? I don't want to bed a stranger or a near stranger, who doesn't give a rat's bum about me. It's loathesome to even contemplate.

The obvious beneficiaries of this social conditioning are seemingly any of the horny, immature gents, who never have to grow up or leave a selfish lifestyle built on using and disposing of others.

The obviously disadvantaged and harmed by the use them and lose them lifestyle are the weaker and more vulnerable...clearly the women...also children and all other vulnerable members of society.

But the real beneficiaries are the powers that be, who & which divide us from one another in authentic love.

Why is that a need to have a loving relationship as long-term companions is not seen as liberation as well? Having casual sex, while jumping from one person to another, is seen as freeing, but choosing to be one person is seen in quite an opposite way.

As much as I know, authentic love is something that sets us free. Emotional relationships these days have become selfish, but so are physical relationships.

Very well said...those really are the big questions.

I agree. If you share a mutual authentic love, then IMO you freely choose to commit in each moment, if you have decided to partner and be physically intimate (have sex) with another. There is no coercion, it is truly liberating, and you are living your truth.

Primarily physical (sexual) relationships predicated on dehumanising others, by not dealing with the full humanity of one another...are the ultimate in selfishness and utilitarianism. These in today's world are commonly uncommitted but comprise many marriages as well. Hence why they are called selfish if committed...because as you rightly said, it's the physical using of and taking from the other which is selfish. And it's selfish in any case. Adding a layer of commitment or varying degrees of emotional entanglement, either one, may (may) make it more pronounced, is all.

Relationships in which authentic love contextualises the physical have been conveniently defined as selfish. In reality, these are the exact opposite of selfish, in my understanding. They are also rare when IMO they ideally would be and should be commonplace, the norm for humanity's partner relationships. However, this has not yet ever been the case historically and we are forging a new way here in the seeking of these kinds of partner relationships.

To smugly suggest or outright assert, however, that shagging casually (or exclusively) is morally superior to any form of commitment, no matter how flawed, is a huge stretch and is not morally or ethically tenable. You could IMO make the argument that abstinence is better than penetrating others without any deeper caring or commitment to their wellbeing long term. I would generally support that, most likely. But to assert that indulgence of one's urges on the backs of others is the superior form of human relationship is IMO misaligned and toxic. I would further say that IMO the other viable option to abstinence in male-female partnership is developing authentically loving bonds of friendship, and from within one of those, choosing a partner with whom to mutually and openly commit to one another. That's my take on it.

Peace & blessings
7L

[hellabomer]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

To smugly suggest or outright assert, however, that shagging casually (or exclusively) is morally superior to any form of commitment, no matter how flawed, is a huge stretch and is not morally or ethically tenable. You could IMO make the argument that abstinence is better than penetrating others without any deeper caring or commitment to their wellbeing long term. I would generally support that, most likely. But to assert that indulgence of one's urges on the backs of others is the superior form of human relationship is IMO misaligned and toxic. I would further say that IMO the other viable option to abstinence in male-female partnership is developing authentically loving bonds of friendship, and from within one of those, choosing a partner with whom to mutually and openly commit to one another. That's my take on it.

Peace & blessings
7L

Your replies have resonated with me strongly. And this has been my way to go till now. Either be physically intimate with someone when mutual love and respect is involved or practice abstinence. I have not found anyone who has made me give up the latter.

There are times when I have faced a lot of self-doubt. Guys have often seen me as 'innocent' or 'too good'; someone they should stay away from (in the words of the guy I liked). The point is, you are always labelled. And it has caused a lot of self-doubts to erupt. I want to stay true to my authentic self. Being a highly sensitive person, I feel things too deeply. I know that casual sex is not something I can handle without getting my feelings involved.

I sometimes wonder how I can honor my truth. I don't judge someone else's lifestyle. But due to the constant labeling, I have often wondered if being the way I am is something inferior. I am not able to fully accept the love that is inside me. I am practicing to share the compassion with more vulnerability with every person, but I am still scared. In fact, today I was questioning my mother if I am naive or dumb as per the society's standards. Though I create art, express my opinions and feelings and have always curiously questioned how things work. I am not submissive, and I guess, that's visible with my choice to only indulge in a fulfilling relationship. But I still let other people, their perceptions make me feel like I am not good enough.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by hellabomer

Your replies have resonated with me strongly. And this has been my way to go till now. Either be physically intimate with someone when mutual love and respect is involved or practice abstinence. I have not found anyone who has made me give up the latter.

There are times when I have faced a lot of self-doubt. Guys have often seen me as 'innocent' or 'too good'; someone they should stay away from (in the words of the guy I liked). The point is, you are always labelled. And it has caused a lot of self-doubts to erupt. I want to stay true to my authentic self. Being a highly sensitive person, I feel things too deeply. I know that casual sex is not something I can handle without getting my feelings involved.

I sometimes wonder how I can honor my truth. I don't judge someone else's lifestyle. But due to the constant labeling, I have often wondered if being the way I am is something inferior. I am not able to fully accept the love that is inside me. I am practicing to share it with more vulnerability with every person, but I am still scared. In fact, today I was questioning my mother if I am naive or dumb as per the society's standards. Though I create art, express my opinions and feelings and have always curiously questioned how things work. I am not submissive, and I guess, that's visible with my choice to only indulge in a fulfilling relationship. But I still let other people, their perceptions make me feel like I am not good enough.

You're saving your humanity and aligning with your centre...you're not at all mad. You sound quite sane to me

I added this bit, above...and will repeat here as well.

The danger is in participating in dehumanising others whilst also actually thinking it's "OK". To move to a place of asserting the moral superiority of dehumanisation is what most would actually call "evil".

Conditioning, dehumanisation, random or intermittent reinforcement, use of coercion, force, or drugs -- all of these are well-known tools of torture and control...both of individuals and of societies.

And IMO...that's what we have right now.

You've got clean and many others have not yet. You are also looking round for a healthy paradigm of male-female partnership involving equity, parity, and a mutuality of authentic love (seeking the highest good of the other equally the self, and vice versa). And there isn't yet one widely available. Because authentic love in partnership has never before been seen as necessary by the heretofore dominant group, the men. They've been and done authentic love with parents, children, siblings, beloved friends....but historically not their partners. For their partners, a baser, conditional relationship attained and emotional engagement was purely optional, up to the individual and not required. That's what second-class means...it means your full humanity was never acknowledged, so you simply weren't considered worthy of authentic love in partnership. Some men individually took it far deeper, but they too were likely viewed as the odd ones out, just as we are today. What they were, IMO, was whole and integral...and that's a good thing.

In this era, women recognise the severe and intentional lack of authentic love in partnership which our culture has fully and intentionally underwritten, to the point most in our society make "special exceptions" for male-female relationships, so as NOT to bring love there.

Indeed, many men have been guided to purposely relate in dehumanising ways designed to intimidate, traumatise, and minimize us, even to harm us physically. To penetrate us without love or even kindness or presence, and without any care for our highest good and our wellbeing. This is not the way of authentic love, and we ALL know it.

Make no mistake, the current cultural "norms" are extremely toxic in this regard. They are an outright attempt to dehumanise this kind of human relationship, and whilst it clearly dehumanises women by objectifying and using them...it also clearly dehumanises men IMO, who are not animals and not machines. We are all human, and we are all centred in the heart-led consciousness.

I say stand your ground and be the love you are. A new way is coming.

Peace & blessings,
7L

[hellabomer]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

You're saving your humanity and aligning with your centre...you're not at all mad. You sound quite sane to me

I added this bit, above...and will repeat here as well.

The danger is in participating in dehumanising others whilst also actually thinking it's "OK".

Conditioning, dehumanization, random or intermittent reinforcement, use of coercion, force, or drugs -- all of these are well-known tools of torture and control...both of individuals and of societies.

And IMO...that's what we have right now.

You've got clean and many others have not yet. You are also looking round for a healthy paradigm of male-female partnership involving equity, parity, and a mutuality of authentic love (seeking the highest good of the other equally the self, and vice versa). And there isn't yet one widely available. Because authentic love has never before been seen as necessary by the heretofore dominant group, the men. They've been and done authentic love with parents, children, siblings, beloved friends....but historically not their partners. For their partners, a baser, conditional relationship attained and emotional engagement was purely optional, up to the individual and not required. Some took it far deeper, but they too were probably always viewed as the odd ones out, just as we are today. What they were, IMO, was whole and integral...and that's a good thing.

In this era, women recognise the severe and intentional lack of authentic love in partnership which our culture has fully and intentionally underwritten, to the point most in our society make "special exceptions" for male-female relationships, so as NOT to bring love there.

Indeed, many men have been guided to purposely relate in dehumanising ways designed to intimidate, traumatise, and minimize us, even to harm us physically. To penetrate us without love or even kindness or presence, and without any care for our highest good and our wellbeing. This is not the way of authentic love, and we ALL know it.

Make no mistake, the current cultural "norms" are extremely toxic in this regard. They are an outright attempt to dehumanise this kind of human relationship, and whilst it clearly dehumanises women by objectifying and using them...it also clearly dehumanises men IMO, who are not animals and not machines. We are all human, and we are all centred in the heart-led consciousness.

I say stand your ground and be the love you are. A new way is coming.

Peace & blessings,
7L

Thank you. Can I ask you something? Is it possible to indulge in casual sex while having love and kindness for the other party involved? Then moving on to another human, claiming to have love and compassion for them and getting physically involved with them. Especially when both the parties involved have made a choice to not get emotionally involved for a relationship and keep it to physical intimacy only?

Another thing someone asked me some time ago was: why should we involve ourselves with only one person when spirituality is about loving everyone equally?