Perhaps, by now, you have heard of a rather interesting phenomenon in dating and relationships called "The Five Love Languages," which came from psychologist Gary Chapman's observations of the many couples he's counseled over the years.
Now, you may be aware that Chapman's a Christian. A rather staunch, Bible-believing Christian, to be truthful, and it's not likely he'd take me, or anyone like me as a client. I would have difficulty revealing my Paganish, divination-and-crystal-oriented, Starseed-Indigo ways to begin with. I can talk a good talk about Jesus as healer, but let's face it: I resonate a LOT more with Brighid, Lugh, Danu, Ganesh and any other member of the non-Judeo-Christian realms of philosophy and ceremony. Heck, I'm more likely to refer to God as "Wakan Tanka" or Great Spirit.
But all that aside, Chapman's discovery and documentation of these five love languages has transformed tons of relationships already. So, if you're something of a Pagan like I am, but you're still faced with the irritating fact that your partner or spouse doesn't quite understand how you need physical touch, words of affirmation or any of the three other languages in order to feel loved and appreciated, push aside the fact that Chapman's a Christian and look at the Love Languages for what they are: five fabulous ways that you can fill, as Chapman calls it, your partner's "love tank."
Actually, this concept is not too far away from Steven Covey's concept of "making emotional deposits in someone else's emotional bank account." Just different words.
So, what *are* the Five Love Languages?
1) Physical Touch (this is my primary Language, BTW): This includes everything from those first gentle touches at the beginning of a romance to the big explosive bedroom fireworks (or anywhere else you can get some privacy!).
Ways to Ruin this Love Language: Physical abuse of any kind, obvs. Thankfully, I have never experienced this, but to those of you who have, find a way to get yourself OUT, NOW!
2) Words of Affirmation. (My secondary Language). This includes encouraging words, saying/hearing "I Love You" and "I appreciate you doing that for me," and "You mean so much to me and my life"--stuff like that. Even if you only said this stuff to me once or twice a day, that's a damn sight better than belittling me.
Ways to Ruin this Love Language: Belittling and other abusive words that demean and discourage. On the flip side, too many words of affirmation can also be demeaning, making it sound like the person you're talking to is mentally challenged and has to be talked to like they're a little kid.
3) Quality Time. (My other secondary Language). Quality time is time spent with your significant other, either in deep conversation, or whatever it is that keeps the pair of you connected. Combine this with Physical Touch, and I'm all over it! ;-)
Ways to Ruin this Love Language: Loss of quality time has become something of a big issue thanks to handheld devices with access to the internet. No matter how much time you spend with someone, if you've got your nose and fingers on your tablet or smart-phone, there's no real engaging with the other person emotionally. Unless you're playing video games or renting movies, or even coding computer programs together, I personally recommend that dates should optimally be as tech-free as possible--vibrating sex toys notwithstanding. ;-)
4) Acts of Service (My third-biggest Language). Usually "acts of service" in this sense, refer to doing things like chores, errands, etc.
Ways to Ruin this Love Language: When your loved one uses this love language to suck up to you or thinks he has to appease you with certain things, you need to seriously think about helping him get some help, if you want to stick with him long-term. Because he's clearly been indoctrinated into the religion of "If Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy unless they do something to try and please her," and he is clearly projecting his mother onto you. Which means there's a high likelihood that your loved one's mother was a complete narcissist. Unless he gets help, he will absolutely have trouble seeing you as his girlfriend or wife, an individual with tastes and a personality (hopefully) far different from his mother. I know this because my dad's like this.
Another way to ruin this love language of doing things for others, is being distracted to the point that you completely forget that you told them you were going to do that thing you promised you'd do.
A third way to ruin this language is not taking care of yourself enough during most of your life and not doing things for yourself enough during most of your life, to the point where people DON'T want to do things for you, because they get the feeling that you want them to be your personal servant, which takes away from what THEY want to do in life. You therefore end up coming across as a lazy-arse child who takes advantage of other people's good nature.
To the people who feel like acts of service make you feel loved: Okay, I get it, this is your primary language. But don't use this to emotionally hold your loved ones hostage in any way if they don't do precisely what you want them to do when you want them to do it. They are not robots. They are human beings with lives, just like you, and they deserve every inch of personal autonomy possible. They deserve the right to say "yes" or "no," and they deserve not to be hollered at or whined at or manipulated if the answer is "no." If you are in a romantic relationship and you know you do this, and you don't cease such a selfish attitude, you are going to find yourself without a lover in very, very short order, if the other person knows what's good for them.
5) Gift-Giving (My smallest Language). This language is about liking to receive gifts, and people feeling like they're loved when they receive those little "just-because" things throughout the relationship. It's also about wanting to be the giver.
Ways to Ruin this Love Language: Like the Acts of Service item, when your loved one uses this to try and suck up to you if they've messed up, and they believe you'll react just like whoever else did that made them feel like crap for messing up, do try and help them to get help, because it's likely another symptom of being around a narcissistic, self-absorbed, selfish parent who never had their bullshit behavior nipped in the bud.
The other way to ruin this love language is if you are the giver and you expect something in return for whatever you give. Now, I know a lot of you out there aren't like this, but I've been burnt by people (mostly my narcissistic relative) who are like this. They wouldn't know unconditional gift-giving, even at Christmas. So, you could say my desire to receive gifts is far less pronounced. Unless it's from people I know who don't do "strings attached" stuff, or it's something big and meaningful to the relationship, especially if the relationship is of a romantic nature, or if it's the holidays, or my birthday, I admit--I kinda cringe at just being given things.
I know I wrote a ton, especially on the last two, but again, I confess, I've been burnt by the ruinous behaviors I wrote about. So my trust levels on the Acts of Service and Gift-Giving Love Language are a bit low, and it's going to take some solid-as-steel proof that the person in front of me doesn't have a twisted view of the last two languages. Because ego is what ruins the goodness of the five languages to begin with.
Until Later,
Kat
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Happy Little Druid
It is most definitely official: I am so. Freakin. TIRED of hearing about the Duggars.
I'm just as exhausted by the extreme atheists.
Both make me glad..no...happy...no...THRILLED beyond measure that I am on the path I'm on.
Druidry blends both life in the physical as well as metaphysical realms. It incorporates ALL of life itself, physical and non-physical. There's no shaming, just a friendly hand to hold and God-Within-Nature's guidance if you've lost yourself.
There's an acknowledgement of the Divinity within both masculine and feminine polarities and does not declare one better than the other. It is one of the most egalitarian ways of being I have ever come across.
So why am I writing about this in this specific blog?
Because the Duggars, especially their "patriarch," are twisted, brainwashed, whatever you want to call it, when it comes to sexuality.
I'm not going to write any more on these people because they're so twisted it makes me both speechless and angry at the same time.
They make me want to start a new sexual revolution, akin to the one in the 1960s...only with a bit more sensible responsibility, of course. ;-)
But perhaps I'll be a bit more surreptitious about it. Ideas have power...which is why I will likely migrate this blog over to Tumblr and get an actual domain name for this. Okay, so sexual openness and lack of shame has been around for a while--it's nothing new...but is there a way I could add to it?
Forthrightness...that's a part of it.
Humor...no sense in treating sex so starkly that it still can't be laughed about.
Ultimately, Truth and Beauty of the whole thing. There's even a beauty, however dark it may seem, to certain kinky things.
I've even had thoughts about applying for a part-time job at Romantix. That would make my mom cringe and my dad raise his eyebrows.
But I was not born an Indigo for nothing. ;-)
Laterz,
Kat ^.^
I'm just as exhausted by the extreme atheists.
Both make me glad..no...happy...no...THRILLED beyond measure that I am on the path I'm on.
Druidry blends both life in the physical as well as metaphysical realms. It incorporates ALL of life itself, physical and non-physical. There's no shaming, just a friendly hand to hold and God-Within-Nature's guidance if you've lost yourself.
There's an acknowledgement of the Divinity within both masculine and feminine polarities and does not declare one better than the other. It is one of the most egalitarian ways of being I have ever come across.
So why am I writing about this in this specific blog?
Because the Duggars, especially their "patriarch," are twisted, brainwashed, whatever you want to call it, when it comes to sexuality.
I'm not going to write any more on these people because they're so twisted it makes me both speechless and angry at the same time.
They make me want to start a new sexual revolution, akin to the one in the 1960s...only with a bit more sensible responsibility, of course. ;-)
But perhaps I'll be a bit more surreptitious about it. Ideas have power...which is why I will likely migrate this blog over to Tumblr and get an actual domain name for this. Okay, so sexual openness and lack of shame has been around for a while--it's nothing new...but is there a way I could add to it?
Forthrightness...that's a part of it.
Humor...no sense in treating sex so starkly that it still can't be laughed about.
Ultimately, Truth and Beauty of the whole thing. There's even a beauty, however dark it may seem, to certain kinky things.
I've even had thoughts about applying for a part-time job at Romantix. That would make my mom cringe and my dad raise his eyebrows.
But I was not born an Indigo for nothing. ;-)
Laterz,
Kat ^.^
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Blurred Lines: My Reaction
So, the controversial song of 2013 and 2014 was "Blurred Lines," by Robin Thicke.
All right, so I'm a year or two late in making this blog, let alone thinking of the concept. So sue me. I still don't know what to make of this song, so I'm going to write about it anyway. Just because I've been wanting to.
Here is my basic reaction:
On the one hand, I think: "Okay, I've written erotica, and I'm pretty liberal with my views."
But on the other hand, I think: "for some reason, I get an uncomfortable feeling in my gut watching it."
Now, considering I created this blog to talk about sex and sensuality, sensual living, etc, you'd think I'd have all kinds of good feelings about this--sticking with the theme of the blog.
This song really does create some "blurred lines" in my psyche. Even in this 37-year-old brain, there is some serious confusion reigning, thanks to this song. I don't know whether to praise it or loathe it.
I mean, even "Fifty Shades of Grey" has less confusing a message than "Blurred Lines."
The one thing I've managed to pick out from the song is about supposedly a "good girl" possibly being a "wild animal" in bed underneath that "innocent" facade.
Really, that's about it. And considering a further discussion on this topic, I can't help but think: where the hell to start? I mean, I don't want to sound like an ivory tower professor, all properly pedantic.
But I have my own deeper thoughts on human sexuality and how it's been treated over the millenia. And right now, they're a bit hard to articulate because the song's so freaking confusing.
Well, one thought's maybe not so difficult: human sexuality is an extraordinary thing...complicated and simple at the same time, if you can imagine it. What could be simpler than two people being attracted to each other, and wanting loving companionship at the same time? Yet what could be more complicated than two people with histories, with baggage, still finding each other and managing, through the haze of their emotional wounds, to fall in love with each other--romantically, erotically, heart and soul, down to their bones?
This kind of deep questioning in my heart and mind makes Robin Thicke's song seem so...cheap. I mean, I don't want to judge others for just jumping into bed together if they really feel they want to. The potency of sexual attraction is hard to deny, no matter where you are on the spiritual spectrum.
Which brings me to the other part of the conundrum about sex: Western Puritanism, or the remaining chokehold it has on the way we think about something that should be seen as normal, has taught generations of Americans that the body is bad, and sex is even worse because, oh mercy-sakes-alive, it actually feels good.
And in the Puritanical world, if you're feeling good about anything, because of anything, you're being influenced by the devil, and God will judge you for all the moments you're being joyful and happy, especially if you've got a crush on someone, they're crushing on you right back and holy-moly, you guys wanna get it on--or, at least do some serious making out.
On the other end, here's Robin Thicke's song, with the lyric of "the way you grab me/you wanna get nasty."
Well...in my view, sex is far from "nasty." It's one of the most beautiful things ever, especially if you're with someone that loves you, and you love them back, regardless of whether you're married or not.
It's even more powerful and beautiful if you're one of those people who's not exactly been lucky in love and you finally find that one person who represents the end of your search.
And maybe that's why "Blurred Lines" makes me so uncomfortable. Yes, I'll be honest about that. It makes me uncomfortable. Okay, yes, it's true, life begins at the end of one's comfort zone. Thanks to Neale Donald Walsch for that quote.
But here's the crux of it: I'm extremely romantic and spiritual. Not in the uber-religious sense...but in that heady, profound, mystical-experience sense that sexual encounters have the potential to be.
Even "Fifty Shades" feels more profound, in its own way than "Blurred Lines" does. Because even "Fifty Shades" has some level of deeper emotion to it. "Blurred Lines" feels...shallow...truly superficial. It's almost like the ultimate song of the one-night stand.
And even in the "Fifty Shades" series, there's some serious stuff going on between Anastasia and Christian. Definitely some deep emotional stuff that I think is worth exploring.
But "Blurred Lines," deep down, makes me cringe. In addition to what I said before, I think it's because of the idea that, in the song's lyrics, the guy is saying, "I'm gonna liberate ya."
Oookaay...from what, exactly? Is the guy saying that the girl should just toss away any and all ideas of connection on the emotional level and she should go ahead and just connect only on the physical? Is that it?
See what I mean about the song itself being confusing? Hell, the song pretty much sums up the very confused, schizoid state of sexuality in America. Only it doesn't quite get to the point of it as dramatically or even romantically as "Fifty Shades." Yes, there are some romantic bits in those books, despite Christian Grey himself saying he's "not a hearts-and-flowers" guy.
Yes, I keep comparing the two creative works, though I think "Fifty Shades" was a damn sight more creative than "Blurred Lines" was.
And frankly, as a final thought: Regardless of the fact that I am thoroughly NOT into BDSM, I think "Fifty Shades" has done more to actually liberate people and start a decent conversation than that crazy Robin Thicke song. Sorry, Mr. Thicke, but you really played to the lowest common denominator, far lower than E.L. James did.
That's my take on "Blurred Lines." I said my piece. I may or may not reference it again. I hope I don't have to.
Until Later,
Kat
All right, so I'm a year or two late in making this blog, let alone thinking of the concept. So sue me. I still don't know what to make of this song, so I'm going to write about it anyway. Just because I've been wanting to.
Here is my basic reaction:
On the one hand, I think: "Okay, I've written erotica, and I'm pretty liberal with my views."
But on the other hand, I think: "for some reason, I get an uncomfortable feeling in my gut watching it."
Now, considering I created this blog to talk about sex and sensuality, sensual living, etc, you'd think I'd have all kinds of good feelings about this--sticking with the theme of the blog.
This song really does create some "blurred lines" in my psyche. Even in this 37-year-old brain, there is some serious confusion reigning, thanks to this song. I don't know whether to praise it or loathe it.
I mean, even "Fifty Shades of Grey" has less confusing a message than "Blurred Lines."
The one thing I've managed to pick out from the song is about supposedly a "good girl" possibly being a "wild animal" in bed underneath that "innocent" facade.
Really, that's about it. And considering a further discussion on this topic, I can't help but think: where the hell to start? I mean, I don't want to sound like an ivory tower professor, all properly pedantic.
But I have my own deeper thoughts on human sexuality and how it's been treated over the millenia. And right now, they're a bit hard to articulate because the song's so freaking confusing.
Well, one thought's maybe not so difficult: human sexuality is an extraordinary thing...complicated and simple at the same time, if you can imagine it. What could be simpler than two people being attracted to each other, and wanting loving companionship at the same time? Yet what could be more complicated than two people with histories, with baggage, still finding each other and managing, through the haze of their emotional wounds, to fall in love with each other--romantically, erotically, heart and soul, down to their bones?
This kind of deep questioning in my heart and mind makes Robin Thicke's song seem so...cheap. I mean, I don't want to judge others for just jumping into bed together if they really feel they want to. The potency of sexual attraction is hard to deny, no matter where you are on the spiritual spectrum.
Which brings me to the other part of the conundrum about sex: Western Puritanism, or the remaining chokehold it has on the way we think about something that should be seen as normal, has taught generations of Americans that the body is bad, and sex is even worse because, oh mercy-sakes-alive, it actually feels good.
And in the Puritanical world, if you're feeling good about anything, because of anything, you're being influenced by the devil, and God will judge you for all the moments you're being joyful and happy, especially if you've got a crush on someone, they're crushing on you right back and holy-moly, you guys wanna get it on--or, at least do some serious making out.
On the other end, here's Robin Thicke's song, with the lyric of "the way you grab me/you wanna get nasty."
Well...in my view, sex is far from "nasty." It's one of the most beautiful things ever, especially if you're with someone that loves you, and you love them back, regardless of whether you're married or not.
It's even more powerful and beautiful if you're one of those people who's not exactly been lucky in love and you finally find that one person who represents the end of your search.
And maybe that's why "Blurred Lines" makes me so uncomfortable. Yes, I'll be honest about that. It makes me uncomfortable. Okay, yes, it's true, life begins at the end of one's comfort zone. Thanks to Neale Donald Walsch for that quote.
But here's the crux of it: I'm extremely romantic and spiritual. Not in the uber-religious sense...but in that heady, profound, mystical-experience sense that sexual encounters have the potential to be.
Even "Fifty Shades" feels more profound, in its own way than "Blurred Lines" does. Because even "Fifty Shades" has some level of deeper emotion to it. "Blurred Lines" feels...shallow...truly superficial. It's almost like the ultimate song of the one-night stand.
And even in the "Fifty Shades" series, there's some serious stuff going on between Anastasia and Christian. Definitely some deep emotional stuff that I think is worth exploring.
But "Blurred Lines," deep down, makes me cringe. In addition to what I said before, I think it's because of the idea that, in the song's lyrics, the guy is saying, "I'm gonna liberate ya."
Oookaay...from what, exactly? Is the guy saying that the girl should just toss away any and all ideas of connection on the emotional level and she should go ahead and just connect only on the physical? Is that it?
See what I mean about the song itself being confusing? Hell, the song pretty much sums up the very confused, schizoid state of sexuality in America. Only it doesn't quite get to the point of it as dramatically or even romantically as "Fifty Shades." Yes, there are some romantic bits in those books, despite Christian Grey himself saying he's "not a hearts-and-flowers" guy.
Yes, I keep comparing the two creative works, though I think "Fifty Shades" was a damn sight more creative than "Blurred Lines" was.
And frankly, as a final thought: Regardless of the fact that I am thoroughly NOT into BDSM, I think "Fifty Shades" has done more to actually liberate people and start a decent conversation than that crazy Robin Thicke song. Sorry, Mr. Thicke, but you really played to the lowest common denominator, far lower than E.L. James did.
That's my take on "Blurred Lines." I said my piece. I may or may not reference it again. I hope I don't have to.
Until Later,
Kat
John Oliver: Rockin' Sex Ed Like a Boss
I just watched a seriously hilarious episode of "Last Week Tonight," hosted by one of the most awesome Brits ever: John Oliver.
In this episode, aired 3 weeks ago on August 9th, John took up the very important--and for many Americans--nerve-wracking topic of sex ed.
Depending how old you are, some of you might have heard of the old play "No Sex Please, We're British."
Ha! Not in the 21st century, honey. John Oliver is forthright and his sense of humor about the topic is second-to-none.
I could write about the whole thing, but I think it would just be better if I posted the video. Because his research is impeccable, and I doubt seriously I could have been any funnier about the topic than he was.
Let me just say this before I go:
If all acts of love and pleasure are the Goddess's rituals, then there are way too many people who live in fear that they're actually going to enjoy something when it comes to sex, for fear that they would make their version of God angry. And I say "version of God," because in my experience, the Divine Creator is not some bearded dude who wants to wreak vengeance on us. No. That would be a Zeus-like character.
And in truth, Zeus himself was known to pick up unwilling chicks and impregnate them (not exactly the model of worrying about whether the girl was consenting or not), so we humans have come up with some really weird ideas about what the Divine Creator is really like.
Seriously, this whole episode of John Oliver's show came very, very close to pushing me towards becoming full-on Pagan. But then again, to some people, I might be, just because I acknowledge Jesus, but I'm hardly a "Jesus freak." I don't do the Bible study thing, just because, well...I've been more or less doing "graduate-level" work on the Other Side during my Dreamwalks. No Bible required.
Besides, I'm more into Neale Donald Walsch's stuff. :P
Anywho, here's the video:
Laters,
Kat ^.^
In this episode, aired 3 weeks ago on August 9th, John took up the very important--and for many Americans--nerve-wracking topic of sex ed.
Depending how old you are, some of you might have heard of the old play "No Sex Please, We're British."
Ha! Not in the 21st century, honey. John Oliver is forthright and his sense of humor about the topic is second-to-none.
I could write about the whole thing, but I think it would just be better if I posted the video. Because his research is impeccable, and I doubt seriously I could have been any funnier about the topic than he was.
Let me just say this before I go:
If all acts of love and pleasure are the Goddess's rituals, then there are way too many people who live in fear that they're actually going to enjoy something when it comes to sex, for fear that they would make their version of God angry. And I say "version of God," because in my experience, the Divine Creator is not some bearded dude who wants to wreak vengeance on us. No. That would be a Zeus-like character.
And in truth, Zeus himself was known to pick up unwilling chicks and impregnate them (not exactly the model of worrying about whether the girl was consenting or not), so we humans have come up with some really weird ideas about what the Divine Creator is really like.
Seriously, this whole episode of John Oliver's show came very, very close to pushing me towards becoming full-on Pagan. But then again, to some people, I might be, just because I acknowledge Jesus, but I'm hardly a "Jesus freak." I don't do the Bible study thing, just because, well...I've been more or less doing "graduate-level" work on the Other Side during my Dreamwalks. No Bible required.
Besides, I'm more into Neale Donald Walsch's stuff. :P
Anywho, here's the video:
Laters,
Kat ^.^
Saturday, August 29, 2015
"All Acts of Love & Pleasure..."
"All acts of love and pleasure are My rituals"--from Doreen Valiente's The Charge of the Goddess
I'm beginning this post with the quote that both partially inspires and completely fits the entire blog in question.
Because I am going to address a topic that needs serious attention. Not just within this post, but throughout all my posts. I've seen shifts in people's consciousness lately concerning what's considered "good" or "okay" or "acceptable" when it comes to experiencing things that could be considered...well...of a sensual and sexual nature.
But I don't want to talk just about the sex act itself, though that alone is pleasurable enough when you're in that blissful moment.
I want to talk about the stuff people would consider sensual--of the senses, quite literally, and of course any personal feelings or associations with sensuality, whether or not those things lead to people coupling up and having a good time.
I also want to share what it's like to be a Sensitive and live sensually--especially as it pertains to the mind-body-spirit connection. When you're a Sensitive, and you feel certain energies, you can end up being almost hyper-aware of what turns you on, sexually, at least in my experience. I've never talked with other Sensitives about this just because many still consider this kind of discussion off-limits because it *can* be seen or felt as invasive.
Of course, some religious groups still would have us humans deny our more body-centered urges, just because they believe that God and the human body should always be considered separate: God and Heaven are good. Earth and the human body are bad.
Sorry, but MY understanding of the Divine does not include this very limited way of thinking, so if you're one of those types, you are encouraged to stay and listen and learn something, perhaps shedding your religious inhibitions at the door and leaving them for good. Or you may leave for those pastures you think are so "righteous" and "pure." Whichever you choose is fine with me. I adhere too much to "live and let live" to get riled up about it.
But I do believe the uber-religious right-wing types still have a chokehold on how we view the connections between sensuality, spirituality and everything in between. Western culture is especially problematic in this realm, because the ones who have chosen to give up their power of choice and freedom of inquiry are the very ones who foist their values on others.
So, I am sure you are wondering a ton of things, since I mentioned sensuality and spirituality in the same post.
Q: Are you an atheist?
Oh, honey, far from it. I am about as non-atheist as you can get.
Q: Are you a New Ager?
Eh, you can call me that, and I won't shrink from the term. But I am far from "flakey."
Q: Are you a Christian?
Erm, well...I honor Jesus and his teachings, and I think it's horrible how he got treated by the Jewish powers that be, but he is no greater or less than the Buddha, or Krishna, etc. In fact, here's something that will likely shock you, especially if you've never read "Conversations with God":
"Christ" is just a title, a label, a consciousness, like the Buddha achieved...and his original name was Siddartha Gautama. And just as we all have Buddha-nature within us, we also have Christ-nature. It's a consciousness, rather than a name. You might hear of people talking about Krishna-consciousness. It's pretty much the same thing as Christ-consciousness--it just depends on what resonates with you. :-)
And the ultimate question, since I mentioned The Charge of the Goddess:
Q: Are you a Pagan?
Well, if you define Pagan to mean "Earth spirituality person," "Druidic," "ancestor-honoring," "animism," "polytheist/pantheist/panentheist," then my answer would have to be a resounding yes.
To be clear, I am more of a panentheist, meaning I believe the Divine is in everything--including us humans--yes, US!
But you won't find me going to church. I'm done with it.
So...my inner God/dess self is having me talk about sensuality here...because there's a conversation that needs to be had about sex, sensuality and how we humans have viewed such things with such skewed perceptions about "right," "wrong," "immoral," etc.
And yes, a lot is going to be mentioned about women and sexuality, especially since the "Fifty Shades" books took the literary world by storm--as have the various book series by other authors that have flooded the romance book market.
We need to have a serious second-chakra talk, people. And it's not just about the birds and the bees. It's about a whole ton of other stuff that we, as the human race, are only just now opening up to after so much repression and guilty feelings about our sensual and sexual natures as human beings.
Is it any wonder that one of the first boils of repression to be lanced concerns kinky sex and why kink exists? And that deserves a discussion all on its own, from as many angles as possible.
But then there are still some women out there that get all shy and virginal just about giving oral pleasure to the men they love. And that can easily deserve its own discussion, however long it takes.
Now...I am not saying we should take all the mystery and romance out of sex and sensuality, or take the romance out of romance itself.
Some people might say that having secret desires that can't be shared with anyone is part of the fun of having those primal feelings that can make us feel so incredibly passionate and in love with life itself, even. And I personally can't argue with that desire to have secret desires. ;-)
But to be so buttoned up about sex, or have such staunch notions about things like BDSM that it shouldn't even be discussed at all? Come on! Give me a break.
Hey, if E.L. James can write "Fifty Shades" and have it be a bestseller, even be optioned for a movie (which I *did* see), and countless other women can follow in her footsteps and be bold enough to have their sexy ideas put into print, then the time is now for all kinds of discussions to be had.
It's time to make like the Goddess Persephone descending into the Underworld, and dare to eat the pomegranate, swallowing the seeds. But ironically, it is uptight religious dogma, not Hades, that has held us prisoner concerning these matters.
It is the truth of the pomegranate seeds that sets us free, not human-made dogma. And if you've ever tasted actual pomegranates, or tasted pomegranate juice from those "Pom-Wonderful" bottles, then you know the utter deliciousness of which I speak. ;-) In fact, all fruit itself is sensual...juicy to the last bite. Just as life itself can be.
And I honestly can't think why a truly loving, benevolent Creator would ever deny us such pleasure.
Until Later,
Kat ^.^
I'm beginning this post with the quote that both partially inspires and completely fits the entire blog in question.
Because I am going to address a topic that needs serious attention. Not just within this post, but throughout all my posts. I've seen shifts in people's consciousness lately concerning what's considered "good" or "okay" or "acceptable" when it comes to experiencing things that could be considered...well...of a sensual and sexual nature.
But I don't want to talk just about the sex act itself, though that alone is pleasurable enough when you're in that blissful moment.
I want to talk about the stuff people would consider sensual--of the senses, quite literally, and of course any personal feelings or associations with sensuality, whether or not those things lead to people coupling up and having a good time.
I also want to share what it's like to be a Sensitive and live sensually--especially as it pertains to the mind-body-spirit connection. When you're a Sensitive, and you feel certain energies, you can end up being almost hyper-aware of what turns you on, sexually, at least in my experience. I've never talked with other Sensitives about this just because many still consider this kind of discussion off-limits because it *can* be seen or felt as invasive.
Of course, some religious groups still would have us humans deny our more body-centered urges, just because they believe that God and the human body should always be considered separate: God and Heaven are good. Earth and the human body are bad.
Sorry, but MY understanding of the Divine does not include this very limited way of thinking, so if you're one of those types, you are encouraged to stay and listen and learn something, perhaps shedding your religious inhibitions at the door and leaving them for good. Or you may leave for those pastures you think are so "righteous" and "pure." Whichever you choose is fine with me. I adhere too much to "live and let live" to get riled up about it.
But I do believe the uber-religious right-wing types still have a chokehold on how we view the connections between sensuality, spirituality and everything in between. Western culture is especially problematic in this realm, because the ones who have chosen to give up their power of choice and freedom of inquiry are the very ones who foist their values on others.
So, I am sure you are wondering a ton of things, since I mentioned sensuality and spirituality in the same post.
Q: Are you an atheist?
Oh, honey, far from it. I am about as non-atheist as you can get.
Q: Are you a New Ager?
Eh, you can call me that, and I won't shrink from the term. But I am far from "flakey."
Q: Are you a Christian?
Erm, well...I honor Jesus and his teachings, and I think it's horrible how he got treated by the Jewish powers that be, but he is no greater or less than the Buddha, or Krishna, etc. In fact, here's something that will likely shock you, especially if you've never read "Conversations with God":
"Christ" is just a title, a label, a consciousness, like the Buddha achieved...and his original name was Siddartha Gautama. And just as we all have Buddha-nature within us, we also have Christ-nature. It's a consciousness, rather than a name. You might hear of people talking about Krishna-consciousness. It's pretty much the same thing as Christ-consciousness--it just depends on what resonates with you. :-)
And the ultimate question, since I mentioned The Charge of the Goddess:
Q: Are you a Pagan?
Well, if you define Pagan to mean "Earth spirituality person," "Druidic," "ancestor-honoring," "animism," "polytheist/pantheist/panentheist," then my answer would have to be a resounding yes.
To be clear, I am more of a panentheist, meaning I believe the Divine is in everything--including us humans--yes, US!
But you won't find me going to church. I'm done with it.
So...my inner God/dess self is having me talk about sensuality here...because there's a conversation that needs to be had about sex, sensuality and how we humans have viewed such things with such skewed perceptions about "right," "wrong," "immoral," etc.
And yes, a lot is going to be mentioned about women and sexuality, especially since the "Fifty Shades" books took the literary world by storm--as have the various book series by other authors that have flooded the romance book market.
We need to have a serious second-chakra talk, people. And it's not just about the birds and the bees. It's about a whole ton of other stuff that we, as the human race, are only just now opening up to after so much repression and guilty feelings about our sensual and sexual natures as human beings.
Is it any wonder that one of the first boils of repression to be lanced concerns kinky sex and why kink exists? And that deserves a discussion all on its own, from as many angles as possible.
But then there are still some women out there that get all shy and virginal just about giving oral pleasure to the men they love. And that can easily deserve its own discussion, however long it takes.
Now...I am not saying we should take all the mystery and romance out of sex and sensuality, or take the romance out of romance itself.
Some people might say that having secret desires that can't be shared with anyone is part of the fun of having those primal feelings that can make us feel so incredibly passionate and in love with life itself, even. And I personally can't argue with that desire to have secret desires. ;-)
But to be so buttoned up about sex, or have such staunch notions about things like BDSM that it shouldn't even be discussed at all? Come on! Give me a break.
Hey, if E.L. James can write "Fifty Shades" and have it be a bestseller, even be optioned for a movie (which I *did* see), and countless other women can follow in her footsteps and be bold enough to have their sexy ideas put into print, then the time is now for all kinds of discussions to be had.
It's time to make like the Goddess Persephone descending into the Underworld, and dare to eat the pomegranate, swallowing the seeds. But ironically, it is uptight religious dogma, not Hades, that has held us prisoner concerning these matters.
It is the truth of the pomegranate seeds that sets us free, not human-made dogma. And if you've ever tasted actual pomegranates, or tasted pomegranate juice from those "Pom-Wonderful" bottles, then you know the utter deliciousness of which I speak. ;-) In fact, all fruit itself is sensual...juicy to the last bite. Just as life itself can be.
And I honestly can't think why a truly loving, benevolent Creator would ever deny us such pleasure.
Until Later,
Kat ^.^
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)