In the Chicago Art Museum, I saw some Tibetan iconography where religious figures of some importance are making love, more or less obviously. Yab means “father”, and yum “mother”. In Hinduism generally, the male deities are normally paired with female deities [as an unrelated but interesting side note, Gods are normally also paired with their mounts: Kartikeya, the god of war, rides a peacock; and Ganesha, the elephant headed “remover of obstacles” rides a rat],but they are not always obviously locked in a coital position.
In the iconography of Siva, he is often worshipped as the lingam, which is plainly an erect phallus, and understood as such. It is paired with a Yoni, which is that empty space where the lingam goes. The lingam is often worshipped by pouring milk over it.
I would like to offer several thoughts on this. The one that appears to me most important at the moment is this insight I had the other day. There is a circularity to male-female relationships that occurs on a physical level, but which transcends that.
What a man gives a woman is hard and tangible. On a physical level, his member is hard, and he emits something physical, that can lead to new life. Generally, he will also provide physical security for the woman, and often a source of sustenance. On an emotional level, he is generally less susceptible to ups and downs, and thus acts as a steadying force. This is all clear enough.
What a woman gives a man, though, is intangible. She gives him space–literally in the case of her body–but figuratively in the sense of softening him up, helping him feel more, be more sensitive and kind. If you think of a hard substance diluted by air–say whipped cream, which is perhaps an infelicitous metaphor, but let’s go with it–it is less dense. Men benefit from women in ways which I think they often cannot see. I visualized the whole relationship like this:
O
( )
!
You can visualize a man and woman in coital position, and from the bottom flows something hard, that then circulates up the woman, and reenters the man as space. It is a process of contraction and expansion, continued endlessly.
As far as that goes, consider the conception of a child. Its source is a tiny egg, and a tablespoon or two of generative substance, of which only a single microscopic bit will make any difference. From that, though, grows a baby, within the woman.
In my own terms, I would call this the quantitative/qualitative distinction. Quantity exists in space; it has extent and duration; quality exists as the form of that space, and has neither extent nor duration. This is the old li and chi distinction I talked about many posts ago.
In our own day and time, this basic mechanism has eroded. What the socialists (who I use more or less interchangeably with “those who want to destroy all cultures”) want is the sexual masculinisation of women, and the pacification/feminization of men, which is to say the erosion of their protective instincts, as expressed in the principled defense of their homes and ways of living.
I was in a bar the other day, talking to a very attractive Canadian woman, and she said of some other group of Canadians that they “can suck my dick”. Now, I’ve never heard a woman day that before, for the obvious reason that that isn’t logistically possible (absent a strap-on, which may be what she had in mind; I will add that this is intended as an adult blog, dedicated to solving real problems facing real people; prudishness is not something I practice or believe in,and feel it is silly and counterproductive).
On a deeper level, though, the BJ has entered our culture as a primary sexual element, and not as an occasional treat for the man. Many men expect one on the second or third date. It has come to be a synonym, as with this woman, for domination.
This is a world purely characterized by physicality. I even once heard a man say that it really didn’t matter if it was a man or woman delivering it. There is no emotional connection at all. It is purely sensation, and as such utterly devoid of quality, and of the feminine.
It is the lingam without the yoni. It negates the “father” aspect entirely, since it is not procreative, and need not involve a woman at all.
More generally, even in “normal” sex, I feel that this return of space is absent in most relationships. Men look to “sex” early in life, and rarely are able to turn to love with the ease that would be the case if sex per se were not so prominant. I have long felt this preoccupation with “getting laid” was a curse. Yes, you can do it. You can find a willing woman. I did, and so do most young men. But you have left behind the possibility of LEARNING from it, of taking away from that woman what she actually has to give you besides her body. And for her part, as I have often said, she forgets who she was over time.
We need to return to the circle. It is the path of health and fulfillment. The way to do this is for men in particular–but to a lesser extent woman as well who have been masculinized in their sexual habits–to increase their capacity for feeling, and decrease their focus purely on the physical. As I have said a number of times, I feel Kum Nye is a good means for doing this. So is consciously valuing the women in your life, and realizing that they are giving to you even when you don’t consciously see it.