Sexual orientation

I inadvertently wandered into a sea of hostility when I posted recently a few thoughts on this subject on the blog of a person self-identifying as bisexual. Although I was extremely supportive and only doing a bit of thinking out of the box, I encountered what can only be described as a ghetto mentality: you’re not one of us, therefore you can’t be on our side. Which I find rather sad.

In the hope of launching a more serene debate, let me try again here. This is, I think, a subject that troubles the tantric community. In tantra there is much talk of the male/female polarity, sexuality plays a defining role and, accordingly, non-heterosexuality is difficult to reconcile with both practice and theory. Osho seems never to have taken non-heterosexuality seriously as a natural phenomenon, and writers like David Deida offer not only a stark dichotomy of the sexes, but also what might be viewed as unhelpfully stereotypical portraits of “superior men” and “superior women”. Sure, all this gets politically correctly glossed as being about “essences” not biological gender and sure, we all have male and female aspects to us, but this only allows the head to be held above water. It is anything but satisfying. At the end of the day some of us are men and others are women, and tantric union occurs between those who are men and those others who are women. Of course some form of union may also occur between men and other men and between women and other women, but this form of union then has no characteristics to distinguish it from any other experience of mystical union with whatever element of nature; it does not occupy an archetypal position, either in theory or in practice.

At the same time, the practice of tantra contributes a lot to the breaking down of barriers to same-sex intimacy. As in society at large heterosexuality is generally equated with homophobia (which encompasses not only a rejection of homosexuality, but often of any form of intimacy between men, even non-sexual), the loss of this barrier is destabilising and may lead some to feel they need to redefine their identity. If I can enjoy intimate touch from men, does that mean I’m gay, or, at “best”, bisexual? For women, who have close biological bonds to their mothers and feel less cultural pressure to be homophobic in the first place, this question may be less insistent. Still women, in my experience, may like to identify as bi, and this for a number of reasons. For a start, there is a much greater demand on the part of men for their female partner to be bi (or “bi”) than vice versa. Anecdotally, at least, it seems that many men are turned on by the idea of their wives playing with other women; in any case many more than there are women turned on by the contrary scenario. Secondly, for men, to self-declare as bi, especially after a period of heterosexual identification, not only runs into society’s homophobia, but also risks being seen as a cover for actual but unadmitted homosexuality. On the other hand, women seem, in my culture at least, to be less at risk of this kind of stigmatization. Lesbianism is statistically less common than male homosexuality, but although in some countries such as the USA more men than women seem to have had same-sex sexual experiences, in others such as France and Australia the reverse applies (see here). Because it is a bigger “deal” for men than for women, women may tend to adopt a wider definition and be more ready to self-identify as bisexual, and self-identification may not accurately portray underlying behavior.

In the course of this debate, which was unfortunately cut short by the blogger in question, it was both suggested by me and put to me that sexual attraction might be a better gauge of sexual orientation than simply the incidence of same-sex play. On a basic level, it may be considered that erotic touch by persons of either sex creates a similar primary response and may be similarly enjoyed without activating or being associated with other layers of sexual experience, in just the same way as other characteristics of the person providing the touch may not be very relevant, such as age, appearance, education and so on, factors which nonetheless play an important role in pre-intimate sexual response, that is, the response to sexual stimuli and signals other than intimate touch. If same-sex touch is not so enjoyed, this is more to do with its mental associations and conditioning, factors which, again arguably, could be considered not germane to determining primary sexual orientation.

On this basis, one could legitimately ask the question of whether the typical hormonal response that characterizes heterosexual attraction, with which I am familiar, is comparable in the case of homosexual attraction and whether such attraction is, then, comparable in nature or somehow distinct. From the little I have found on the subject, the endocrinology appears to be similar for men, whilst for women the results are more difficult to interpret. According to Wikipedia, in a 2004 study at Northwestern University, female participants, both heterosexual and homosexual, became sexually aroused when they viewed straight as well as lesbian erotic films. Among the male participants, however, the heterosexual men were turned on only by erotic films showing women; the gay males, however, were aroused only by films showing men. (I suspect though that a lot of the women were simply yawning at both types of film – and maybe were even more turned on by some gay male porn, which according to some reports women quite like)

Be this as it may, I do wish that homosexual and bisexual persons of both genders would show a bit more interest in engaging with those who call themselves heterosexuals in order to better understand each other’s sexuality. This ghetto mentality I find appalling. And I am pretty sure that many people denied entry to today’s ghetto really just long to talk to other people with whom they in due course would find common ground and friendship (or, for that matter, love).

I hate society’s hypocrisy and discrimination, but personally I am not too concerned by what the answers are, I am only curious. I am open to all experience, yours and my own. Whatever your orientation, sexuality should not be a battlefield, but a celebration.

Sleaze

What is it that differentiates what is healthily erotic from what is morbidly so?

Let’s start with the masculine form, it’s more familiar and easier. I think it’s most women’s experience that they are frequently confronted with “sleazy” guys. Some may also be acquainted with sleazy milieux (curiously enough, while I never heard anyone say they liked sleazy guys, there are definitely women who are positively addicted to the milieux). When you ask them, though, to define what it is that makes someone or somewhere “sleazy”, you usually don’t get a clear answer (someone is going to object that you never get a clear answer from women on anything; no comment, but not the point I’m trying to make ;).

I tried the dictionaries, and they didn’t help me much either. It can hardly be, though, that such a universal experience escapes definition, so I’m going to try.

I think sleaziness is reflective of the degree to which sexual stimuli launch psychoemotional scripts in the mind of the sleazy person. These scripts absent us from the present moment and inevitably objectivize the person who originated the stimulus. This experience of objectivization and the bodily cues that accompany it – what we call “shiftiness” and involves inability to hold eye contact and jerkiness in upper body movement – is what alerts women to the sleazy character of their male interlocutor. It is pretty easy for other men to recognize also (except perhaps in themselves).

So what about sleazy women? Well, the same phenomenon exists but it usually takes a very different form. This is due to the difference in women’s scripts (read any women’s romantic novel to get the feel). What these have in common with male scripts is that they objectivize their counterparty; only what that counterparty can do for them matters. I think the experience is as commonplace amongst men as is its counterpart amongst women, whereby it becomes rapidly or practically instantaneously clear that a woman you are dating or seeing in some context assesses you solely in terms of your ability to satisfy their scripts – their need for security, to feel loved, to have children, and so on (to expand their shoe collection…). These women may at the same time have impressive powers of seduction (frequently of course they do not), but while men may be fatally attracted to them, they will never be respected by them.

Since both forms of sleaze are fairly universal and it is only a matter of degree, it’s worthwhile analyzing what happens next.

In a common scenario, the experience of objectivization is actually desired because it allows the individual to rest undisturbed in the comfort of scripts of self-loathing which he or she has no real wish or ability to escape. There is, thus, an accommodation which satisfies each party, for at least a time. Whether this is stable is going to depend on the options available to the objectivizing partner to extend or displace his or her fantasies to other counterparties and the continuing role desired for the objectivized partner in this context.

Of course it may as well be that the scripts clash. Both parties need to be dominant, or they both need to be submissive. Whilst a relationship may still form, a fiery or somnorific one respectively, such a situation is always unstable.

It is often thought that sexual interest in partners outside an established relationship is sleazy by definition. This, however, confuses correlation and causation. In fact, such interest is perfectly normal and healthy, for both sexes. It almost invariably is sleazy, though, in practice because it activates such strongly scripted emotions in one or both parties. These emotions in most cases crowd out the possibility of an encounter with the real person involved; though sometimes they may coexist with stronger feelings of love or lust.

I encounter sleaze a lot in my life, both outer and inner, but, like many of us, I long after those uncomplicated encounters where what is there, is there, and what is not, is not.

Tantra and Sex

04 Feb 2008

It won’t have escaped my readers’ attention that sex is a major commodity in the West. We’re literally bombarded by it in all shapes and sizes and from all angles.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m happy we have this freedom. Sex is a basic human drive. I’m not going to start getting bitchy and elitist about it. Its ubiquity does mean our neuroses are on public display; but that’s a good place to start talking. People, relationships and family are not better where less open norms apply.

Sex sells, and it sells tantra too. But what does tantra really have to say about it, if we dare to saw off the marketing branch we are sitting on? (Believe me, I am more than indifferent to that prospect). More importantly, what is in fact the effect of practising tantra on someone’s sex life?

The great American psychoanalyst and writer Robert Stoller, who devoted his life to studying eroticism in all its forms, argued that erotic excitement was linked to scripted behavior which allowed the user to balance fear and mastery and act out resolutions of early trauma. He believed this was a pervasive characterization of sexual behavior, both “normal” and “abnormal”. And where there are scripts, there are roles to play, and people willing to play them.

The cultural scripting of sexuality generates the sexual identities, patterns and artefacts that we see around us. In other words, these are not “natural”, however primary may be the underlying drive. This should not surprise us; what is “natural” in human behavior at all?

Scripting sexual behavior, though, has a number of obvious inconveniences. Firstly, the scripts are unilateral. You may find someone willing to star in your production, for reasons of their own, but they will not rewrite the script. You will remain in a relationship, perhaps, because you play some complementary role in their script, quite possibly unconsciously; it’s a trade off, but it isn’t nirvana. As people become mere instruments in the realization of your scripts, they are objectivized. This is not exactly a recipe for a psychologically healthy society.

Secondly, these scripts, if they do not become obsessive in nature, lose their power over time. And insofar as they are about power and revenge, which they usually are, they need new objects. As scripting replaces the primitive psychobiological sexual reaction, however, the latter is muted. Sexuality becomes identified with the script and the sexual experience becomes less and less satisfactory.

We all know, of course, that there is another story here (or at least I hope that most of us know, though I realize I should be more circumspect in this assertion). We remember love, falling in love, abandonment, enrapture, passion, folly. We remember it and, if we are women, we have probably scripted it too (it is very easy to access those scripts to elicit sexual response from a woman, but it is a dark magic). This is very powerful and it can be so powerful that it is almost pure, at least for a while. In this sexual rapture, we are overwhelmed by the other. But after years together, we are not quite sure where it belongs; we seek refuge in technique, or in new scripts which aim to reproduce this passion but in fact have nothing in common with it.

A lot of people, and I am including popular writers on the subject, present tantra in such terms, especially tantra in relation to lovemaking; and even if it is not their intention, it is very easy for this to be the effect as the advice they dispense is received as prescriptive and technical – a mere user’s manual for human sexual response.

Tantra, however, is not another technique, it is not even compatible with technique and fantasy roleplay; it is about deprogramming these scripts so that real encounters can take place.
In this way, it undermines the ontological basis of sexuality as the vast majority of us have constructed it. And this demolition work is extremely frightening and dangerous. It is very unlikely it will make your sexual life any “better” unless it does so by reforging your psychic makeup from the bottom up, which might well not be what you intended. It may leave you disoriented, as old scripts have become inoperant but authenticity in relations remains elusive (for authenticity requires two). This is because it is a path to enlightenment, not another sedative, and the world is resistant to waking up from its sleep.

I want to warn you particularly about what tantra means if you are in a couple. When couples come to me, as they often do, believing that tantra might be a solution to their relationship problems (or just a nice add-on), they are wrong in almost every case, and even if it does work it will require perseverance, courage, understanding, and hard work over a long period. Tantra is a purely solitary path, from which richness in relationships is only a byproduct; it is not some kind of new age relationship therapy.

Tantra involves seeing and accepting what is there – what you feel, what the other feels. As you discover the self beneath the neuroses, it may lead you absolutely anywhere; in fact it would be statistically astonishing if it happened to lead you closer merely to your partner with all your wider relationship scripts intact. Jealousy, possessiveness, insecurity, fidelity, duty, image, all these scripts are logically slated for demolition too (in a humane, consensual, conscious and progressive manner of course – at least if you come to us; we know that these scripts hold important parts of your personality in place). If your current relationship, or indeed your very idea of relationship, is premised upon these scripts, it will not survive. So enter at your peril. If by writing this I have put you off, I will consider that I have done my duty.

Underneath, though, is, indeed, what (hopefully) was present at the outset: lust; love; transcendence. Awakened, descripted, it will not be mastered, channeled and controled; it will not fit any more into the boxes you made for it – if you try, you will cast it back into slumber. But awakened, it will at least be there. Getting there may be practically impossible, but if you feel the inescapable urge to seek this reality, an urge which dominates everything else, then you may just be better off when you arrive.