Energy transmission and sharing - a debate

[liminal_luke]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

 

Plenty of people who are "in love" have "bad sex" (that they don't like), or even an "unhealthy attitude" toward sex (using it to take advantage of their partner, not being giving, etc).

 

I have been in public conversations with strangers (not about sex) where I have basically run away because I thought the other person was so weird, or in one case was too kind (long story) and I was embarrassed.

 

People in "loving, committed" relationships can hurt each other emotionally either intentionally or unintentionally via sex, either the act or comments they make related to the act.

 

There are also big differences about how the _average_ man and _average_ woman relate to and deal with sex with strangers. Here is something I wrote on another thread here on TDB this summer: As Dilbert author Scott Adams has said, "If men ruled the world, they could get sex anywhere, anytime. Restaurants would give you sex instead of breath mints on the way out. Gas stations would give sex with every fill-up. Banks would give sex to anyone who opened a checking account." (from The Dilbert Future, chapter 7, "The Future of Gender Relations"). BTW, I am being totally serious. Hence, my sincere and deep respect for 'sluts' and nymphomaniacs. I adore them.

 

Lots of people nowadays are into hugging strangers. I hate that. Hugging is more intimate than sex for me. Sex can be purely physical for me (and also more than physical). Hugging can only be very intimate for me. When someone I am not intimate with hugs me, I feel like the huggers among you would probably feel if that person took their clothes off and then hugged you: creepy, too much.

 

Crossing the street can turn out not so great or not even close to being seated with someone you don't know at a restaurant, but I still cross the street (for the same reason the chicken did).

 

Here´s the question I ask myself and would ask you: what is sex?  Is there a difference -- interpersonally, energetically, spiritually -- between a hand shake and a hand job?  I think there is.  I´m willing to shake hands with almost anybody who cares to, and am much more selective about who touches my genitals. There are people who don´t make this distinction, people who allow anybody to touch them any ole way. To me, that´s sad.  Not because I think such indiscriminate people are hell-bent sinners -- I don´t think that -- but because I think something awful must of happened to them in the past, and that one of the symptoms of that something awful is promiscuity.

Edited September 16, 2016 by liminal_luke

[Brian]

the idea is for you to specifically answer questions about your practice - how it works and so on.

Sounds like the makings for an episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia -- "The Gang Gives Jeff the Third Degree"

[Brian]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

 

Plenty of people who are "in love" have "bad sex" (that they don't like), or even an "unhealthy attitude" toward sex (using it to take advantage of their partner, not being giving, etc).

 

I have been in public conversations with strangers (not about sex) where I have basically run away because I thought the other person was so weird, or in one case was too kind (long story) and I was embarrassed.

 

People in "loving, committed" relationships can hurt each other emotionally either intentionally or unintentionally via sex, either the act or comments they make related to the act.

 

There are also big differences about how the _average_ man and _average_ woman relate to and deal with sex with strangers. Here is something I wrote on another thread here on TDB this summer: As Dilbert author Scott Adams has said, "If men ruled the world, they could get sex anywhere, anytime. Restaurants would give you sex instead of breath mints on the way out. Gas stations would give sex with every fill-up. Banks would give sex to anyone who opened a checking account." (from The Dilbert Future, chapter 7, "The Future of Gender Relations"). BTW, I am being totally serious. Hence, my sincere and deep respect for 'sluts' and nymphomaniacs. I adore them.

 

Lots of people nowadays are into hugging strangers. I hate that. Hugging is more intimate than sex for me. Sex can be purely physical for me (and also more than physical). Hugging can only be very intimate for me. When someone I am not intimate with hugs me, I feel like the huggers among you would probably feel if that person took their clothes off and then hugged you: creepy, too much.

 

Crossing the street can turn out not so great or not even close to being seated with someone you don't know at a restaurant, but I still cross the street (for the same reason the chicken did).

^^^ Not if I were the man who ruled the world...

[Apech]

Sounds like the makings for an episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia -- "The Gang Gives Jeff the Third Degree"

 

 

Oh what!  Its perfectly reasonable to want to know.

[lessdaomorebum]

Here´s the question I ask myself and would ask you: what is sex?  Is there a difference -- interpersonally, energetically, spiritually -- between a hand shake and a hand job?  I think there is.  I´m willing to shake hands with almost anybody who cares to, and am most more selective about who touches my genitals. There are people who don´t make this distinction, people who allow themselves to be touched any ole way by anybody. To me, that´s sad.  Not because I think such indiscriminate people are hell-bent sinners -- I don´t think that -- but because I think something awful must of happened to them in the past, and that one of the symptoms of that something awful is promiscuity.

I will try earnestly to address your questions.

 

What is sex? Go ask your parents!

 

Tug vs shake?

I don't like shaking hands. Seems like a silly custom. I like bowing.

I do have certain parameters for who can give me a hand job, but the distinctions are based on my being a heterosexual male with certain subjective preferences in what he considers physically or psychologically attractive in a woman. I, to my own disbelief, have turned down hot women before -- because they were Debbie Downer types or obnoxious prisses. I can think of one woman I had sex with (on numerous occasions) who, had you shown me a photo of her, I would have said no to, but she was very aggressive in a gentle and flattering way, and very enjoyable in the sack.

 

Then the question largely is is this female attractive to me? Or, if this female is not attractive to me, am I expected to reciprocate?

The second question may sound odd or even inherently selfish to some, but it is not. Female friends, girlfriends, or lovers require much more emotional 'care and feeding' than any men I know. With a few exceptions (because I have known some 'very naughty' girls), I don't know any women who have an "I want sex right NOW!" attitude. All men I know have a NOW attitude toward sex, though I am sure on TDB there are those who are 'cultivating' and would say they don't. Fine. Point is that men and women tend to be different (Oh, god, I will be arrested now!). Society thinks I should listen to female friends, girlfriends, and lovers go on and on forever about their problems, but sex is 'dirty' so how dare I think I should get a tug or a hummer or the whole deal from a female friend. Some do, some don't. Over the years, out of self-respect, I have spent more of my time and patient ear with those who do because in general in life I have stayed further and further away from 'takers' (including in non-sexual matters). Of course, there all sorts of exceptions. For example, I went for a walk with a married friend yesterday. Even if she was attractive to me, I wouldn't have expected any manual happiness from her, but then again we see each other infrequently, again due to her marriedness. I consider married persons of both sexes to be in their own world, though I know some of them don't think of themselves that way.

 

Will you hold hands with anybody? If you (hetero male?) and I meet in person tomorrow, we can sit in the park and hold hands, looking into each others' eyes? I doubt it.

 

"There are people who don´t make this distinction, people who allow themselves to be touched any ole way by anybody. To me, that´s sad.  Not because I think such indiscriminate people are hell-bent sinners -- I don´t think that -- but because I think something awful must of happened to them in the past, and that one of the symptoms of that something awful is promiscuity."

You don't want to think of yourself as a moralist, but you keep moralizing

To you it is sad. That's like when A says to B "I feel sorry for you" because of their attitude. Translation? "I disagree and feel morally superior."

 

Have you had any personal friends or lovers who were 'sluts'? I suggest to you that 'good girls' have more issues than bad girls. They tend to be more psychologically dangerous and selfish. Why are they denying their sexuality? Sluts at least are sluts; that's already on the table. I would not marry a virgin, no matter how much I liked everything else about her.

Edited September 16, 2016 by lessdaomorebum

[liminal_luke]

I will try earnestly to address your questions.

 

What is sex? Go ask your parents!

 

 

That´s not a very nuanced reply.  Oh well...

[lessdaomorebum]

That´s not a very nuanced reply.  Oh well...

Oh my god, are you uptight! I guess that's your excuse to not answer my other points.

 

I am trying to keep things 'clean' here so as not to offend those who might complain. You really don't know what sex is? Sure, I believe that. Or you want to trap me into an answer that you disapprove of so you can reply that I am a shallow person of low character because I do not share your pseudo-spiritual belief system? Must be the latter since I have to assume you know what sex is. Sex is a physical act: anything involving the stimulating of one or both persons' genitals. Others might include things of a less involved nature down to kissing or holding hands. Sex may make you happy or feel in love or whatever else, but those things are not sex.

Edited September 16, 2016 by lessdaomorebum

[liminal_luke]

 Sex is a physical act: anything involving the stimulating of one or both persons' genitals. Others might include things of a less involved nature down to kissing or holding hands.

 

It´s OK, lessdaomorebum.  I´m not trying to trick you or say you´re shallow.  We just disagree about what sex is, that is all.  You look at it in a more material way, as a physical act.  I agree that it´s a physical act, it´s just that I think that it´s a physical act with energetic consequences.  Probably I see it that way because of my "pseudo-spiritual belief system."

 

Can we stop here?  I think our viewpoints are pretty far apart and neither of us is likely to much influence the other.  

Edited September 16, 2016 by liminal_luke

[Bindi]

Anadi is a teacher who makes a clear distinction between 2 types of transmission - 'soul to soul' transmission and kundalini transmission:

 

 

"Kundalini energy is the primal energy of the vital force that can be manipulated and sent as a kind of elictrical current up to the higher centres. There is nothing particularly divine in that energy and it has no wisdom of its own. To use it as the means of awakening is highly risky because it can easily damage one's nervous system. Even if one is fortunate and this energy does produce an opening of one of the centres of consciousness in the headspace, it can very often damage the brain, and what's more, it is unpredicatable what kind of awakening it will manifest. In most cases, awakened kundalini energy only serves to make people unnaturally 'high', inducing a kind of mystical condition.

 

The path of kundalini is designed for those who lack the maturity to evolve directly into consciousness and meet their essential self. What this really means, however, is that they are simply not ready to evolve spiritually. Forcing such people to awaken through artificial energetic means is to miss the whole point; rather than seeking transcendence, they need to mature and evolve on the level of their basic me. Any teacher who promises awakening through these types of means does not represent a true teaching that is rooted in the direct transmission of the light of the self. The use of kundalini energy to initiate awakeing is highly irresponsible. The chances of reaching self-actualization are negligible and, as was noted, these practices can inflict permanent damage to our delicate psychic and energetic systems.

 

Additionally, bringing energy up past the crown chakra (on the very top of the head) is also spiritually damaging, as it opens the soul to the subconscious realm (although ignorant people believe this to be absolute consciousness). Whatever the origin of the concept of kundalini awakening was, it was a clear expression of the deterioration of the spirit of self-realization. It expresses a lost ability to transmit the light of our pure nature directly into the consciousness of another soul or to initiate a direct path of self-realization through the awakening of me."

 

http://anaditeaching.com/shaivism-co...n-of-identity/

[Brian]

Oh what! Its perfectly reasonable to want to know.

Have you seen the TV show?

[Apech]

Have you seen the TV show?

 

No.

[cheya]

Here you go Apech...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Always_Sunny_in_Philadelphia

 

[lessdaomorebum]

It´s OK, lessdaomorebum.  I´m not trying to trick you or say you´re shallow.  We just disagree about what sex is, that is all.  You look at it in a more material way, as a physical act.  I agree that it´s a physical act, it´s just that I think that it´s a physical act with energetic consequences.  Probably I see it that way because of my "pseudo-spiritual belief system."

 

Can we stop here?  I think our viewpoints are pretty far apart and neither of us is likely to much influence the other.  

Can we stop here? You could have. You chose not to. This has been your whole attitude from the beginning.

 

It's not about whether or not you and I agree, it is about honesty. You came here preaching your message against the supposedly promiscuous (of course with no definition given). Then you don't want to explain your views in a rational way. You have a belief system, like a born again Christian who tells me Jesus will come back to the earth someday.

 

Some person here (one of the pantheon) sent me a PM saying I shouldn't make assumptions about intentions. Hooey.

 

Long ago when I watched TV there was a commercial for A-1 Steak Sauce, recommending we put it on hamburgers because "What is hamburger? Chopped ham?" The commercial at least immediately gave its answer [edit: "No, chopped steak!"].

 

We all know what sex is (hence my sarcastic answer to only that part of what you wrote), so why would someone ask such a basic and obvious question? If we ask a question like that and actually wait for an answer, it is so we can take a standard answer and say "Oh, you are so simple. ___ is so much more than that!" This is commonly used by religious and New Age persons to stomp on the supposedly non-spiritual.

 

Please notice that after denying what your intent was (perhaps only subconscious intent), you said that sex involves energy and expressly differentiated your view from mine. You walk down any street in America [edit: or anywhere else, including the PRC or Taiwan or Tibet or the Pleiades ] and ask 100 people what sex is. I would be amazed if even one person talked about energy in their answer. And in the very post you were replying to I pointed out that sex can have other things attached to it.

 

Instead of asking me what sex is, you could have said, "I think sex is not just the physical act, but necessarily includes energy. Therefore, blah, blah, blah. What do you think of that LDMB?"  What do I think? Well, even a chi numb person such as myself can feel a rush of chi[1] at the yongquan points shortly before and during orgasm, as well sensations up the back, etc, during the act. That could have continued a conversation. But from the beginning you had a point to make, which you made more than once in your posts: people who are promiscuous (no definition given, so I guess it simply means more sex than you[2]), have low self-esteem or issues from their past. It seems to me rather the opposite. People who can't function sexually (psychologically) have issues they need to address. Since preachers like you are ubiquitous and I don't fear public condemnation, I have for some years now called you folks out on your moralizing since the very nature of sex makes 99.9% of people afraid to publicly assert their sexuality, even on a quasi-anonymous forum.

 

Because of my sarcastic answer to your question about what sex is, you chose to ignore the rest of my, dare I say carefully reasoned, post.

 

 

 

[1] I use the term chi here to use TDB vocabulary. I don't know if it is chi or blood and nerve sensations. That is why I had a thread about chi because the chi-like sensations that I feel don't seem beyond nerve or blood sensations. I only entertain them as chi because others use that terminology for those sensations. I have yet to feel something, which some people claim to be capable of, that would make me say, "Oh, that absolutely can not be a nerve sensation or blood flow." Most people have delusional beliefs in god, lucky charms (or at least they eat Lucky Charms [edit: a nutritious breakfast cereal in America]), or whatever else. I am not a believer. I should have been born in Missouri.

 

[2] Comedian George Carlin had a bit where he asked, have you ever noticed that anyone who drives slower than you is an idiot and anyone who drives faster than you is a maniac? Here is the exact quote.

Edited September 18, 2016 by lessdaomorebum

[Kar3n]

Anadi is a teacher who makes a clear distinction between 2 types of transmission - 'soul to soul' transmission and kundalini transmission:

 

"..."

 

http://anaditeaching.com/shaivism-co...n-of-identity/

 

Link in the quote leads to a page that states, "No Results Found".

Working reference link

Shivaism: Confusion of Identity

[Apech]

Can we stop here? You could have. You chose not to. This has been your whole attitude from the beginning.

 

It's not about whether or not you and I agree, it is about honesty. You came here preaching your message against the supposedly promiscuous (of course with no definition given). Then you don't want to explain your views in a rational way. You have a belief system, like a born again Christian who tells me Jesus will come back to the earth someday.

 

Some person here (one of the pantheon) sent me a PM saying I shouldn't make assumptions about intentions. Hooey.

 

Long ago when I watched TV there was a commercial for A-1 Steak Sauce, recommending we put it on hamburgers because "What is hamburger? Chopped ham?" The commercial at least immediately gave its answer.

 

We all know what sex is (hence my sarcastic answer to only that part of what you wrote), so why would someone ask such a basic and obvious question? If we ask a question like that and actually wait for an answer, it is so we can take a standard answer and say "Oh, you are so simple. ___ is so much more than that!" This is commonly used by religious and New Age persons to stomp on the supposedly non-spiritual.

 

Please notice that after denying what your intent was (perhaps only subconscious intent), you said that sex involves energy and expressly differentiated your view from mine. You walk down any street in America and ask 100 people what sex is. I would be amazed if even one person talked about energy in their answer. And in the very post you were replying to I pointed out that sex can have other things attached to it.

 

Instead of asking me what sex is, you could have said, "I think sex is not just the physical act, but necessarily includes energy. Therefore, blah, blah, blah. What do you think of that LDMB?"  What do I think? Well, even a chi numb person such as myself can feel a rush of chi[1] at the yongquan points shortly before and during orgasm, as well sensations up the back, etc, during the act. That could have continued a conversation. But from the beginning you had a point to make, which you made more than once in your posts: people who are promiscuous (no definition given, so I guess it simply means more sex than you[2]), have low self-esteem or issues from their past. It seems to me rather the opposite. People who can't function sexually (psychologically) have issues they need to address. Since preachers like you are ubiquitous and I don't fear public condemnation, I have for some years now called you folks out on your moralizing since the very nature of sex makes 99.9% of people afraid to publicly assert their sexuality, even on a quasi-anonymous forum.

 

Because of my sarcastic answer to your question about what sex is, you chose to ignore the rest of my, dare I say carefully reasoned, post.

 

 

 

[1] I use the term chi here to use TDB vocabulary. I don't know if it is chi or blood and nerve sensations. That is why I had a thread about chi because the chi-like sensations that I feel don't seem beyond nerve or blood sensations. I only entertain them as chi because others use that terminology for those sensations. I have yet to feel something, which some people claim to be capable of, that would make me say, "Oh, that absolutely can not be a nerve sensation or blood flow." Most people have delusional beliefs in god, lucky charms (or at least they eat Lucky Charms), or whatever else. I am not a believer. I should have been born in Missouri.

 

[2] Comedian George Carlin had a bit where he asked, have you ever noticed that anyone who drives slower than you is an idiot and anyone who drives faster than you is a maniac? Here is the exact quote.

 

Nice reply - especially like the footnotes which are impressive.

 

When you say you have 'sensations up the back' are you referring to a particular kind of sexual activity?

[liminal_luke]

Can we stop here? You could have. You chose not to. This has been your whole attitude from the beginning.

 

It's not about whether or not you and I agree, it is about honesty. You came here preaching your message against the supposedly promiscuous (of course with no definition given). Then you don't want to explain your views in a rational way. You have a belief system, like a born again Christian who tells me Jesus will come back to the earth someday.

 

Some person here (one of the pantheon) sent me a PM saying I shouldn't make assumptions about intentions. Hooey.

 

Long ago when I watched TV there was a commercial for A-1 Steak Sauce, recommending we put it on hamburgers because "What is hamburger? Chopped ham?" The commercial at least immediately gave its answer.

 

We all know what sex is (hence my sarcastic answer to only that part of what you wrote), so why would someone ask such a basic and obvious question? If we ask a question like that and actually wait for an answer, it is so we can take a standard answer and say "Oh, you are so simple. ___ is so much more than that!" This is commonly used by religious and New Age persons to stomp on the supposedly non-spiritual.

 

Please notice that after denying what your intent was (perhaps only subconscious intent), you said that sex involves energy and expressly differentiated your view from mine. You walk down any street in America and ask 100 people what sex is. I would be amazed if even one person talked about energy in their answer. And in the very post you were replying to I pointed out that sex can have other things attached to it.

 

Instead of asking me what sex is, you could have said, "I think sex is not just the physical act, but necessarily includes energy. Therefore, blah, blah, blah. What do you think of that LDMB?"  What do I think? Well, even a chi numb person such as myself can feel a rush of chi[1] at the yongquan points shortly before and during orgasm, as well sensations up the back, etc, during the act. That could have continued a conversation. But from the beginning you had a point to make, which you made more than once in your posts: people who are promiscuous (no definition given, so I guess it simply means more sex than you[2]), have low self-esteem or issues from their past. It seems to me rather the opposite. People who can't function sexually (psychologically) have issues they need to address. Since preachers like you are ubiquitous and I don't fear public condemnation, I have for some years now called you folks out on your moralizing since the very nature of sex makes 99.9% of people afraid to publicly assert their sexuality, even on a quasi-anonymous forum.

 

Because of my sarcastic answer to your question about what sex is, you chose to ignore the rest of my, dare I say carefully reasoned, post.

 

 

 

[1] I use the term chi here to use TDB vocabulary. I don't know if it is chi or blood and nerve sensations. That is why I had a thread about chi because the chi-like sensations that I feel don't seem beyond nerve or blood sensations. I only entertain them as chi because others use that terminology for those sensations. I have yet to feel something, which some people claim to be capable of, that would make me say, "Oh, that absolutely can not be a nerve sensation or blood flow." Most people have delusional beliefs in god, lucky charms (or at least they eat Lucky Charms), or whatever else. I am not a believer. I should have been born in Missouri.

 

[2] Comedian George Carlin had a bit where he asked, have you ever noticed that anyone who drives slower than you is an idiot and anyone who drives faster than you is a maniac? Here is the exact quote.

 

Daobums is really getting me down.  Yesterday, in the thread about being right or free, I wrote a post about my struggle to feel free and easy and good in the face of personal attacks -- and then I erased it.  But since the above post illustrates exactly what I was talking about, I´ll touch on it again.

 

I´m mostly OK with being wrong, but am still pretty sensitive when the debate changes from I disagree with you to you are a bad person. The biggest source of negative criticism in my life right now, by far, is Daobums. Maybe that means I´m doing pretty good.

 

Ideally, I´d use all this blather to fertilize my spiritual garden.  I know that and am working on it.  I hope to be mature and evolved like that in the near future -- stay tuned.  Right now though, I have to admit, it gets to me.

 

Lesstaomorebum...you call me a preacher and a moralizer, and I doubt there´s anything I can say to change your mind.  There´s a lot I don´t know about sexuality, so I´m open to the possibility of being wrong.  But when I tell you that casual sex can be a harmful thing, that it can be a misguided attempt to deal with trauma, I´m not just talking theoretically or because I´ve absorbed sex-negative values from the culture: I´m talking out of personal experience. This is something I know because I´ve lived it.

 

Now, your experience might be different.  Maybe my experience doesn´t generalize to everybody.  But please stop calling me a preacher.  I´ve had a lot of sex in my life and I don´t think I´m a bad person.  Far from it.  I think I´m wonderfully imperfect work-in-progress.  I´m just another Bum learning and loving as best I can.  Please be gentle.

Edited September 17, 2016 by liminal_luke

[Apech]

Daobums is really getting me down.  Yesterday, in the thread about being right or free, I wrote a post about my struggle to feel free and easy and good in the face of personal attacks -- and then I erased it.  But since the above post illustrates exactly what I was talking about, I´ll touch on it again.

 

I´m mostly OK with being wrong, but am still pretty sensitive when the debate changes from I disagree with you to you are a bad person. The biggest source of negative criticism in my life right now, by far, is Daobums. Maybe that means I´m doing pretty good.

 

Ideally, I´d use all this blather to fertilize my spiritual garden.  I know that and am working on it.  I hope to be mature and evolved like that in the near future -- stay tuned.  Right now though, I have to admit, it gets to me.

 

Lesstaomorebum...you call me a preacher and a moralizer, and I doubt there´s anything I can say to change your mind.  There´s a lot I don´t know about sexuality, so I´m open to the possibility of being wrong.  But when I tell you that casual sex can be a harmful thing, that it can be a misguided attempt to deal with trauma, I´m not just talking theoretically or because I´ve absorbed sex-negative values from the culture: I´m talking out of personal experience. This is something I know because I´ve lived it.

 

Now, your experience might be different.  Maybe my experience doesn´t generalize to everybody.  But please stop calling me a preacher.  I´ve had a lot of sex in my life and I don´t think I´m a bad person.  Far from it.  I think I´m wonderfully imperfect work-in-progress.  I´m just another Bum learning and loving as best I can.  Please be gentle.

 

Luke don't let it get to you.

[cold]

If " The biggest source of negative criticism in my life right now, by far, is Daobums " you are doing real well!

 

Personal reflection is good but negative criticism either external or more often internal sources is rarely useful in the moment.

At least In my experience.

I fired my internal critic so many times its not funny!

[Taomeow]

 

 

I´m mostly OK with being wrong, but am still pretty sensitive when the debate changes from I disagree with you to you are a bad person. The biggest source of negative criticism in my life right now, by far, is Daobums. Maybe that means I´m doing pretty good.

 

Oh, that's because old friends don't always have a reason to announce "you are a good person," we know that you know that we know.   Please refer to my "You make me smile" thread.  

 

I don't blame you for being sensitive to ad hominem.  It's a form of bullying, and any normal person is sensitive to bullying, only the holier-than-thou always peaceful namaste we are all one phonies put on a show of supreme indifference -- but only when someone else is being bullied, of course, when it's them, namaste goes down the drain but fast.  For everybody else it's pretty natural to feel contaminated when a bully dispenses his metabolites. 

 

So, sensing that it is what it is is mighty fine, but taking to heart...  no need.  Bullies will be bullies. Remember that in real life you wouldn't spend a second voluntarily interacting with a bully.  So long, you would say, and thanks for all the shit  fish.

[CloudHands]

Please be gentle.

 

In these cases I try to remember something my grandpa said me long ago... "nobody willingly chooses to do wrong" (Socrate)

In my experience it appeared that -exclusion made of misunderstanding- people acting maliciously, spitefully, balefully, nastily (wow you have tons of synonyms to say it!) are generally (always ?) people suffering.

[liminal_luke]

Oh, that's because old friends don't always have a reason to announce "you are a good person," we know that you know that we know.   Please refer to my "You make me smile" thread.  

 

I don't blame you for being sensitive to ad hominem.  It's a form of bullying, and any normal person is sensitive to bullying, only the holier-than-thou always peaceful namaste we are all one phonies put on a show of supreme indifference -- but only when someone else is being bullied, of course, when it's them, namaste goes down the drain but fast.  For everybody else it's pretty natural to feel contaminated when a bully dispenses his metabolites. 

 

So, sensing that it is what it is is mighty fine, but taking to heart...  no need.  Bullies will be bullies. Remember that in real life you wouldn't spend a second voluntarily interacting with a bully.  So long, you would say, and thanks for all the shit  fish.

 

 

Taomeow, Apech, Cloudhands, Thelerner, Dawai, Cheya, Cold, Kar3n -- thank you so much!!! I was in a cyber-slump this morning, but am feeling much better now.  

 

Liminal

[lessdaomorebum]

 

 

Lesstaomorebum...you call me a preacher and a moralizer, and I doubt there´s anything I can say to change your mind.  There´s a lot I don´t know about sexuality, so I´m open to the possibility of being wrong.  But when I tell you that casual sex can be a harmful thing, that it can be a misguided attempt to deal with trauma, I´m not just talking theoretically or because I´ve absorbed sex-negative values from the culture: I´m talking out of personal experience. This is something I know because I´ve lived it.

 

Now, your experience might be different.  Maybe my experience doesn´t generalize to everybody.  But please stop calling me a preacher.  I´ve had a lot of sex in my life and I don´t think I´m a bad person.  Far from it.  I think I´m wonderfully imperfect work-in-progress.  I´m just another Bum learning and loving as best I can.  Please be gentle.

If you want gentleness, then you need to be gentle. The things you wrote can influence others, just as you feel influenced by what is written here. That is what I am trying to get you to understand

 

You are speaking from experience. So am I. I have known some wonderful women who are 'sluts'. Honest, kind, some with loads of formal education and bigshot jobs. But they all hide their slutiness, most of them not because they think it is bad (sex is not like gambling or alcohol or drugs!) or because they are acting out due to some sort of problem they have, but because they fear people out there telling them they are bad. Yes, some are also screwed up, but I have known an even larger number of screwed up good girls.

 

Some people become doctors because they want to satisfy their parents, impress their peers, or make a lot of money. Does that mean that studying medicine is a bad thing and people become doctors because of past trauma or whatever else we want to make up? I don't think so.

 

If you are speaking from your personal experience, then clearly do so (you didn't originally), but please do not assume other people come to the same place by the same route or from the same point. I had a whole thread on feeling chi where I said I don't feel chi. Most people there thought their experience must be my experience. Many were very condescending and judgmental, even saying things contrary to what I had clearly posted (telling me I hadn't practiced enough or needed to do a certain exercise). I said I don't feel it (though some disagreed with that in a well-meaning way that I understand).

 

I genuinely suggest you should consider withdrawing from the internet until you have a better sense of self. It is not my responsibility to treat you in a special way when you are saying things that I know from personal experience that many find hurtful. In spite of what one person suggested above, I am not the bully here. I spoke to you (LL) because you were the one speaking. Again, you must take responsibility for your own words and actions when you say things such as:

 

"People have astral sex with strangers for the same reason that they have physical sex with strangers, for the same reason that they might gamble or eat chocolate chip cookies or buy too many shoes: because sometimes, when life has really knocked you around, fragmentation feels safer than integration."

 

"I´m willing to shake hands with almost anybody who cares to, and am much more selective about who touches my genitals. There are people who don´t make this distinction, people who allow anybody to touch them any ole way. To me, that´s sad."

 

You can't look at a collection of shoes or a bag of cookies and say with certainty why it exists.

Edited September 18, 2016 by lessdaomorebum

[lessdaomorebum]

Nice reply - especially like the footnotes which are impressive.

 

When you say you have 'sensations up the back' are you referring to a particular kind of sexual activity?

No, but I am not really sure what you are asking, and of course this thread is already too graphic for some. The sensations, not limited to the back, though I suppose originating there, I would say are a way of letting off steam. My meaning is that they can happen long before orgasm. I suppose I would say they are much more noticeable when I am stationary. Not something I ever jotted down notes on! I guess when the body is in motion such subtle feelings are likely to get lost. Hmmm . . . will have to think about this in the future. I should add that it is not like these are strong or always present feelings.

 

I know there are various schools of thought and lots of vocabulary about this sort of thing. However, I am mostly ignorant of the terms, as well as the opinions about what these sensations mean, how one should or should not deal with them, whether they are (energetically) healthy or not, etc.

Edited September 18, 2016 by lessdaomorebum

[CloudHands]

You can't look at a collection of shoes or a bag of cookies and say with certainty why it exists.

 

It's ok, don't make a big deal with it but you can learn from it

[liminal_luke]

If you want gentleness, then you need to be gentle. The things you wrote can influence others, just as you feel influenced by what is written here. That is what I am trying to get you to understand

 

You are speaking from experience. So am I. I have known some wonderful women who are 'sluts'. Honest, kind, some with loads of formal education and bigshot jobs. But they all hide their slutiness, most of them not because they think it is bad (sex is not like gambling or alcohol or drugs!) or because they are acting out due to some sort of problem they have, but because they fear people out there telling them they are bad. Yes, some are also screwed up, but I have known an even larger number of screwed up good girls.

 

Some people become doctors because they want to satisfy their parents, impress their peers, or make a lot of money. Does that mean that studying medicine is a bad thing and people become doctors because of past trauma or whatever else we want to make up? I don't think so.

 

If you are speaking from your personal experience, then clearly do so (you didn't originally), but please do not assume other people come to the same place by the same route or from the same point. I had a whole thread on feeling chi where I said I don't feel chi. Most people there thought their experience must be my experience. Many were very condescending and judgmental, even saying things contrary to what I had clearly posted (telling me I hadn't practiced enough or needed to do a certain exercise). I said I don't feel it (though some disagreed with that in a well-meaning way that I understand).

 

I genuinely suggest you should consider withdrawing from the internet until you have a better sense of self. It is not my responsibility to treat you in a special way when you are saying things that I know from personal experience that many find hurtful. In spite of what one person suggested above, I am not the bully here. I spoke to you (LL) because you were the one speaking. Again, you must take responsibility for your own words and actions when you say things such as:

 

"People have astral sex with strangers for the same reason that they have physical sex with strangers, for the same reason that they might gamble or eat chocolate chip cookies or buy too many shoes: because sometimes, when life has really knocked you around, fragmentation feels safer than integration."

 

"I´m willing to shake hands with almost anybody who cares to, and am much more selective about who touches my genitals. There are people who don´t make this distinction, people who allow anybody to touch them any ole way. To me, that´s sad."

 

You can't look at a collection of shoes or a bag of cookies and say with certainty why it exists.

 

 

LDMB,

 

You seem to insist that I am judging people who have lots of casual sex, and I keep telling you I´m not.  I do have the opinion that, most of the time, sex with strangers isn´t a good idea.  I think it can be exactly like drugs or gambling: a way to numb pain that would be better dealt with head-on. That´s my opinion.  But if you jump from that to my saying people who are "sluts" are bad people, well, you´ve made a jump that I haven´t made.

 

You say that you´ve had a lot of positive experience with "slutty" people and that they aren´t necessarily messed up at all, that some "slutty" people even have advanced degrees and successful careers.  On that point there can be no argument; even some past presidents have been "slutty."  But I´m not entirely convinced that they aren´t messed up just because you say so, though I´m willing to keep an open mind.

 

I don´t think I need to "consider withdrawing from the internet until I have a better sense of self,"  though it might not hurt to take a break, or at least be more selective about the threads I get involved with. (Just FYI: People you´re fighting with online are unlikely to be receptive to mental health tips.) 

 

Like most people, I prefer threads with a congenial vibe.  This conversation doesn´t feel congenial -- it feels hostile.  You seem angry at me for having the opinion that people have casual sex as a way of dealing with trauma.  Are you?  You seem to think that just because I have that opinion I¨m a hurtful, judgmental thinks-he-s-better-than-everyone-else preacher.  But it´s just my opinion, and one I hold lightly at that.

 

You have a different opinion and you´ve stated it clearly.  I´m going to leave it at that. 

Edited September 18, 2016 by liminal_luke