Women Hitting On Men

I notice that over at Integral Archipegalo there is a discussion about women hitting men. When I first saw the caption I thought it read “Women Hitting on Men,” and I thought it sounded promising.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Promising for whom?

Re: Women Hitting On Men

good question!

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Well you know, I'm trying to practice my skills on multiple perspectives ;)

Re: Women Hitting On Men

right :)

Re: Women Hitting On Men

There's a seething, serpentine, potentially drunken beast within all of us, or at least, all of us men, that, you may wish to get in touch with (and frankly, i'm sick of getting in touch with my pussy, feminine pussy), but that, whether we wish to get in touch with or not, is there, all the same. That's why I like the Tommy Gavin character, as developed by Dennis Leary. I've always been a fan of Clint Eastwood's characters, and when I see his cowboy hero take a drink of whiskey, I want to take a shot too, have that kind of control… but, that's Hollywood, really. As a youth, I was able to, but as one lets go, and gets into the archetype, it is not so easy to control. To me Leary's Tommy Gavin character represents a side of the Eastwood character that we do not always see, the side of vulnerability, of fault, of mistaken judgement when we thought we were right. Leary is the new Eastwood, IMHO: tough, machismo, yet far more full of faults, and at the same time, vaguely aware of his limitations. And that is important; otherwise, he could not be a “hero.” He's a kind of postmodern Eastwood, if I may. And of course, I may be totally wrong in my assessment. :-)

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Promising in terms of whom? Good question. But why does it have to be in terms of one or the other? Perhaps: in terms of our relation. So I pose the question: what is the post-modern relation between men and women? Frankly, I don't know the answer, though I do know that my current teachers are all presently women. They hammer at my phallic skull — and it is no longer mere feminism that they hammer, nor mere chauvanism that they hammer at — but dumdum that I am, I'm trying to understand what they are trying to convey, in this post-modern age. :-) Actually, as I think about it, “they” is clearly not an appropriate term… hahaha. I'm sure that Gaddy (ya right) or Bruce or Ed, or Jim, or most likely Steven, the silver-haired sage among us, will now enlighten me. Or perhaps, more appropriately, I should be listening to Siona, Nicole, Lionza, or Tely.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Kela,
You wrote: So I pose the question: what is the post-modern relation between men and women?

And then: …or most likely Steven, the silver-haired sage among us, will now enlighten me.

I have just consulted Lionza, and we argee–Its headlong wicked sex and infinite understanding. There is no such thing as pushing too hard…

S.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

deep bow.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Here's to wicked sex,
Infinite understanding,
and pushing hard…

Bottoms up!

Cheers Kela,
Mark

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Ah, now here's a subject that is close to heart! :)

“So I pose the question: what is the post-modern relation between men and women?”

What do you mean by “men” and “women”? Are you referring to the biological categorization of two individuals of the same species that in the mixing of gametes are able to produce fertile offspring, or are you talking about the clusters of emotional, social and psychologial factors that we conveniantly lump together in everyday language?

Feminism (I would argue) is not about women (as defined in their birth certificate) hammering at men (as defined in their birth certificate), even though the practical implication might often involve individuals associated with womanhood raising their voice and demanding equal rights and respect as their manhood-associated counterparts. Individual struggles by women don't equal feminism, individual struggles by men don't equal chauvinism. They could just as well be counter- feminist/chauvinist.

Relationships are between individuals and should be regarded as such. Some people make us feel “manly” and others “womanly”. To me, good relationships are not bipolar but bring out different parts of me in different situations. Some people prefer more stereotypic or clear cut roles (for instance to be the cosy family dad at home and the manly “beast” as you call it, with his male friends and vice versa for the female). Sure, whatever works for you and the people you are involved with, as long as you don't prevent others from expressing the same freedom.

I'm not sure if I manage to get my point across here…what I'm basically trying to say is: The answer to your question “what is the post-modern relation between men and women?” from me is: A transcendent view from the dualism man-women. A person (man or woman or otherwise defined) should nurture relationships that bring out the “manly” and “womanly” clusters of emotions in any form or proportion that (s)he wants, while being open and responsive to the needs of others and not expecting or demanding others to fit into ones own needs like the missing pice of the jig saw puzzle, or expecting oneself to fill that role for others.

Individualism has grown stronger in our days which means that people don't stick to unhealthy relationships because “one ought to” as much as we used to, which is good. But from my perspective the next step is to go even further and not have predecided expectations to what a relationship should and shouldn't be about, regardless of what type of relationship that is. So your partner/friend/teacher etc is not satisfying your need X? Maybe you can find this elsewhere and appreciate your partner/friend/teacher etc for what he/she actually DOES contribute to your life.

My perspective on this comes from real life experience, not academic study, so I'm not sure what school of thought it fits into, my guess would be anarcho-queer-feminism (?)

Re: Women Hitting On Men

post-modern relation between men and women… kelamuni, i am grateful to be called on to be an oracle, but i am sure i am no repository of wisdom. for what's it's worth, here is my take -

i believe that much more is possible in relationships between men and women than is currently popularised in the media. And why, when we are talking about relations (besides for the purpose of humour, which is fine too), should sex come up? There are many kinds of male-female relationships possible, many of them absent of sexual activity, many nonetheless fulfilling for all that.

i think Ti-Shu, ever insightful, has the key in a kind of delightful ongoing exploration without preconceptions or expectations - oh you're a guy so you should be or think or do x or y, etc. 

and you're right on the money about no one person being able to satisfy every need, whether in terms of friendship, sexual relationship, family, business associate - whatever kind of relationship you are having with the other. 

i see post-modern relations as something of what Rilke spoke of long ago in Letters to a Young Poet, letter7


”We are only just now beginning to understand the relation of one individual to another objectively and without prejudice, and our attempts to live such relationships have no model before them…f- 


''

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Nicole,
what a beautiful summary: “…a kind of delightful ongoing exploration without preconceptions or expectations”

This task of course is one of lifes hardest (I agree with Rilke there!) It involves both fully accepting one self for who-I-am and accepting others for who they are and be aware of how the coming together creates something new and unique in every moment. If we could fully master that at all times…well, that's a good description of “heaven on earth” to me!

So what is the integral approach towards all this?

Re: Women Hitting On Men

So what is the integral approach towards all this?

Well, if they were smart, they would deposit $250,000 in my account. They might be pleasantly surprised at what I could do.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

“they”? For that amount of money, I think I'd be happier not recieving an answer at all… =)

Re: Women Hitting On Men

thanks Ti-Shu, indeed, the hardest but most fulfilling task.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Ti Shu, Sharing authentic “gifts”? Is that what this stage of post-modern, relativistic, multiple-perspective, cultural-diversity, age of thought is trying to find? The deconstruction would be to aid us in figuring out for ourselves (perhaps with feedback and guidance, but ultimately we decide) what our “natural”, life-given, gifts are. Then relationships are a place to integrate those gifts, once discovered and shaped into an interface-able form. Wholeness is goal, via a mixture of compatability an complimenatriness (the post-modern age probably emphasizes the latter and de-emphasizes the former, in order to detach from pre-set “formulas” of compatability), but not a wholeness in the sense of “you complete me” - a wholeness in the sense that we see optimal human potential at work, and then can glimpse what it might mean to be whole (and it inspires us to continue toward the white light).  
   Just a guess. 
     Darrell

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Moneynot,
someone mentioned the Johari window model the other day and it made me think about this thread. Personally, I've never heard about it before, but I think it's a good illustration. According to that model, the second room, the “blind spot” are your qualities that are known to others, but not appearent to you. The way I see it, this blind spot is what the complimenantriness is all about -we need others to know ourselves and they need us for the same reason. Since no one can be objective about what they see in our blind spot, we need second, third and lots more of opinions about this… Compatability in this model, would then be someone who can help us (and vice versa) see both positive and negative hidden traits of our blind spot without being judgemental, overemphasizing or idolizing. For real intimacy to form, I would also like to throw in a large portion of sharing what's inside the fourth room, the facade (not known to others, but known to self), as well as a deeper, unspoken connection at room three, the unknown (to both others and self). When all of those “criteria” on my wish list are met, I'd say we have reached what people refer to as twin souls or soulmate. However, for most of us, that is but a theoretical concept and we will do best by patchworking all kinds of relationships that bring different perspectives, perhaps resembling a coctail party mingle in the rooms, rather than strict allocations! :)

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Ti Shu, I liked the way you put the Johari window to work. And you had not even seen it before?!!! Very insightful about the elements of healthy intimacy. Yes, I see how we help each other a bit beyond each's blind spot, in a true love. And yes again, about how much of the psychological intimacy is sharing more than the facade. And yes yet again, on how the relationship needs a rootedness in Mystery (in my Christian upbringing, this was called putting “God” at the base of the love relationship, and IMO any true God function is largely Mystery - beyond the limitations of our regular mind, in the realm of Eckhart Tolle's Being, or what many would call spirit, or what I sometimes call the pure energy core of self, which is a transpersonal sort of energy, probably directly involved in “love”, which, to me, is actually a form of energy, not just an artifact of two material beings). And last but not least, the Arena, the place where good “communication” of feelings and concerns occurs. Finally, yes, yes, yes, yes, the cocktail party! If we do not keep our minds open to the multiple factors and odd fractals of love, we will not recieve the happy buzz it can give us. Openess (which I often attribute to “whole-mind activity”) does seem to be a key element - the willingness to be tolerant, inclusive, and to “mix it up”, rather than narrow, exclusive, and rigidly formulaic (sp?). 
  You brought the Johari Window to life, and brought life to the Johari Window. Good job! And you never even saw it before! Fresh (and probably clear and “true”) impressions. Great job! 
    Darrell

Re: Women Hitting On Men

kelamuni, I'm not familiar with the character, Leary, you alluded to, but I really like your assessment, and especially the phrase you coined, “a postmodern Eastwood”. Great phrase. Kinda reminds me of the newer, more flexible and liquid version of the Terminator that we saw in the sequel (the second movie in the series, I think) to the original movie (I never watched the third or beyond) although I do like the general man vs machine, or humankind vs man-the-machine (the macho, doing, machine-like, men-are-from-Mars aspect of men that John Grey pointed out a few years ago). I have a whole bunch of Grey's video taped presentations at home. They were throwing them out at work, during the changeover to DVDs, and because the state had some sort of exclusive deal with one media provider (IMO, a conflict of interest, the private sector in bed with the public sector), and the Grey series was not from the chosen provider. Your comments inspire me to re-watch one or two of his shows. Grey went into overkill mode, but he did have some good and useful points along the way.  
    Darrel 

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Well put, Ti-Shu and Nicole.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Hi Ti-Shu, I like what you say about relationships, diversity, acceptance, exploration and individuality.  My perspective is this: if I have any reaction whatever to another person, or any feeling whatever, that reaction or feeling informs me of me, primarily, of my expectations, presuppositions, needs for people to be X-not-Y, etc.  I thus like what you say here:

But from my perspective the next step is to go even further and not have predecided expectations to what a relationship should and shouldn't be about, regardless of what type of relationship that is.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Hi Tom,
from what I understand about the integral levels, one has to more-or-less master one level to be able to go on to the next? In this context, I think it is important to remember not to choke on a bite that is too hard to swallow. I agree with you fully that each emotional reaction is a lesson and I try to be a “good student”.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that I stay in any relationship no-matter-what, and I don't recommend that to any of my friends either, if they are walking in destructive circles in a particular relationship. So in my opinion, it is important to be able to say “no”, to walk away when faced with abuse. Courage and stamina to stay and work on a relationship goes hand in hand with the ability to know ones limits and weaknessess. Much like the master fighter rarely has to fight because (s)he is confident in his/her ability to win if forced to do so. Leaving peacefully in time also prevents feeling the need for bitterness and revenge later on.

This is probably obvious to you, but I know several people who go through unecessary martyrdom saying “if I only get better at… then we can work things out”.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Hi Ti-Shu, yes, a basic image of integral levels is that one must first be a child before being an adolescent before being an adult.  

As to abusive relationships, my version of self-responsibility implies that one actively care for one's interests and relational environment.  Personally speaking, I spend time with people I like—people having a certain emotional intelligence, education, orientation, etc.  Though I am tolerant in my interactions, and can spend time with less developed or differently oriented people without harming myself, I am able to assess others quickly and do not spend much time with people who cannot or do not interact at my level (by that I primarily mean emotional level of maturity).  For instance, I spend little time with people who complain.  Send me a postcard when you decide to stop, is typically my inner, sometimes outwardly expressed attitude.

Feeling I need to be there for others is something I normally consider a form of emotional irresponsibility containing two relational untruths: s/he needs me, and I need to supply her/him.  Yes, I can be helpful to others, and vice versa, but need?  Need is a qualitatively different form of interaction.  I would call it shackled.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

But some forms of “individuality” (many) are “pre-set”, enabling us to think like matter - that we are a separate thing from another, as opposed to realizing we are a component in a larger whole. Individuality as stepping stone to interdependence (or, I suppose, even “interindependence”, but interconnection, nonetheless), and toward authentic “proactivity” (not having to act independent like adolescents do in order to compensate for feared dependencies - which is an emotional reaction that disguises itself as a pro-active stance, although this overcompensated form of individuality is usually shed - like a snake shedding its skin which the organism has outgrown or which is too old -in good time, in adulthood, if all goes well, and if culture does not enable fixation at the “individualistic” stage) is a different, more productive, “matter”, and it can help move us toward dynamic wholeness. 

Darrell

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Tie Shoe,
That post of yours from a ways above (the one that upstaged my last offering) was nicely stated; for a non-academic you are certainly articulate.

But did you expect to find an argument from us here at Balder's Enlightenment Central pod? Everything you wrote comes right off the top, i.e. its all taken for granted around here. I've been hearing the same thing now for over 40 years and genuflecting at  every syllable. Whether or not people can put it into practice is a different matter then how we pay lip service to your sensibilities. But that is of no concern because “everybody knows or else should know” that forums like this front us all off and we hide behind the words and no one knows the deeds. It is as shallow an intimacy as that found at a community table at a downtown metropolitan Starbucks; positive expectations re: the practice of a preaching don't carry a lot of currency.

So if we were playing cards, I'd say “I'll see your post.” And then it would be up to you to either raise the discussion to a higher level or just stand pat on a used-up hand.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Those damn whipper-snapping upstagers, hey Steven?

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Well, Steven, if you see a way to a higher level of this discussion, why not take it there yourself? I'd say so far so good and I'm interested to see how much farther we could go, but not picturing a next stage just yet.

Or Ti-Shu, or anyone. This is great.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Steven,
wow…so you are challenging a newbie to a head-to-head battle on forum etiquett?? Lol…no actually what I meant to say is I'm not quite sure what you are trying to get across.

I THINK what you are saying is that what I wrote is a cliché around this forum much like “do onto others as you wish others to do onto you” would be at a christian forum? Something that everyone would pay lip service to and then go on living their lives without implicating it?

“But did you expect to find an argument from us here at Balder's Enlightenment Central pod?”

First of all, hello! I'm new here! How would I know what to expect? And besides, what's wrong with a sushi chef going to a sushi convention to compare recipies with other sushi chefs? As much as I enjoy a fierceful debate from time to time, this is not the only way I enrich my intellectual captial. So what are you really asking for, what is a “higher level” of discussion? An insight in useful methods of implicating these ideals into practice? Something else?

Nicole said: “Well, Steven, if you see a way to a higher level of this discussion, why not take it there yourself?”

Yes, why not Steven?

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Well said, Ti-Shu. How else is a newbie to learn?

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Ti Shu,

First of all an incidental matter:

You wrote: “And besides, what's wrong with a sushi chef going to a sushi convention to compare recipies with other sushi chefs?”

Nothing wrong, but I think the really ingenious sushi chef would stay clear of his peer group whenever possible and go to conventions with Cajun chefs or Finnish chefs or chefs from Lebanon and everyone would become “more evolved” as they used to say in the darker days of the New Age.

Second of all, the main:

I was mostly fishing for a response and to see if anyone around had been thinking outside of their cultural cubical. This was not a challenge to go head to head but an invitation to think.  Kela's question had to do with post-modern, and the model of enlightened relationship that we all pat ourselves on the back for propounding is just so squeaky-clean Euro-American Modern.  But that does not mean it isn't functional.  The golden rule that you mentioned, and all of its trans-denominational corollaries, are pre-modern and still functional. The fact that no one has come up with a distinctly, and authentically postmodern alternative to our preferred Psychology Today model probably says more about the deficits of postmodernism than it does about the model.

It was a foregone conclusion that we'd be seeing something like this within the responses: “Nicole said: 'Well, Steven, if you see a way to a higher level of this discussion, why not take it there yourself?' Yes, why not Steven?”  I'll get back to you on that.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

I look forward to it.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

I'm back and I'll take a run a this not from the angle of what a good relationship should be, but through a few aphorisms based on what I've seen and done.
 
1. No one can have a decent relationship unless they are harmoniously reconciled to the fullest state of their being that consciousness can make possible at any given point in their life. In other words if there is not a consciously accurate high level of self-esteem, forget it, all the Psychology Today, liberal humanistic ideals and spiritual blue smoke or family value preachments aren't going to put a nickle's worth of improvements or value into a relationship. Taking care of the self-esteem is like taking care of the pennies if relationships can be equated with the dollars that take care of themselves. (Or the other way around if one prefers rolling high and can do it well.)

2.Because the values that comprise self-esteem come in wildly different conglomerations I doubt if a generalized picture of a decent relationship can be composited. One who takes accurate pride in being a liegeman will find success with the wise chatelaine though that might look a little odd to the liberal humanists…”A fulfilled liegeman in this day and age…in this enlightened culture??? It can't be so, say it isn't so!”

3. The Gender Politics card, no matter how it is oriented, won't be found in the deck of two well matched and self-assured lovers. If one of the two prints such a card in secret and pulls it from their sleeve it is an indication of a failure in the ground of their being and makes the phrase well matched a lie.

4. Anyone under the age of 45 probably will not be able to realistically claim themselves as party to a truly decent relationship. They have not yet had access to enough tools.

5. Even for one personally suited to be party to such, a decent relationship will probably be; a.) unnecessary and b.) accidental.

6. A decent relationship is one in which neither party ever feels the temptation, no matter how briefly, to burn the bridge out from under the all headlong wicked sex and infinite understandings.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Re: Women Hitting On Men

oh, good, i'm only a year away from beginning to have a hope of a realistic claim! something to which to look forward.

ok, two people with strong self-esteem. 
no gender politics. 
mature, with access to tools (unspecified -perhaps you'd like to elaborate?) 
not “needing” relationship or looking for it?
never tempted to hurt the relationship.

certainly sounds very different!

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Nicole,

Just wait for that year, then you'll understand…;-)

Re: Women Hitting On Men

I'll wager a side bet for a buck. One month tops…

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Steven,
thanks for taking the discussion further. A few reflections:

“I think the really ingenious sushi chef would stay clear of his peer group whenever possible and go to conventions with Cajun chefs or Finnish chefs or chefs from Lebanon and everyone would become “more evolved” as they used to say in the darker days of the New Age.”

Yes, true. But I would like to add that I think for both sushi chefs and “life-chefs” as we all are, a healthy combo of exchanging ideas with chefs of other culinary diciplines AND our fellow sushi chefs is probably going to be the most fruitful. The new, fresh input will come from other diciplines, but the refinement, the little details on the exact ratio of vinegar-sugar in the rice is a suitable topic for discussion in a sushi convention. There is a swedish expression that comes to my mind: “The more chefs, the worse the soup”. The good old discussion of generalisation vs specialisation. To make my point very clear, I'm not speaking in favour of either one of them neither am I saying that either way is equally good at all times. At different points of a sushi chefs carrier, going to see other sushi chefs will be the most rewarding (“evolving”) at other points getting new influences from other cuisines will do the trick. The same goes for relationships; sometimes I need people of “my kind” to better understand myself, sometimes challenging the very foundations of my views bring me to deeper insights.

“No one can have a decent relationship unless they are harmoniously reconciled to the fullest state of their being that consciousness can make possible at any given point in their life.”

Yes, but who says relationships need to be “decent”? I think THIS is one of the biggest misunderstandings of our (my = european) culture. We want the toned bodies without the heavy excercise. “No pain - no gain”. At least in my life, “bad” episodes of my relationships have in retrospect turned out to be very rewarding, when personal growth is concerned. Relationships have different functions in out lives, it's not only the fruit of personal development, it is also a tool by which personal development is achieved. BUT! This is NOT the same as the “romantic martyrdom” that many put themselves through at all costs, which I was making a point about in my earlier post.

”A fulfilled liegeman in this day and age…in this enlightened culture??? It can't be so, say it isn't so!” Many times it isn't so, and the ones who are not infact so are usually the ones who take the most offense when suggested otherwise. Also people who themselves are in unhealthy hierarchal relationships tend to be the ones who are quickest to judge and/or pity others for being so. Well this is what it looks like to me atleast…

“The Gender Politics card, no matter how it is oriented, won't be found in the deck of two well matched and self-assured lovers.”

Amen to that!

“Anyone under the age of 45 probably will not be able to realistically claim themselves as party to a truly decent relationship. They have not yet had access to enough tools.”

I see your point there, but be careful not to use the Age Card. And once again, what is “decent”? Why not talk about “rewarding” or “challenging” to make it more clear?

“Even for one personally suited to be party to such, a decent relationship will probably be; a.) unnecessary and b.) accidental.”

Lol…sound very unromantic at first glance, but I think you have nailed down the essence of “unconditional love”. Love for the sake of love, not the means to an end.

“A decent relationship is one in which neither party ever feels the temptation, no matter how briefly, to burn the bridge out from under the all headlong wicked sex and infinite understandings.”

Could you please elaborate what you mean? Is this an expression of loyalty? From my perspective it's ok to have the temptation to ruin the foundation of a relationship. Even a burnt bridge or two is ok. A “decent” relationship in my book, is indeed “unnecessary”, which means the bridge can always be rebuilt, perhaps stronger. Or even not be rebuilt, sometimes two people are best to go separate ways, a “decent” relationship can be one that ends when it's due time.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

I completely forgot to comment on this, written by Kelamuni at the beginning of the thread:

“There's a seething, serpentine, potentially drunken beast within all of us, or at least, all of us men, that, you may wish to get in touch with (and frankly, i'm sick of getting in touch with my pussy, feminine pussy), but that, whether we wish to get in touch with or not, is there, all the same.”

Indeed I have gotten in touch with this side many times, I have been this somewhat hedonistic beast, partied and celebrated the carnal and climbed the material ladder with “him” and his female counterpart many times. To be politically correct I would say “some of my best friends are beasts” ;) I have no clue who the Tommy Gavin character is, but I am familiar with Clint Eastwood. Personally I also come to think of the Merovingian in The Matrix. I think “Lillith” is a popular description for the female version of this “beast” as you call it, but of course there are many, many versions. It is definitely nothing isolated for men only, even though it often expresses itself somewhat differently for men and women since we find ourselves in different cultural contexts.

In my introduction thread I mention that one of the schools of thought that inspired me the most during my life journey so far has been satanism. I would very much like to find any other philosophy that actually celebrates this “beast” side of humanity so directly and shamelessly, without hypocrasy. If there is, I would very much like to hear about it! (you have to wade through a lot of smelly gunk to get to the jewels of satanism). For me personally, this was an incredibly important piece of the puzzle in developing a healthy and guilt free sexuality, which then also transformed how I behave in relationships in general. I don't get jealous very often anymore and I don't get offended by other people who do express jealousy. I feel much less of a need to own or be owned by other people -in body or in spirit. I don't crave for others to define me, or me to define who other people are as much. Somehow when I truly felt free from the “do”s and “don't”s about it, things just fell into place. The forbidden fruit is just an apple, a delicious one, I might add :) The “beast” is just an animal. We don't remove the teeth and claws from our pet cats, so why do that to ourselves?

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Well put, Ti Shu. The “beast” here might be said to correspond, perhaps, to “Leviathan” in Anton LeVey's quarternal formulation. I see it, at least in part, as representing a potentially chaotic or chtonic side of the anarchic, and anarchism is one tendency with “the postmodern.”

I'm aware of the difference between gender and sex, and also that there are those who feel that they don't belong within an either/or formulation, and did not mean to stereotype relationship as exclusively a male/female thing, though I did.

I'm happy this stimulated at least some discussion in this direction.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Ah yes, Leviathan, the ocean serpent…
I was hoping to hear an opinion from you, about how to “get in touch” with this dreaded beast.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

you helped to tease out quite a number of things that were bothering me about that post, Ti-Shu. many thanks.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

I'm glad if I manage to add some aroma to this conversational soup we are making here! :) Compared to the vast knowledge and wisdom about philosphy that I find in people in this group I'm still struggling with the 101 level.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

believe me, i feel tremendously inadequate here but am grateful for the kindness that has met me.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Ti Shu,

You recall that we were discussing a postmodern relationship and that is why I was reluctant to define “decent.” I have no idea what decent might mean for any one else but myself and thus what you read in that post are my values for myself. This sets the discussion apart from those that might hew to the humanistic advice from the modernist experts on psychological, emotional, social and economic health. You notice I didn't say anything about permanence, or happiness or growth or self-evolution any more than I mentioned rewarding or challenging. In that same vein “maturity” is made relative by this phrase: “…fullest state of their being that consciousness can make possible at any given point in their life,” which in itself is an exercise in weaselly rhetoric. I believe the strictest characteristic I applied was the thing about self-esteem because we all know that no matter how good someone has it, no matter if they are getting what they say they want, people with low self-esteem believe that their relationships, not to mention jobs and general condition of life, are all crappy.

Given that there is an objective difference between someone who is 15 and someone who is 45, and that difference remains when they are 30 and 60 respectively, the Age Card is valid except when its play will deprive someone of their civil rights.

If someone is tempted to burn the bridge out from under what they actually worked to get means they are probably no longer in a decent relationship.

A decent relationship is defined by what exists in the moment one says, “Oh yeah, we have a pretty decent relationship.”

Re: Women Hitting On Men

I never really got what “postmodern” is supposed to be. Seems like it's something different depending on who you ask… ;)

I know you were expressing your subjective views, and I was wondering what decent implies to you more specifically and I think it's becoming clearer to me how you use that word now. I'm still wondering though, if you think self esteem is something that is needed to have a “decent” relationship, to which I agree, or if you think that self esteem is also something that can grow out of a relationship, that by the same definition is non-decent?

About the Age Card. Yes, more years = more experience and so better prequisites for maturity. But that same experience can be used to foster arrogance and an unflexible mind. More years and experiences is a larger bag of gooddies, but a heavier bag to carry, in my opinion.

“A decent relationship is defined by what exists in the moment one says, “Oh yeah, we have a pretty decent relationship.””

Fair enough! :)

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Ti: But that same experience can be used to foster arrogance and an unflexible mind. More years and experiences is a larger bag of gooddies, but a heavier bag to carry, in my opinion.


The disease is called Ancientitis.  Calcium and fixity everywhere.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Tom,

You wrote: The disease is called Ancientitis.  Calcium and fixity everywhere.

This disease seems to be endemic to Canada and parts of the U.S.A.  In Venezuela, if one manages to make 65, one has learned to be exceptionally nimble in traversing one moment to the next. That is all there is; no more, no less. That is all there needs to be. Knowing that old age and treachery win out over youth and talent every time is the gleeful incentive for staying light on one's feet. It is generally accepted here that the national heroes are picaros, not heroes.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

I don't doubt there's more calcium up here.  A while back during a visit to Cuba, and after talking with an 85 year old flower-selling Cuban man about US foreign policy, world affairs and things of broad social interest and import, it occurred to me just how calcific our elderly up here generally are.  My god, Spock's mind meld doesn't hold a candle to the paralysis entailed by the exposure myopia marking our society (special honours in this regard to the US).

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Ti: Yes, but who says relationships need to be “decent”? I think THIS is one of the biggest misunderstandings of our (my = european) culture. We want the toned bodies without the heavy excercise.


I see your point here, T, and agree with what you're saying.  I think experimenting in one's style of relating is necessary to gaining a fuller understanding of oneself.  And experimenting can be a rocky road.  I also think a searching honesty about one's motivations, responses, interactions, feelings, etc., is required, and an honesty in which one is willing to say what one perceives to the other.  That whole package, for me, is a fast-track to growth and understanding.  Absent the honesty factor, one is IMO quicker to the couch and the TV.  


Ti: I don't get jealous very often anymore and I don't get offended by other people who do express jealousy. I feel much less of a need to own or be owned by other people -in body or in spirit. I don't crave for others to define me, or me to define who other people are as much. Somehow when I truly felt free from the “do”s and “don't”s about it, things just fell into place.


Well, and isn't relational independence the crowning jewel of life process?  I'm not surprised to hear your independence came in part from experimenting sexually, as sexuality touches such a deep aspect of ourselves, probably the deepest in regards to relational independence.  What is jealousy but “I need” as in “I need mom.”  A real crucible.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

“I also think a searching honesty about one's motivations, responses, interactions, feelings, etc., is required, and an honesty in which one is willing to say what one perceives to the other.”

I agree Tom, I also think that honesty and self-reflectiveness makes all the difference. Not only to be able to BE honest, but also to be able to HANDLE honesty, when expressed from others. As you might have noticed I didn't write that I am completely devoid of dependence on others, only that I am LESS “needy” now than before. But most importantly I can handle being so with much more lucidity.

Here is an anecdote from my life: With my closest friend, we deliberately provide eachother an “oasis” zone, a mental time/place where we are allowed to be as needy, as ugly, immature or unreasonable etc etc as we need. It's like a role playing game, except that the roles are not fictional characters, just parts of ourselves that we are less proud of, don't normally identify with (or are even fully aware of) and wouldn't want the rest of the world to be exposed to in full bloom.

I think most married couples, close friends, siblings etc experience this to some degree; e.g. you spend all day polishing your Persona at work and elsewhere, when you get home dead tired, you vent your frustration on whomever is the closest. Ironically, I find just knowing that I'm allowed to do this if I need to, and that my friend doesn't take it personally, much takes away the need to actually act on that impulse -not always, but most of the time. In any circumstance, my bad temper dissolves quite quickly, because I am not met with antagonism or ridicule. And if I leash out, we recognise it for what it is and I usually have a laugh about it afterwards. In retrospect I often try to understand why I was building up frustration and how I might change my everyday life to meet whatever need that felt neglected. I guess you could call it Shadow Work, even though it was never planned as such, but happened spontaneously… by accident.

Most of the time however the “oasis” is a wonderful and loving place, a place to recharge our spiritual batteries…well, as the word “oasis” implies. Having a friend like this is the most valuable “crutch” or “jewel” (depending on what perspective one takes) on my journey towards finding my “inner oasis”.

Well, that's a part of my story. :) The reason I told it was to illustrate my point that this is my BEST and DEAREST friend, but in no means my ONLY friend, or a blueprint for how I wish ALL my relationships should ideally be. The oasis is only a small part of the desert, if I may continue with that metaphore.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

your anecdote on shadow work reminds me of a relationship i had in grad school.  we attended a very in your face school, where everyone was in each others business.  each day after classes my friend and i would convene at a cafe to purge ourselves of this collective contamination. 

 we would create caricatures of our classmates and act them out to the point where we were rolling on the floor with laughter.  an interesting effect of this shadow work was us having the space to meet our classmates with a fresh slate the next day.  in fact, this procedure is what got me through my first year of grad school.  

when i look back on this relationship, i appreciate its positive effect in my operation in the world.  however, what i cherish the most, is that creative space that my friend and i created, where the typical sensibilities of what is appropriate were replaced by the authenticity of our 'shadow' exploration.  

through the years i have had the privilege to find relationships where we bask in the irreverence of the moment,  and the cultural judges are nowhere to be found.  instead of supporting each others strivings in the world, we instead utilize them as manure to grow bouquets of life pungency and embrace fully our shared time/space splotch.

these days i am finding that these kind of fullembrace relationships (embracing both shadow and light) are the only ones i am interested in.  as such, i am no longer benchmarking relationships through a self perspective, of how effectively each persons needs and obligations are met and how each self is honored.  instead, i assess my relationships in the aliveness, in the vastness of embrace, in the creative enactment of our deep within, whether they be years old relationships or just birthed that day.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Ti and n, I find your stories of the quality of friendship you pursue moving.  There can be such a thick glaze of genteel correctness in spiritual circles.  Not my cup of tea.  Give me the dark also, and not just dark-to-be-transformed.

I love the dark.  For the last year or so, I have meditated on death, which I picture in my mind as a dark angel.  My goal in this meditation is to befriend this angel.  I thus orient myself to notice what resistances might arise, and befriend those also.  My goal is to *feel* that death is desirable.  Period.  

There are a few stories I like to tell to counter genteel-correct onesidedness (fear).  One is the story of the reality lying behind what we know as the swan song.  In northern European countries, as summer moves to fall and fall winter, swans are sometimes caught in ice by a quick drop in temperature.  So there they sometimes are, these beautiful creatures with their legs caught in ice.  They are of course targets for predators—foxes largely—and they seem to know their fate as they emit a piercing plaintive cry throughout the night.  This cry is the swan song.  By morning, usually all that remains are stubs of legs trapped in the ice.  

FWIW, I take any occurrence or happening on this lovely planet as an image—one slide in the grand slide-show of what is.  Each slide, for me, has its own claim on what is, such that the swan song sings its part, resonating, as it does, with those strings in the heart properly attuned.  I am that, for me, means I am the swan, and the fox, irreducibly both.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

“death as desirable.”   for numerous reasons i found that in my life i have walked with death.  this dark angel in fact became my boon companion who stood by me in the deepest black and showed me the way around these dark demesnes.  one place he guided me to was the light/dark aperture, that place/nonplace where light arises from dark and dark from light, blinking in and out of existence with no apparent rhyme or reason. 

  over the years, i have found that place/nonplace soothing and even healing.  i imagine in death i will walk with my dark angel into this mystery.  as such, i feel a sense of desirability for death, like going on an adventure with a lifelong friend.

  your story of the captured swan, however, sent me down an interesting road.  as i read the story, i found myself opening into a felt sense that emanated from when i was very young – the felt sense of horror.  i once wrote that awe is the fundamental felt sense of an existential spirituality.  i farther delineated awe into two prongs – that of wonder and terror.  wonder being associated with the felt sense from our dance of communion and terror being associated with the felt sense of agency.

  the appellation of terror always felt not quite right.  it felt derivative.  now with this new dance with horror, i see that terror contains within it the fear of a future event, ie like the existentialist peering into the void and noticing the rising terror within their being as they contemplate their utter annihilation.  horror, on the other hand, i find to be a direct experience of life.  it inundates my every day, as i sense the myriad captured swans of every species plaintively crying. indeed their laments can easily drown out all other voices.

  in fact, in significant ways, trying to shut up this mewling horde is what drove me into the stygian netherland.  sometimes i burrowed deeper  to simply find silence.   at other times, i searched for a panacea that would heal humanity’s core wound.

 i find that in cultivating awe, of walking the balance of wonder and horror, i step ever more into this moment, and i am taken on currents that flow back to the big bang where we arose.  when i fall into that initial diamond of life that birthed from nothingness, where all senses disappear into now; i find our shared breath, our synchronized heart, our pristine will.  and i come fully into myself, inhabiting the facet that i am.

 i sense that this diamond heart is lifes fractal.  as such it is our birthright.  and, when we embrace this multifaceted diamond heart, we become sparkling life. from here the answer to horror is clear – to be life ever more completely.  

Re: Women Hitting On Men

your post was making my hair stand on end… so electric, neverness. thank you for your fresh and powerful insights.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Hi n, lovely post.  Like Nicole said, very electric.  I can sense a portion of your journey.

I find images from nature and our human feeling regarding them compelling.  Nature, and the simple here of what is, has always been my primary compass.  I have personally found it among the most engaging adventures to open myself to life assuming I'm everything.  And if I'm everything, do I not want everything?  That is one question I ask myself.

Let's look a little more closely at this assumption I am everything.  Let's see if can convey realism or is just a flourish.  With Einstein's discovery (e=mc2), physicists discovered that matter and energy are interchangeable.  Thus what we call a certain form of matter, say, water, can with but a small change in environment be rendered any other form of matter.  You could say that, given this interchangeability, the matter in my body holds the potential—a real potential, an actual aspect—to be anything else one can see or even imagine in the universe.

It also goes without saying that what I call my body is but matter gathered from certain environments, primarily through food my mother ate.  My particular matter, in its present and previous, presumably little changed forms, has been around for billions of years and has served as 'body matter' for presumably countless beings.  This is another angle on interchangeability.

Here's the third angle: what I call me is but a certain organization of this matter.  Rearrange the very matter in my body and another person or animal results.

I am therefore an effect of organization, a result, a manifest potential.  And given my (all) matter's interchangeability and possibility for reorganization, I carry, in my body, the real potential of everything in the universe.

What I call I is therefore but a manifestation of one of infinite, and real, ghost-potentials, if you will.  The swan lives inside me in a verifiable sense, and not just as a flourish.  And the fox.  Via human feeling, I can access that 'unmanifest' realm of potential, which my matter also is, and where everything-else-but-me lives, now, from which everything is born, and to which everything will return.

If I am all that, how could I not want being what I am?  Death as desireable, for me, is, as perhaps you can see, a very feminine stance, my form, you might say, of a woman hitting on me.  ; )

Re: Women Hitting On Men

i like the physicalness of your position, that in death you return to the building blocks of life and your matter will in turn serve as building blocks for other forms.  i find this position to be the basis of a goddess worship, so yes i can see the feminine stance.  i would also say that this life returning to life is foundational for an existential spirituality.

since i am imaginally based, a correlative experience i believe is my experience of soul falling through earth to embrace her fully as son, lover, consort until the awareness that i am she is known as fact;  that is that i am a certain organization of matter that has served as body matter for countless beings in the past and presumably in the future and that this i and its matter is in a sense rented/loaned/borrowed.  and what happens when i return to potential matter cant be known within the parameters of life.  we can guess/speculate but we dont know.  this is a reason why i say agnosticism is a foundation of an existential spirituality.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Hi Tom and Ti-Shu

Tom: ” I think experimenting in one's style of relating is necessary to gaining a fuller understanding of oneself.”

I agree. I think Ram Dass said “Relationship is the Yoga of the West”. I find that perspective really helpful.

James

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Hi James!
Thank you for your post, I've never really had a good grasp of yoga; it's not like normal excercise, it's not like normal meditation, it's both in a way but also something in itself which I haven't quite figured out yet. What does “Relationship is the Yoga of the West” really imply? Why do you find it helpful, I'm really curious! :) I think for a lot of westerners yoga is something we do in class, as we would do football or choir singing, whereas relationships is something that is completely interlaced with everything else, we don't consider ourselves “doing relationships” in contrast to someone who is “not doing relationships” as we would with yoga. From my western point of view I'd be more likely to compare yoga with role playing, but this maybe exactly where I go wrong. Maybe yoga is supposed to be as interlaced as I consider relationships to be? Is yoga more a way of doing than something that gets done?

Re: Women Hitting On Men

this is very interesting, Tom, James, Ti-Shu - there are many kinds of practice, meditation, yoga, relationships, friendships… of course, it depends how much awareness is brought, and so on, whether it is practice or just flailing around.

i have done a lot of flailing around :) and would like to do more practice.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

“i have done a lot of flailing around :) and would like to do more practice”
Sums it up pretty well for me too.

Nicole,
spot on and insightful as always!

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Hi Ti-Shu,

“What does “Relationship is the Yoga of the West” really imply? Why do you find it helpful, I'm really curious! :)”

I understand the word yoga to imply a practice that helps you develop. I think Nicole and Tom have expanded on this further:

Nicole: “there are many kinds of practice, meditation, yoga, relationships, friendships…”  Yes I have learned to appreciate relationships as a practice. Ram Dass's quote helps to remind me of that, which is why I find it helpful.

And for me, this from Tom says very much the same thing: “What the spiritualists often miss is that real human relational work is developmentally effective, and perhaps moreso than what typically falls under the banner of spiritual practice”.

In the past I have made the same mistake as those Tom describes a “spiritualists”, and have viewed my spiritual practice as separate from my relationships. So again, Ram Dass's quote serves tor remind me that (as Tom says) ”real human relational work is developmentally effective”.

Cheers

James

Re: Women Hitting On Men

James, let me qualify Ram Dass by saying relationship is also the yoga of the east.  The notion of the self is a relational notion.  What the east calls enlightenment is IMO but a developed relational stance.

Knowledge is relational, and higher forms of knowing are but higher forms of relational insight.  Ever wonder why you can't really describe what you really are?  Description works on the basis of difference, and difference is comparative, relational.  You cannot describe yourself except by specifying some difference between me here and this and you there and that.  The full description of anything therefore requires the full specification of every difference possible (ie, the full description of the universe present, past and future).  Anything less than that full description will remain ambiguous, unsatisfying.

What the spiritualists often miss is that real human relational work is developmentally effective, and perhaps moreso than what typically falls under the banner of spiritual practice, which can tend to be heady, conceptual, dry and male.  And safe.  And image preserving.  If you want to see where you really stand as regards self-image (ego), make a list of the ten things you least want to say and to whom, then go say those things to those persons.  Now there's a spiritual practice!

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Btw, the word 'relate' is etymologically related to 'differ.'  The '-late' of relate is the past participle of the '-fer' of differ.  '-Fer' means “to bear,” as in to bear a burden or to give birth.  Differing is birthing, and is difficult (burdensome).  Relating is bringing your previous birthings forward and birthing again.  All such activities are of course vis a vis another, because differing implies 'against another.'

Didn't the east have something to say about birth also?  ; )

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Funny, Tom, I don't think I have done much ELSE than relational work… I'm exactly looking for what you are describing above, the “male” and most importantly “safe” practice. I'm tired of letting people around me having to sparr against my shortcomings all the time, I'm looking for a complementary way, but failing so far to find one that suits me. Jim however pointed me in a very interesting direction in another thread at this forum, so the quest goes on!

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Thanks, Ti-Shu, that warms my heart.

Tom, I think you and MikeS would have some good conversations - have you seen his pod Fully Engaged?


His premise there is very much that real human relational work is developmentally effective, and perhaps moreso than what typically falls under the banner of spiritual practice, which can tend to be heady, conceptual, dry and male.  And safe.  And image preserving.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Tom:  “What the east calls enlightenment is IMO but a developed relational stance.”

Ha! Nice expansion on what Ram Dass was saying. Thanks.

James

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Oh, I don’t mind woman hitting on me, as long as they wear boxing gloves.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

LOL at Zac!  Thnx for making this post.  It brought my attention to this thread which I found to be quiet impressive…I like hitting on men alot…especially cute ones….haha…*

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Thank goodness for women with the confidence to make the first move. What a boring and predictable world it would be without them. cheers, star.

Re: Women Hitting On Men

Kela,
if you enjoy that you should come to the Nordics! Sure we still have gender issues, but when it comes to hitting on or making the first move I'd say we have atleast a 50-50 ratio, or even slightly higher ratio of women being the initiator. With that said, it can still be boring and predictable…;)