Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

What is the role of gender in intimate relationships, completely separate from physical sex traits? This is from a post I wrote a while back at IOC:

_______________

I'd like to suggest that an integral relationship requires a fluid sense of gender identity. The outward manifestation of this fluidity is in one's ability to assume different gender roles, while the inward manifestation is actually an absence of attachment to any one gender identity, a form of androgyny. In the purest form (Wilber's causal level), androgyny does not refer to the mixture of masculine and feminine traits, but to the transcendence of specific sexual/gender traits–the androgyne.

This “second-tier” conception of gender identity allows either partner to assume the masculine or feminine energy in the relationship. Further, it's not a problem if both partners assume male energy or female energy. At higher experiential states (tantra in the traditional sense), the gender energies become archetypal in nature–as ego recedes–and can result in gender union (a kind of hieros gamos). At the highest levels, gender dissolves completely, along with ego.

_______________

I'd like to hear what you guys think about gender roles in relationships. I wrote the passage above several months ago, before we started talking here. I still believe what I wrote, but I'd like to hear how any of you have experienced this, or what you think about this topic.

Peace,
Bill

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

I've been thinking about this issue since yesterday – gender stuff fascinates me – what I've come up with is that I can't be in a relationship that doesn't have room for me to be both sides of myself – call those sides masculine and feminine, yin and yang, fierce and tender, whatever – I need room to express both, and having been in several relationships in the past where there was only room to be one or the other (either because of my own limitations or the other person's), I know how fundamental both are to my sense of well-being and authenticity in relationships – and not only in intimate relationship – in friendships, too

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

Thanks Kira.

I've been thinking about this, too, but feeling unable to express one idea due to lack of formatting capabilities, but I'll try anyway.

In most male+female relationships, you end up with one dynamic expressed:

Male <–> Female 

But in an integral relationship, 1+ 1 = 4 types of relating:

M <–> F
F <–> M
M <–> M
F <–> F

That gives us so many more options for how we can interact, at every level and in every line. It becomes especially profound if and when we can relate in all four ways AT THE SAME TIME. 

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

Cool stuff -

I agree - the funny thing in my marriage (to the bisexual hubby) was that we often laughed that I “wore the pants” in the relationship….I think we probably had your 4 levels pretty well balanced… ;-)

My experience of the straight men that I have met and dated since is that when the yin side comes out in a woman, they often feel threatened.  After a 22 year marriage with none of that, I find it frustrating and confusing to deal with……

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

pam…

just to clarify… yin = female side usually. do you mean when the yang (male energy) side comes out in a woman they feel threatened? 

-d 

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

as a male in relationship with other males, well, one male at a time anyhow thus far. lol…  it seems that many guys try to do it with two male/male or totally balanced dynamics.

with integral model, would it be like the resonant model of relationships where it is in flux to some degree? 

i know that in a lot of the eastern stuff i have studied, to some degree i have worked to integrate both my yang and yin aspects. a guy i dated said that was something he appreciated about me.

one thing i notice though is that when i date, it is not uncommon for me to be soft/sweet dominantly early on and then have a certain yang aspect spring up and to some degree want to dominanly interact from there. i wonder if others experience it that way or the reverse.

om…

d 

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

David,

I think that in people who have done inner work, especially Jungian, there tends to be more fluidity in assuming a masculine / yang / angentic role or a female / yin / communal role as the situation warrants. And after all, that would seem to be the goal at first. I think it is only later, with additional work, that we can be both at the same time.

I'm curious about your experience as a gay man with gender roles. This theory was actually expressed to me originally by a gay man who was one of my early teachers. He felt that most couples, no matter the sexual orientation, still fell into M/F roles (butch and femme, for example). For gay people, he thought of it as a cultural default, that cultural beliefs were being superimposed upon biological drives that run counter to what the culture holds to be worthy. Do you find this to be true? 

It seems that among the gay and lesbian couples I have known that one partner usually was more yang while the other was more yin. 

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

my experience of this is that it's in flux a LOT – it's not based on any kind of “division of labor” or roles – and it doesn't spring from how the other person expects us to be – it springs from our own connection with ourselves and what wants to express at any given moment, tempered by what the situation calls for – when someone is in pain, I generally access more of my feminine side, not so much because they NEED it (meaning it doesn't work like a puppet works) but because my natural caring for that person prompts my softer side to emerge – and the same goes for my masculine side

for the most part, I experience this as very fluid, although Bill and I have certain situations where one of us is more likely to take charge than the other (e.g., I'm more likely to speak up in a restaurant if something is prepared wrong) – but this doesn't translate for us into one being the strong one and the other being the soft one

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

gay relationships. hm, bill. let me think on that. will give you early response now and may add more later. one thing i notice lately is that i am typically pursued in relationships. has been interesting, because i find that much like women tend to learn at times and/or talk about i have to learn to let them come to me. not sure exactly why this is. in theory i would like things to be more balanced, but there does seem to be a need to pursue in a lot of guys. if i reverse the pursuit it seems to freak them out. the thrill of the chase. so that is one thing i have noticed.

because of my emotional intelligence and the sheer lack of it in many a gay man, i seem to more obviously be the one to do some of that. i think i have a fairly developed yin side. in looking at relationship patterns i seem to get guys who sorta fit the somewhat stereotypical 'straight guy' role which has pluses and minuses i guess. lol. they want to be cavalier much of the time which is cute, but sorta odd to me. they want to be my protector. i think my vulnerability brings that out, but then when they see my strength they don't necessarily know what to do. 

butch/femme? well. there is a whole odd thing going on in the land of gay men that is a strong focus on being 'masculine' and a rejection of the feminine. drag queens are not nearly as accepted by gay men as they once were at least in my social circles and what i see. i was around them more, and enjoy more gender fluidity to some degree. i personally am not 'uber masculine' and have moments of girling out as i call it, which is fairly natural for me. i am VERY close to a guy friend who was freaked out by that initially given so much of his own focus on 'being a guy' which is amusing, because as far as emotions and sensitivity and his own roles in many ways relationally he has been a 'kept woman' (just not in body lanuage/voice). 

as far as what i notice in friends who are coupled. one is often more the provider. other is often more the nourisher. different partners seem to bring out different roles. sometimes it flows differently at different times. not uncommon to see the more artsy one with the more businessy one. to have one fix the cars and take care of the needs like that. in my 8 yr relationship i wound up being the one to fix a lot of the details, mainly hired people to fix them. i was the director of things. he deferred to me a lot. i was definitely the yang, and was less emotionally in tune and less nurturing back then. now that the yin is more developed in me, it seems to be a bit different. part of this is what i am trying to make sense of myself, so thanks for bringing it up. will probably pose the question on the 'conscious queers' pod

-d 

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

David- in response to your earlier question, yes - I meant when the yang side comes out in the woman, the man feels threatened. The last BF initially liked my focus and vast array of abiities in the DIY area until it became obvious to everyone that I was doing all the repairs, then he seemed to feel threatened (he was not a DIY guy when I met him at all!) Also, in our working together, he was threatened if it seemed that I might be starting to do well and in fact broke up with me just as I was getting a reasonable number of clients in the office…

As to your latest comment,

“they want to be my protector. i think my vulnerability brings that out, but then when they see my strength they don't necessarily know what to do. ”

I think that this is really what was happening there.  I think I am a pretty even balance of yin and yang, western and eastern medicine, very middle of the road politically….that confuses the heck out of many people. People see me as very strong, then when I am having a meltdown, they don't know what to do. Many people have such stereotypes in their minds, that you are one or the other…

Reminds me of a photo I saw of some sort of antelope at a watering hole in a National Geographic mag. The other antelope didn't know what to make of it because it was a transgender animal - female markings and horns of the male.  It literally spooked the others!

Guess we aren't so different from animals, are we? ;-) 

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

nature and gay is so funny to me as well as transgender or mixed gender. have to laugh about it all. people saying it is unnatural haven't really paid much attention to nature.

pretty much i think that is so much of our social conditioning really… sleep, food, etc… people think we should always eat on schedule. make diet plans which are same style of food for all. etc… all should sleep on cue, wake on cue, or a 'disorder'. exhausting really. i said to a friend once i think our whole world is set up that the soul is wrong and if you do what feels right to the soul and the inner guidance you are doing something wrong.  the irony. sad really.

fun to hear about diy gals. hehe. i love some of the intricacies i see of similarities and differences in zaadz with gay folks. it is nice because it is like being back in nyc again in some ways. refreshing not to be so gay ghettoized again. utah has mormons and non-mormons and even then it is gay folks in their own little ghetto. not so much by literal neighborhoods although some of that. there is so much to learn about variance i think in relationships and life in general.  

for me as a gay man… i have found that some of us are working for much of the respect that women have worked for from men for some time now. when all are men, it can be hard to think one needs to 'act like a gentleman' and that can result in a pretty nasty environment at times.

om…

d 

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

Hello,

I think what you are describing is the first stage of the second tier. The first stage is the systemic-integrative flex-flow stage, where gender identity is fluid. The holistic stage that follows is a unification of opposites, where the individual experiences the genders simultaneously. One form that this might be someone who can radiate love and compassion while also being focused and goal-oriented at the same time.

One thing I've noticed is that people often have strong attachments to their gender identity because being in a sexual or romantic relationship with their opposite creates a powerful transcendant state. People are powerfully energized by their gender opposite, but they might perceive that as their only access to powerful spiritual experiences, so they avoid seeking balance, but an individual who is on a spiritual path has more consistent access to spiritual states and stages, so they find it easier to be unattached to gender modes.

I think its worth considering whether at least one type of second-tier relationship is where sexual dynamics play little or no part. Arguably, this is why many spiritual traditions require celibacy. We become powerfully energized and connected to all sentient beings, although non-sexually. One fundamental aspect of having a strong sexual identity is that we are only attracted to and energized by a very narrow subset of people who happen to balance us. The rest are basically invisible to us.

I guess the question I have is: if we are ultimately unifying and balancing sexual dynamics in our own psyches, does that imply that an integral relationship would be less sexual?

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

what would you define as an integral relationship? what does that mean to you?

is an integral relationship the ideal for all? is that the game? if so, why?

is the ideal for all to be a blend? or is the ideal for some to be more the feminine and others to be more the masculine? 

i know the 'integral' word is quite popular these days and seems to have some variance in interpretation. would be curious your thoughts on this front.

-d 

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

My impression was that we were mainly talking about Ken Wilber's integral theory and how that applies to relationships, although now it occurs to me that not everyone is necessarily on board with it. I like David Deida's description of relationships – his view of the interplay between masculine and feminine modes seems the most “second-tier” of what I've seen so far. I'm also interested in attachment theory, as a guide to parenting and romantic relationships. This is important for me, because attachment theory points out that the content of our subjective emotional experience creates persistent brain structures, especially during childhood. This means that mental health is not just about making different, healthier choices, but also strengthening brain structures to make those choices available in the first place. There's also an emphasis on nonverbal communication, which I think is quite important. Our culture privileges verbal, left-brain, linear, masculine modes of thought, and largely ignores nonverbal communication, which I think creates a great deal of insecurity about relationships because people don't trust their intuitive sense of being loved. There's an irony there – that taking a truly scientific, masculine view of the brain reveals the importance of feminine forms of relating and communicating.

I hesitate to use the word 'ideal', since all variations and combinations are ideal. My original response deals mainly with the nature of a second-tier relationship, but I don't think that everyone should have an integral relationship, or be integral in every aspect of their lives. In fact, I think its possible that an integral relationship might be beyond most people, at least at the holistic level.

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

Looking at relationships through Wilber's AQAL lens is certainly one approach, but we are open to exploring other integral models, as well, and anything else that may help us understand what an integral relationship may look like.

I am not familiar with David Deida's work, but smary people keep mentioning him, so I guess I have some more reading to do.

Sounds like you have a wide range of interests. Please feel free to start new threads on topics you'd like to discuss.  

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

MrTeacup,

I'm by no means an integral theoretician, but I have concerns about some of your ideas

1. making any kind of global statement about people who are “on a spiritual path” seems quite hazardous to me – kind of like saying “people who are in school” – someone could be in kindergarten, and another person could be in a Ph.D. program

2. if someone is “evolved” (very loaded word) to a point where sexual dynamics play little or no part (which in itself is a HUGE assumption that I would challenge), why would spiritual traditions REQUIRE celibacy? seems to me that requirements are imposed from the outside on people who need/seek those constructs to help them evolve, not on people who are already beyond the temptations of using sex in the service of ego

3. I'm not convinced that being powerfully energized by one's gender opposite or by all sentient beings is necessarily an either/or thing – I agree that as we evolve, we include a wider and wider sphere of sentient beings (and heck, why not nonsentient matter as well?) in what we consider “us” (i.e., a reduction in the I/not-I polarization) – but I don't believe that necessarily eliminates the value of deep intimacy with another person, not necessarily to “complete” us but for the sheer joy of companionship – it's not for everyone, but I don't think it's necessarily in conflict with the other path – having what you call a strong sexual identity doesn't at all preclude the possibility of learning from, contributing to, and interacting with other people/life forms in many other ways

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

1. making any kind of global statement about people who are “on a spiritual path” seems quite hazardous to me

 Yes, I would say you are right, it is quite hazardous. Integral spirituality is a stage theory of spiritual development and often criticized for that reason. I think your analogy to school is quite apt – we acknowledge that a PhD is developmentally higher than a third-grader, yet most people are more or less comfortable that we're not implying that PhDs are objectively better than a third-grader. This is because we recognize that being a third-grader is a necessary step to becoming a PhD. In integral language, the PhD transcends and includes third grade.

A side note: one reason that even describing spiritual evolution is hazardous, I think, is because people who are on a spiritual path are often quite eager to be further developed. But, this may lead to subconscious guilt or shame about it, even blame themselves for not being as consistent, disciplined or as skilled as they think they should be. If someone outlined the stages of spiritual development for them, I think its a common tendency to project their shame about their own perceived failings on their spiritual path, and see their reflected self-criticism in the model.

I know this is true from my personal experience. Once, in high school, I paged through a college level book, and was completely intimidated by it – I was convinced it was beyond me. I eventually overcame that, and took the class in college, and I remember wondering what I was so intimidated about. The subject was challenging, but I felt like it was within my grasp; and the difference in my reaction was so stark that I wondered if I had even been looking at the same material at all. I had a similar reaction reading Pema Chodron's The Places That Scare You. Some of her descriptions of the qualities of a boddhisattva made me question why such a state of mind is desireable at all, and I think this is the nature of ego transcendence. To someone like me, still caught in their own ego, it sounds like madness. Perhaps this reaction is also a projection of sublimated self-criticism.

I admit that what I described as an integral relationship sounds completely undesireable, even to me, but to my understanding, integral theory seems to imply it. I would love to find some flaw in my reasoning, but sometimes I have difficulty distinguishing between truth and what my ego wants to be true, so I submit my idea to the group to correct my thinking. The alternative explanation, that an integral relationship would be sexually non-exclusive, possibly polygamous, is harder for me to accept, but may these are both possibilities.

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

the PhD transcends and includes third grade, but we wouldn't say the third grader is any kind of expert in his/her field, as we might say of a PhD – similarly, saying that someone is on a spiritual path doesn't necessarily imply, or even suggest (not to me, anyway) that s/he has mastered anything or has any special kind of wisdom – it only means s/he is seeking

Bill H, I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts on this discussion… 

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

I think the fundamental thing that people do not “get” about second tier anything is that the first tier does not go away simply because we evolve to second tier – in fact, we have easier and more healthy access to all of the first tier stages/memes than we ever had while being first tier.

There is absolutely no reason that I can see why an evolved, integral relationship would not be just as sexual, and maybe moreso, than a first tier relationship. Having full access to all the lower stages, an integral couple could choose to fuck like dogs (Red meme or lower), have chaste, respectful intercourse (Blue meme), have acrobatic, show-off sex (Orange meme), have tender, respectful love-making (Green meme), or compassionate, egoless, eye-to-eye spiritual union (second tier) –  and damn, isn't that cool?

If we experience the hieros gamos in our own psyches, so that the masculine and feminine elements are united and balanced into a divine androgyne, that simply gives us the ability to choose how we want to relate to our partner, and to experience that 4-level interaction where all the possible combinations are firing at the same time. Perhaps, after reaching that unified consciousness, things might get interesting in ways we can't even imagine.

[As an aside, I would argue that the reason so many spiritual traditions require celibacy is because most people would rather have sex than meditate. Another reason is that most spiritual traditions are from the Iron Age, and in that mythic period of human history, many people associated ejaculation with a loss of power (no one cared about women because they were not permitted into most spiritual traditions), so that for an adept to evolve, he must not have sex (or learn to have sex without ejaculation) in order to preserve his power.]

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

Having full access to all the lower stages, an integral couple could choose to fuck like dogs (Red meme or lower), have chaste, respectful intercourse (Blue meme), have acrobatic, show-off sex (Orange meme), have tender, respectful love-making (Green meme), or compassionate, egoless, eye-to-eye spiritual union (second tier) –  and damn, isn't that cool?

This sounds to me like yellow-integrative, flowing between different perspectives depending on the situation. I guess the confusion for me is what makes the turquoise stage different from the yellow stage. If turquoise is holistic, it would seem to unify opposing gender modes and alter sexual dynamics as we know them, which is masculine and feminine archetypes embodied by two people, in union and out of union. Thinking about it more, it might hasty for me to assume that the product of this is asexuality, so maybe the implication is really that a second tier relationship is not defined by each partner complementing or completing the other's gender identity, which doesn't preclude sex.

Sex for the first tier means unity of gender opposites, so the second tier might seem asexual to the superficial mind; but in fact, unity of gender opposites is only one aspect of sex, and achieving that within one's psyche then opens up the aforementioned things getting unimaginably interesting?

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

I can't say what makes Turquoise different than Yellow. According to Don Beck, he's only met a handful of people at Yellow, so Turquoise and Yellow both are still developing and have not yet been soldified the way the lower memes have. Wilber thinks he is Turquoise or higher based on his blog posts, but he has also tossed the Spiral Dynamics model (and likely never understood it to begin with), so the colors no longer match.

You said: “a second tier relationship is not defined by each partner complementing or completing the other's gender identity.”

 I would agree with this. Second tier, whatever else it might be, would seem to include complete people in terms on gender identity. If someone is still dealing with gender issues, there probably are other issues keeping the person in the lower memes.

[I]n fact, unity of gender opposites is only one aspect of sex, and achieving that within one's psyche then opens up the aforementioned things getting unimaginably interesting?

Sounds about right. I look forward to second tier sex, even if no other part of me gets there.  :) 

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

I just wanted to jump in for a second and comment that this is a very compelling and informative discussion. I am no where near ready to actually start sharing at this pod yet, but I did want to let you know that I am learning alot just by following the discussion.

Also this pod is I think one of the best here at Zaadz, it is well monitored and the discussions stay on track which I value highly…

I am a total newbie to integral understanding-but hopefully as I grow I will post more…

Until then-I look forward to reading more of others sharing…

Peace

Kati

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

Thanks Kati.

Glad to have you here.

There is a board for questions, too. I don't think any of us feel like we have all the answers – just exploring the possibilities.

Peace,
Bill

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

Bill H, you said, “but he has also tossed the Spiral Dynamics model (and likely never understood it to begin with), so the colors no longer match.”

He has? I'm not that close of an observer, so I'm not aware of what you mean by this. Nor do I understand what you mean by 'colors no longer match'.

As I've said before, I'm not entirely comfortable with the SD jargon to start out with. I was under the impression wilber still used it all the time, tho. Isn't that true?

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

For a while, esepcially in A Theory of Everything and Boomeritis, KW used Spiral Dynamics a lot. Since then, he has decided that SDi is a values line and not an integral theory complete in itself. My sense is that SDi was becoming more well-known than his own theory, so he had to relegate it to a lesser status. He and Beck have had a falling out.

His newest work, which will be out in book form in October, is called Integral Spirituality. In this model, he has replaced the SDi colors with the colors of the visible light spectrum. There are still several colors that kind of match, but there are also new colors and ones that no longer mesh. Instead of talking about moving up the spiral, he talks about increasing altitude.

This PDF is the rough outline for the book. He's been posting the book chapters at the Integral Spirituality website (membership required).

Peace,
Bill

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

Could someone please explain the color theories (I assume they are chakra based?) as well as the yell/turquoise disucssion and the spiral dynamics? I am not as well read on these subjects and altho I am sorta kinda following it, I would like to be sure that I am understanding the conversation.

Interesting if the turquoise is “holistic” as I think I saw mentioned…I painted my massage office space in 7 blended layers of turquoise (dark at the bottom to nearly white at the top) to represent the layers of water and deepening relaxation…and it has a profound effect on patients - they relax as soon as they walk in the door… ;-)

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

the colors people are referring to are from Spiral Dynamics (not related to chakra colors) – this PDF gives the basics:

http://www.spiraldynamics.org/pdf_resources/SD_MiniCourse_H.pdf

I'm guessing Bill can provide some other references…

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

Beck & Cowan wrote the original Spiral Dynamics book based on the work of Clare Graves. Beck and Cowan don't like each other any more. Neither of them like KW, who likewise does not like them. I wish the kids could play nicely with each other.

This is Cowan's mini-course.

This is Beck's outline at What Is Enlightenment?

This is a cool page that integrates Spiral Dynamics with Integral Theory. 

This is Wilber's new model – the colors are in there someplace. 

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

Ken has switched to the colors of the spectrum? Oh, excellent. That was one of my dissonances with sd jargon - the colors they used didn't match the colors from the old wisdom systems, and they didn't match the colors of the spectrum. They were this third arrangement that seemed more like a contrived commercial branding than a descriptive chart of relationships, to me at least.

I'm still not satisfied with the colors jargon per se - and I personally only expect to use it when talking with people who have imprinted on it - but if you are going to invent a colors language for talking about the stages of development, basing it on the physical world is a good idea. (the colors of the qabalistic tree of life are based on the physical world, for instance - not the spectrum, but the colors of the horizon.)

I've said before, and said elsewhere, I think choosing to use SD language was one of Ken's mistakes, and a political experiment on his part.

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

As an aside, Bill (WH Bill that is), David Deida ascribes to the non-ejaculation/circulation of energy theory.  It's very interesting and it works…with practice. :)

Re: Masculine and Feminine in Relationships

But integral theory predicts that an individual's lines of development can inhabit different stages at once? Perhaps there are not many people who have stabilized at yellow or turquoise across the board, but I think there are a number of people who have reached those stages in one or two lines.

One secondary observation I have that I think lends weight to the idea that second tier transcends sex as union of gender opposites: feminine youth, beauty and other outward indicators of fertility are greatly prized in the first tier, which leads to older women feeling left out of the party. I alluded to this earlier: first tier sexuality is deeply divisive and often unloving, leading some to level the playing field with green-meme conceptions of inner beauty. Everyone is beautiful in their own way, be yourself and people will love you, and since the universe is perfectly fair, those not blessed with outer beauty have an abundance of inner beauty. There's an element of truth there, yet people cling to these conceptions desperately, hoping that if they believe in them strong enough, it will come true. And of course, its not quite true – even accepting that inner beauty is attractive, there are many inner pathologies that can make a person seem unattractive. Female low self-esteem is the obvious example, as it stands in such direct contrast to the conception of the radiant divine goddess, and may in fact be its repressed shadow.

For me, the primary project of a integral relationship definition is to outline a view of sexuality that offers people an alternative, more inclusive concept that is believable and works in the real world. Integral sexuality must surely be post-green: post-sexual liberation.