Sexual Preference

Re: Sexual Preference

This is such a fascinating topic.  In graduate school, I was “assigned” (we drew papers out of a hat), or was chosen, by the Anima archetype for my class paper and presentation.  There were several gay people in the class and I struggled with Jung's traditional notions.  I came up with a solution of a “new archeypte.”  The Alia Cruda, which means, “The Unknown Other,” which really was just an undifferentiated base out of which all the archetypes emerge, including gender ones.  In this way, our gay friends could have valid unconfused “Gay Anima” and “Gay Animus.”  I thought it was brilliant!  Well, my professor gave me a bad grade and sent me back to study the traditional Anima.  I got a great deal out of this, probably including being “more of a man.”   Probably my Alia Cruda is really just the content part of the Jung's Self.  Maybe I'll do more with it someday?

Sexual prerferance, and perhaps more particularly, gender identification, really do seem to be archetypally driven.  Dave and I have taken our shots at it, what else do others have to say? 

All in One,

twice awakened Doug

Re: Sexual Preference

This is not mean’t judgementally,but offered in love, I am female, and was a nurse for 40 years. This is an effort to offer what may be a practical explanation for what I see as a huge increase in homosexuality since I was a teenager, The rise seems to coincide with the increase in the use of the contraceptive pill for women, these hormones are released into the water supply when excreted and I wonder if they are properly filtered out before entering the general water supply. Wasn’t there a case of river fish changing sex due to pollution sime time ago? Also there are other pollutants that mimic oestrogen, and don’t farmers use hormones to boost output too. Naturally the body regulates these tings fine tuned as an orchestra these pollutants may be causing disharmony ? Just a thought after reading this thread to add to the discussion.

Re: Sexual Preference

thanks for this posting, dave. i find this to be a fascinating inquiry. these questions relate directly to the work i do with men and women concerning their confusions around a wide range of thoughts and feeling states. i often find it helpful to remind people that ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ are adjectives not nouns (gore vidal). although i have reservations about some of her work, i’m also a fan of genia paul haddon’s ideas on gender. i’m including some cogent quotes that i feel lend clarity to the discussion.
best regards,
dave

“The stories we tell ourselves about the nature of life and the world (whether fairy tales, religious myths, personal life scripts, scientific principles and paradigms, or psychological theories) not only reflect our current views, but also shape our evolving consciousness. To envision that the Great Feminine principle, like the womb, has both gestative and exertive attributes helps women and men to recognize and value womanly assertiveness as a ‘feminine’ virtue and become able to distinguish between an animus-possessed woman who is “wearing the pants” and a fully feminine woman who knows how to “push from her womb” as well as how to nurture. To literally “re-member” that the Great Masculine principle has testicular as well as phallic attributes helps men and women appreciate ‘as masculine’ the supportive, patient, faithful attributes of the masculine principle, instead of labeling them feminine or effeminate. These realizations promote deeper self-understanding and call into question established cultural values, preparing the way for new cultural patterns and even images of God.”

Uniting Sex, Self & Spirit, Genia Pauli Haddon (chapter two)

“…there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than there is such a thing as a heterosexual person. The words are adjectives describing sexual acts, not people. Those sexual acts are entirely natural; if they were not, no one would perform them.

The human race is divided into male and female. Many human beings enjoy sexual relations with their own sex, many don’t; many respond to both. This plurality is the fact of our nature and not worth fretting about.

Today Americans are in a state of terminal hysteria on the subject of sex in general and of homosexuality in particular because the owners of the country (buttressed by a religion that they have shrewdly adapted to their own ends) regard the family as their last means of control over those who work and consume.

Gore Vidal

Re: Sexual Preference

Great stuff “Dave 2.”  Thank you so much.  There are a lot of important thoughts in those quotes, and I'm only bouncin' off of a couple here: 

There is a tendency for the human mind to reify and categorize.  Those who study the philosophy of language understand that words necessarily divide the world, and yes, can be called, divisive, i.e., even the word “everything” separates that from everything else which is not everything.  Any word you use, separates what that word refers to from everything else to which that word does not refer.  In as much as our thoughts are determined by our language, and some would say this is nearly completely, it seems that meditative and spiritual practice often works to put the world back together, i.e., to find the unity in all. 

Additionally, the mind has a tendency to “reify,” i.e., to make concrete things that are energy, process, or attributes, into static things.  Most of us have images of homosexuals, or even types of homeosexuals, and these are more akin to “stereotypes,” perhaps with some archetypal form.  However, as Travelling Alchemist noted in the Masculinity… thread, archetypes are not roles, but energies.  Most of us here know homosexual people come in all forms.  Whether one views an archetype as a process or energy, and/or as manifesting in distinct personality patterns, may be a question of more subtle and sophisticated theory. 

Regarding Anima/Animus and homesexuality: Just as with heterosexual people, there are what may be Anima dominated male homosexuals, who are more feminine.  There are also masculine (note I do not use the term animus, as men don't have an animus, which is the male principle within the female) dominated homosexuals, stereotyped in one way in the form of homosexuals who attend leather bars or who body build etc…  Similarly, there are Animus dominated homosexual women, often described as “Bull Dikes,” and there are very feminizedn (again, not anima) homosexual women, e.g., “Lipstick Lesbians.”  These same types apply to some heterosexuals, it just boils down to who you share your genitals with, albeit, and a few related aspects of social life. 

Perhaps one question for this thread is:  Is there really any difference between how heterosexuals and homosexuals experience the archetypes?  And as Dave 1 suggested at the beginning of this thread, are some homosexuals, or perhaps “opposite gender identified” individuals, i.e., men who act as/are women, women who act as/are men, experiencing a form, and varying degrees of archetypal possession?  Or these cases, are the psychological archetypes set, to varying extents, in gender opposition to the biological gender status?  


All in One,

twice awakened Doug

Re: Sexual Preference

i can't respond just yet to the details of what has been posted so far, as i'm still trying to understand the root of this discussion thread and how it's interpreting archetypes…but i thought i could introduce my thoughts, being someone who identifies as homosexual, but also who is in the middle of understanding what that means to me.

1 part of my evolution so far has been realizing my dissociative identity in relation to sex. so far, sex has been a very minor part in my life - for what reason i'm not sure. in some ways i'm thankful, since i feel like not having too much focus on sex has allowed me to have more input (ok control) over how it's defined for me. probably my protective self speaking there but hey that's where i'm at ;)

that being said, i often wonder why i am gay. i'm attracted to guys, but i can't completely see why. what's strange for me about this is being gay seems to be so primal for everyone…i feel these feelings and therefore i must identify and act on them. i'm so opposite it ain't funny which is why it's strange to me i'm so comfortable identifying with somethign i participate so little in (friends wise relationship wise emotional wise).

i've always disliked the victimized sentiment of many gay ppl “i'm born this way and it is for that reason i deserve respect/rights” cuz i've always felt like that's an irrelevant point - the point is it does no harm and  needs no defense.

i do question, however, whether it is as that nurse earlier said due to chemical reasons, or for me i could totally see the possibility that i'm looking for that father figure - since in a sense this is the role parenting plays on kids…boys seek their mother girls seek their father. in my life my father was dead when i was young so i never met him. so it's a fun thing for me to play with (kinda strange too) that i am in fact seeking that male figure i so desperately want.

cuz i will tell you, i don't know why i was born gay. mind you i am the most secure and confident person with my sexuality. what's weird to me is i don't see why i incarnated as a gay man when it doesn't seem to suit my ambitions in this life since one thing i've always known is i'm going to be a powerful father and intend to have children - born from my dna mind you. which will happen. just seems i chose a harder path.

i will also add another point as a gay man, that it does seem like the lines of sexuality is rapidly blurring. on a regular basis it seems hetersexual men hit on me - it seems we're entering a more bi-sexual stage which i guess would make sense if we are exiting the functionality reasons for sexuality (birth) and going to a more energetic/spiritual state which supersedes function and 'rationale'.

Re: Sexual Preference

also…please don't refrain from the original discussion b/c of me - consider me detached. i think it's a fascinating converstation and i'm curious to see where it goes.

Re: Sexual Preference

Here is a link which may be of interest regarding water pollution, check out personal and household and pharmeceutical products ….

http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/09-06/water-pollution-causes-article.htm

Re: Sexual Preference

The Creator, God, The Source, whatever you want to call IT is both masculine and feminine.  Consciousness both knows (masculine) and feels (feminine).  I think of my homosexual friends as embodying both qualities equally.  While myself and my heterosexual friends embody either more male qualities (knowing, reasoning, logical) or more female qualities (feeling, emoting, intuition).   And that, I believe, is the only difference between consciousness that expresses itself as 'gay' or 'not gay'. 

This may be too simplistic of a view or post for this subject, but it's what I think:) 

Re: Sexual Preference

I struggled with sexual preference or as I have come to see it same sex attraction from the time I was about 19 to 35yo (I am now 47)  I wanted to know what was “true for me”.  I discovered through much deep emotional release work that the roots of my attractions were not my real primal sexual nature, but a deep longing for male (father) affirmation that became sexualized.  And the attraction was actually a defense from feeling the real pain and reality of the emotional neglect I lived with growing up.  My True Self is clearly hetro and the path to be clear about this reality was very difficult.  I did not want to buy into the label and worldview of the “gay world” if this was not who I was. 

I do believe that some who are gay (men) may have been effected by environmental hormonal influences as stated in an earlier post.  And how people choose to live is obviously a deeply personal and ultimately very spiritual decision.

Re: Sexual Preference

Frankly, I don't find this talk of biological polutants “causing” homosexuality to be very interesting, and some of the data has to do with fish, who, in my fish tank, also change gender.  There have always been homosexuals and “gender opposite identifiers,” even before there was pollution.  There have always been biological forces affecting everyone.  The point is, not what might cause homosexuality on a biological level, but rather, what is happening the with archeypes, and here specifically, the anima/animus. 

This does raise an important point.  Just as our physical attributes are carried in our biological DNA, so too are the archetypes carried in psychological DNA, and perhaps to some extent, biologically. 

All in One,

twice awakened Doug

Re: Sexual Preference

I'm worried by the idea that homosexuality, bisexuality or for that matter heterosexuality is “caused” by anything. The sexual change of the fish that was highlighted in the news is truthfully just not that strange, for fish. It is tremendously easy to change the sex of fish. Fish farms do it all the time to increase yield. The really salient point is: humans are not fish.

There have, indeed, always been homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality and everything between in the human species. It is certainly not black, white and one color of grey in the middle.  We are seeing a “rise” in homosexuality and bisexuality because it has become safer to acknowledge, not because it exists more prevalently than it ever did. In some parts of the world people are being able to come out of the old deep, dark closet and live their lives as they choose. Certainly not every part of the world, however. It worries me to speak of placing a “cause” on homosexuality as if it were an illness - the word ‘disharmony’ worries me. It isn’t an illness, nor a disharmony, it is simply a difference which is only a problem culturally. There is no more real effect than the difference in the color of hair or eyes. There have been times in the world that homosexuality and bisexuality were accepted, right along with heterosexuality as the norm. There have been times - from Oscar Wilde to Matthew Shepard - that they have not been accepted; times when people have been prosecuted because society is in a place where heterosexuality is perceived as the only “norm” in sexuality and anything that doesn’t fall within that norm is viewed as devant and immoral. Society often finds it difficult to deal with “the other,” whether or not homosexuality and bisexuality are perceived as “other” changes with culture. It is something important to keep discussing, however; something that needs to continue to be dialoged. Twentieth century philosopher Emmanuel Levianas said: “The face of the Other is perhaps the very beginning of philosophy.”

I believe that the subject does fit in a discussion of the Archetypes, particularly the anima/animus. I believe that our view of the anima/animus is probably more sexual and more divisive that it is meant to be, and the discussion of homosexual and bisexuality highlights this. The concept of the anima/animus is really deeper than mere sexuality, though it is based on it. “Normal” for human sexuality hardly exists. I have seen sexual preference described as being a horizontal line. On one end is the total homosexual, who has no sexual interest whatsoever in the opposite sex. On the other end is the total heterosexual, who in the same way, is not attracted in anyway to people of the same sex. Almost everyone in the world falls some where else along the line. Culture and what is currently accepted does make a difference. In a culture where homosexuality is seen as sinful, devant, and immoral people are much more likely to suppress any homosexual feelings and would declare themselves, even to themselves, as being on the strictly heterosexual side of the line. In reality, everyone is scattered up and down the line, almost certainly changing their position at different times in their life.

What does this do to the anima/animus theory? Does a homosexual man perceive himself with an animus? Does a strongly homosexual woman have the same reactions as a man relating to an anima? And what of all those who fall in different places along the line? How does a bisexual relate to the anima/animus? If Jung had described them as the same thing, just transposed, it would be different - but he didn’t. The animus is a much more complex concept given there are usually many manifestations, the stages less precisely delineated, more integrated and developmental.

While Jung put forward four specific steps in the evolution of the anima (Eve/Helen/Mary/Sophia) the development of the animus seems to be perceived as more of a personal, internal, emotional journey and actually not as archetypal as that of the anima.

Is it that women are truly vaguer and more liquid in the growth of self or is it that there was less concentration given to the female journey? And where, indeed, do ALL of us fall in this discussion, since there really are very few people who are solidly at either end of the line?

I am a heterosexual woman, but I have always been fascinated by the progression of Eve/Helen/Mary/Sophia and the perception of women that each involves. Is it possible that we need to look at both sides? To seek for something that is more integrated? I was discussing the image of the May Poll with someone recently. They knew what the pole itself signified and commented that, once again, it was a totally male dominated symbol. It isn’t, of course, it is just that not everyone takes time to realize what the symbolism of the ribbons are. The ribbons are attached to the top, in a circle,  and then they are braided until the pole is wrapped in a tight, woven casing of the colorful, flowing ribbons. Both. Yin/Yang. Male/Female. Does Dave’s question highlight that we all are both?




This is not mean’t judgementally,but offered in love, I am female, and was a nurse for 40 years. This is an effort to offer what may be a practical explanation for what I see as a huge increase in homosexuality since I was a teenager, The rise seems to coincide with the increase in the use of the contraceptive pill for women, these hormones are released into the water supply when excreted and I wonder if they are properly filtered out before entering the general water supply. Wasn’t there a case of river fish changing sex due to pollution sime time ago? Also there are other pollutants that mimic oestrogen, and don’t farmers use hormones to boost output too. Naturally the body regulates these tings fine tuned as an orchestra these pollutants may be causing disharmony ? Just a thought after reading this thread to add to the discussion.