Click for bigger
I like the expression on her face - a mixture of concern and anticipation. Lovely.
From Bondage Pets
Friday 28 January 2011
Expectation
Click for bigger
I like the expression on her face - a mixture of concern and anticipation. Lovely.
From Bondage Pets
Saturday 22 January 2011
‘The word of Sin is Restriction’
18 years ago I came to a decision. I would never go into another monogamous relationship. I would make it clear from the start that I didn’t expect whoever I was with to switch off her sexuality with anyone else but me and vice versa. This was after years of struggling with the conflicts between my personal belief system and conventional ’morality’.
I’ve never regretted that decision. I felt incredibly liberated by it. The True Will is exactly that.
Looking around for a word to describe the opposite of monogamy, I had difficulty at first. Polygamy?, polyamory? They just didn’t sound right and contained concepts within them that I wasn’t altogether happy with. Then a bit of thinking and googling turned up the word Panogamous. ‘Pan’ as in ‘many’ and ‘Pan’ the God. Perfect.
The truth is I’ve never understood it, this idea that one’s sexual expression should be confined to one person. How many people really never find themselves sexually interested in someone other than their partner? It’s part fear and part posession. It’s a kind of trade-off - “I’ll shut down my genitalia with other people and you do the same, that means we’re safe and proves we love each other.”
Nonsense.
I’m reminded of the following passage from Robert Heinlein’s wonderful Stranger In A Strange Land, an essential book. Read it, if you haven’t already:
‘the ethics of sex is a thorny problem. each of us is forced to grope with a solution he can live with - in the face of a preposterous, unworkable and evil code of so-called ‘Morals’. Most of us know the code is wrong, almost everybody breaks it. But we pay Danegeld by feeling guilty and giving lip service. Willy-nilly, the code rides us, dead and stinking, an albatross around the neck. . .
. . .I see the beauty of Mike’s attempt to devise an ideal ethic and applaud his recognition that such must start by junking the present sexual code and starting fresh. Most philosophers haven’t the courage for this; they swallow the basics of the present code - monogamy, body taboos, conventional restrictions on intercourse and so forth - then fiddle with details . . . even such piffle as discussing whether the female breast is an obscne sight!
But mostly they debate how we can be made to obey this code -ignoring the evidence that most tragedies they see around them are rooted in the code itself rather than in failure to abide by it’
I couldn’t put it better than that.
Insecurity plays its part. We may worry that our other half will have a better time in bed with someone else. So what? Mocuar has had a hell of a lot more sexual experience than I have. The law of averages says that many of those men were younger than me, better looking than me, better fucks than me and had bigger dicks than me. But she chooses to be with me.
If what you have between you is right, that’s all that matters. You don’t need conventional morality to prop it up, any more than a sound building needs huge external beams to support it.
Ah, but sex is intimacy, it is said. Oh yeah? I have female friends who’ve seen me at my lowest and most exposed, have heard about my deepest feelings, helped me through bad times, and I’ve done the same for them. Is that really less intimate than a fuck?
All this came together when I discovered Sex Magick, in particular, Thelemic Magick. As it says in The Book Of The Law:
‘The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! Refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! ‘
Notice it says ‘Refuse not thy wife if she will’.
This is the key to Panogamy. Before you can embark on it, you must be totally happy with the idea of your other half having fun with it. Totally happy - not just put up with it because it means that you get your jollies in return.
It’s first and foremost about freeing others and bringing positive sex-magickal energy into the world.
It isn’t a libertine’s charter, I’m sometimes amused by the reaction of people I talk to about it. The usual pattern is disbelief followed by the assumption that we must both be rampantly promiscuous. We’re not. If it happens, it happens.
There are those, and I pretty much agree with them, who believe that the reason why sexual freedom is so ruthlessly suppressed is that it may be the key to other freedoms. A sense that if people are allowed to fuck who they like, when they like and in a way that they like, it will somehow make them less controllable. Mocuar once said “We’re not truly free until we’re sexually free” That’s why every totalitarian regime or puritanical religious system in history has always clamped down on sexuality. The greatest con-trick in history was when people were persuaded to collude in their own misfortune, to see it as moral, because the clergy or the government says so. And to attack, sometimes savagely, anyone who said there could be another way.
I’m not setting Panogamy up as some moral absolute. I’m certainly not saying that everyone should practice it. If a couple are genuinely happy with a monogamous arrangement and are truly uninterested in others, then fine.
But how many really are?
I’ve never regretted that decision. I felt incredibly liberated by it. The True Will is exactly that.
Looking around for a word to describe the opposite of monogamy, I had difficulty at first. Polygamy?, polyamory? They just didn’t sound right and contained concepts within them that I wasn’t altogether happy with. Then a bit of thinking and googling turned up the word Panogamous. ‘Pan’ as in ‘many’ and ‘Pan’ the God. Perfect.
The truth is I’ve never understood it, this idea that one’s sexual expression should be confined to one person. How many people really never find themselves sexually interested in someone other than their partner? It’s part fear and part posession. It’s a kind of trade-off - “I’ll shut down my genitalia with other people and you do the same, that means we’re safe and proves we love each other.”
Nonsense.
I’m reminded of the following passage from Robert Heinlein’s wonderful Stranger In A Strange Land, an essential book. Read it, if you haven’t already:
‘the ethics of sex is a thorny problem. each of us is forced to grope with a solution he can live with - in the face of a preposterous, unworkable and evil code of so-called ‘Morals’. Most of us know the code is wrong, almost everybody breaks it. But we pay Danegeld by feeling guilty and giving lip service. Willy-nilly, the code rides us, dead and stinking, an albatross around the neck. . .
. . .I see the beauty of Mike’s attempt to devise an ideal ethic and applaud his recognition that such must start by junking the present sexual code and starting fresh. Most philosophers haven’t the courage for this; they swallow the basics of the present code - monogamy, body taboos, conventional restrictions on intercourse and so forth - then fiddle with details . . . even such piffle as discussing whether the female breast is an obscne sight!
But mostly they debate how we can be made to obey this code -ignoring the evidence that most tragedies they see around them are rooted in the code itself rather than in failure to abide by it’
I couldn’t put it better than that.
Insecurity plays its part. We may worry that our other half will have a better time in bed with someone else. So what? Mocuar has had a hell of a lot more sexual experience than I have. The law of averages says that many of those men were younger than me, better looking than me, better fucks than me and had bigger dicks than me. But she chooses to be with me.
If what you have between you is right, that’s all that matters. You don’t need conventional morality to prop it up, any more than a sound building needs huge external beams to support it.
Ah, but sex is intimacy, it is said. Oh yeah? I have female friends who’ve seen me at my lowest and most exposed, have heard about my deepest feelings, helped me through bad times, and I’ve done the same for them. Is that really less intimate than a fuck?
All this came together when I discovered Sex Magick, in particular, Thelemic Magick. As it says in The Book Of The Law:
‘The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! Refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! ‘
Notice it says ‘Refuse not thy wife if she will’.
This is the key to Panogamy. Before you can embark on it, you must be totally happy with the idea of your other half having fun with it. Totally happy - not just put up with it because it means that you get your jollies in return.
It’s first and foremost about freeing others and bringing positive sex-magickal energy into the world.
It isn’t a libertine’s charter, I’m sometimes amused by the reaction of people I talk to about it. The usual pattern is disbelief followed by the assumption that we must both be rampantly promiscuous. We’re not. If it happens, it happens.
There are those, and I pretty much agree with them, who believe that the reason why sexual freedom is so ruthlessly suppressed is that it may be the key to other freedoms. A sense that if people are allowed to fuck who they like, when they like and in a way that they like, it will somehow make them less controllable. Mocuar once said “We’re not truly free until we’re sexually free” That’s why every totalitarian regime or puritanical religious system in history has always clamped down on sexuality. The greatest con-trick in history was when people were persuaded to collude in their own misfortune, to see it as moral, because the clergy or the government says so. And to attack, sometimes savagely, anyone who said there could be another way.
I’m not setting Panogamy up as some moral absolute. I’m certainly not saying that everyone should practice it. If a couple are genuinely happy with a monogamous arrangement and are truly uninterested in others, then fine.
But how many really are?
Monday 17 January 2011
Scarlet Temples
Found Scarlet Temples today.
I've just had a quick scoot round it and there are some interesting links. Enjoy.
I've just had a quick scoot round it and there are some interesting links. Enjoy.
Tuesday 11 January 2011
A Couple Of Visual Delights
I found these on Knife To A Gun Fight - some interesting stuff there.
The Pentacle gives this one that extra something:
And this has a surreal quality I rather like:
Click for bigger
The Pentacle gives this one that extra something:
And this has a surreal quality I rather like:
Click for bigger
Monday 10 January 2011
Sky-Down V. Earth-Up
We were talking recently about the basic principles of Sex Magick and how they are applied when it hit me. or rather, it rippled up the back of my neck and detonated in my brain.
We live in a culture that is primarily (and sadly) Judeo - Christian in it’s thinking. This affects our concepts even when we think we have rejected the religions that spawned those ideas. I’ve touched upon this before but recently it assumed a clearer form.
It’s this. Most spiritual thinking is ‘Sky-Down’ i.e. there is a God (usually male) and he’s ‘up there’ - (Greek and Roman pagnism had a ruling sky-God) And he’s always extremely repressive and controlling. There’s also a heaven or equivalent and it’s ‘up there' - ’remember the song ‘Spirit In The Sky?’ Or there are Angels, Devis etc all of whom are seen as ‘above’. We talk, even Pagans, of ‘bringing power down’ We use terms like ‘it’s above me’ or we might see a wise person or Guru as being ‘above us’. Knowledge is ‘handed down’. The concept infuses the language - we talk about something we don’t like as being ‘beneath us’ and so forth.
This Sky-Down spirituality is delivered to the masses by appointed representatives (Clergy, Gurus, various authorities) who decide what is or isn’t permissable according to their interpretation of spirituality - Do as you’re told and you’ll get to heaven.
But the life-force begins in the earth and grows upwards from it. That’s where our power originates and this is particularly true of Sex Magick. If we adopt a Sky-Down approach to it, we are, in effect, denying the raw, earthy power-source without which, effective sex magickal working is impossible. A great deal of the prissy new age tantra stuff is Sky-Down in it’s approach. (and don’t even get me started on the new age fluffbunny types).
I remember an occasion when Mocuar was very much in her power and she turned to me with a look of absolute wonderment and said “I’ve just realised I could fuck absolutely anyone”.
Earth-up energy is raw, shameless and uncompromising. It doesn’t care about moral codes (which is why, when you invoke it, you have to be damn certain of your intention). It just is.
It’s Pan, it’s Dionysus, It’s Babalon.
We fear it, we worry about what others would think.. We fear it because we are afraid of being lost in it, overcome by it to the point where we have no control. This may be valid, to an extent. Certainly there’s been enough examples of this happening to various groups and individuals in the past. But it doesn’t have to be so. The key is the True Will which, if it is realised, gives us the focus, It also brooks no denial.
Difficult, I know. But very worthwile. And a hell of a lot of fun!
We live in a culture that is primarily (and sadly) Judeo - Christian in it’s thinking. This affects our concepts even when we think we have rejected the religions that spawned those ideas. I’ve touched upon this before but recently it assumed a clearer form.
It’s this. Most spiritual thinking is ‘Sky-Down’ i.e. there is a God (usually male) and he’s ‘up there’ - (Greek and Roman pagnism had a ruling sky-God) And he’s always extremely repressive and controlling. There’s also a heaven or equivalent and it’s ‘up there' - ’remember the song ‘Spirit In The Sky?’ Or there are Angels, Devis etc all of whom are seen as ‘above’. We talk, even Pagans, of ‘bringing power down’ We use terms like ‘it’s above me’ or we might see a wise person or Guru as being ‘above us’. Knowledge is ‘handed down’. The concept infuses the language - we talk about something we don’t like as being ‘beneath us’ and so forth.
This Sky-Down spirituality is delivered to the masses by appointed representatives (Clergy, Gurus, various authorities) who decide what is or isn’t permissable according to their interpretation of spirituality - Do as you’re told and you’ll get to heaven.
But the life-force begins in the earth and grows upwards from it. That’s where our power originates and this is particularly true of Sex Magick. If we adopt a Sky-Down approach to it, we are, in effect, denying the raw, earthy power-source without which, effective sex magickal working is impossible. A great deal of the prissy new age tantra stuff is Sky-Down in it’s approach. (and don’t even get me started on the new age fluffbunny types).
I remember an occasion when Mocuar was very much in her power and she turned to me with a look of absolute wonderment and said “I’ve just realised I could fuck absolutely anyone”.
Earth-up energy is raw, shameless and uncompromising. It doesn’t care about moral codes (which is why, when you invoke it, you have to be damn certain of your intention). It just is.
It’s Pan, it’s Dionysus, It’s Babalon.
We fear it, we worry about what others would think.. We fear it because we are afraid of being lost in it, overcome by it to the point where we have no control. This may be valid, to an extent. Certainly there’s been enough examples of this happening to various groups and individuals in the past. But it doesn’t have to be so. The key is the True Will which, if it is realised, gives us the focus, It also brooks no denial.
Difficult, I know. But very worthwile. And a hell of a lot of fun!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)