I've just read a pretty interesting article online. I'll admit that I'm skeptical about it, but the premise is intriguing. It's all about the question of what causes addiction. The basic idea (and the author backs it up with a bunch of studies) is rather than chemical dependency being involved, he claims that the cause of addiction is isolation and disconnection.
Johann Hari makes at least two major points from this. The first is that the war on drugs doesn't stop drug addiction. He thinks, and uses the example of what's been done successfully in Portugal, that drugs should be decriminalized and addicts should be given social supports. This is not only more humane but works a lot better.
More important to my thinking is his second point. We also need to deal with the social isolation and lack of connection that this society fosters. As he put it, "We need now to talk about social recovery -- how we all recover, together, from the sickness of isolation that is sinking on us like a thick fog."
I think (no surprise to anyone who reads this blog) that community is one of the main antidotes to isolation and that we need to rebuild this society so that it's based on human connection (as well as our connections to the earth and the ecosystem) rather than selling products and controlling people. This is real social alchemy.
Quote of the Day: "...the opposite of addiction is not sobriety. It is human connection. ...
"Human beings are bonding animals. We need to connect and love." - Johann Hari
Showing posts with label Love/Affection/Sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Love/Affection/Sex. Show all posts
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Monday, October 13, 2014
The Functions of Sex
Every so often, as I cover every subject I can think of in the belief that everything is connected--and everything is related to social change and community--I occasionally come to the subject of sex. I've mentioned several times that I am pansexual (I used to use the term bisexual--but that implies that there are either only two sexes or that I'm only interested in two of them) and polyamorous. These days I sometimes think of myself as panamorous--I'm learning to love everybody and everything.
I'm very aware that sex is only one way (out of perhaps zillions) of loving another person, but it's a very important one and one that's quite lovely to me and many other folks. I'm also very aware that this isn't a useful way of loving for some people and actual talking about it upsets some folks, so I don't talk about it much.
I am also not surprised, and can understand it, when certain religious people claim that the only function of sex is for procreation. I am much more surprised, and rather dismayed, when I hear that claim from more science-oriented folks.
In my last post (The Body's Wisdom), I reviewed Sherwin Nuland's book The Wisdom of the Body. I really liked it, as I said in the review, and want to point out that he covers many of the body's systems in some detail: the circulatory system, lymphatic system, the nervous system, the hormonal system, the alimentary (gastrointestinal) system, and the reproductive system. And I learned from and enjoyed almost everything he wrote, except when he was writing about the reproductive system.
Here is a condensed (and, I think, representative) sample of what he wrote:
"Our reproductive organs... contribute nothing to our survival. ... they contribute everything to our ability to reproduce ourselves.
"...The entire female reproductive system exists to serve the needs of the ovary. The whole complex of uterus, tubes, vagina, and external genitals has as its sole function to ensure that the ovary's primary product, the ovum, is properly cared for. ...
"The ovum's blind quest... is one of the most powerful primordial forces in the creation of what we call human nature. ... We know that the urge to reproduce is a prime mover in all other animals--why not ourselves? Were it otherwise, our species would die out.
"... We seek a course toward reproducing our own kind through the maze and morass of contradictory drives... The complex and uncertain journey is not made one iota easier by ... being directed toward what is ultimately, under its many-layered raiment of sexuality, the simple need that an ovum be fertilized."
There is no question that one of the main functions of sexuality is reproduction. For many creatures, from earthworms to aardvarks, that may be the sole function. (Although I strongly suspect that earthworms, not to mention aardvarks, enjoy the process.) I don't believe that's true when we are talking about primates. Sex has a whole bunch of functions for human beings and even for our closest relatives, the chimpanzees and the bonobos. (For a bit more on this see my post Bonobos and Chimpanzees, 7/30/08.) As primatologist Frans de Waal once pointed out, "Chimps use violence to get sex, while bonobos use sex to avoid violence." No one who studied bonobos would believe that their only use of sex was for reproduction.
I want to look at three of what I think are the main functions of sex for human beings. (I suspect that there are others, but this is what I want to focus on.)
And, yes, the first is reproduction. If we didn't have sex and reproduce, we would, as Sherwin Nuland pointed out, die out. The Shakers are an interesting example of that. On the other hand, what Dr Nuland and many other advocates of sex as reproduction fail to observe is that we are now in a situation of population overshoot. We don't need to always reproduce--in fact, increasing reproduction may also cause the human race to die off. (For more on controlling population see my very early post Five Simple Things You Can Do to Reduce Population, 8/21/08.)
This also fails to observe how important sex is for same sex couples and even heterosexual couples that don't want children--or couples who have had children and don't want more or are beyond the age of child bearing. (Not to mention for people who engage in non-couple sex like masturbation, threesomes, etc.) This is one of the main reasons heterosexual people practice birth control--they want to have sex without reproducing. And I've never heard even religious groups say that couples beyond their reproductive years have to stop having sex. Sex must have a purpose beyond reproduction.
Here's one. Pleasure. Sex is pleasurable and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think that one of the nicest functions of sex is to give another person pleasure. Yes, we ourselves get pleasure from sex, but what a gift it is to give pleasure to another person--hopefully making them very happy. I think this is a wonderful function of sex.
And here's another. Connection. Sex is one way (but hardly the only way) to help people feel closer. It literally can be a way to connect very closely with another human.
There are many, many people using sex for pleasure and connection, as a way of being loving with another person (or with themselves) who have no interest in using it to have children. While reproduction is important (and problematic as well) it is hardly the only function of sex.
Quote of the Day: "Sex is for pleasure, a complete and worthwhile goal in and of itself. People have sex because it feels very good, and then they feel good about themselves." - Dossie Easton and Catherine Liszt
I'm very aware that sex is only one way (out of perhaps zillions) of loving another person, but it's a very important one and one that's quite lovely to me and many other folks. I'm also very aware that this isn't a useful way of loving for some people and actual talking about it upsets some folks, so I don't talk about it much.
I am also not surprised, and can understand it, when certain religious people claim that the only function of sex is for procreation. I am much more surprised, and rather dismayed, when I hear that claim from more science-oriented folks.
In my last post (The Body's Wisdom), I reviewed Sherwin Nuland's book The Wisdom of the Body. I really liked it, as I said in the review, and want to point out that he covers many of the body's systems in some detail: the circulatory system, lymphatic system, the nervous system, the hormonal system, the alimentary (gastrointestinal) system, and the reproductive system. And I learned from and enjoyed almost everything he wrote, except when he was writing about the reproductive system.
Here is a condensed (and, I think, representative) sample of what he wrote:
"Our reproductive organs... contribute nothing to our survival. ... they contribute everything to our ability to reproduce ourselves.
"...The entire female reproductive system exists to serve the needs of the ovary. The whole complex of uterus, tubes, vagina, and external genitals has as its sole function to ensure that the ovary's primary product, the ovum, is properly cared for. ...
"The ovum's blind quest... is one of the most powerful primordial forces in the creation of what we call human nature. ... We know that the urge to reproduce is a prime mover in all other animals--why not ourselves? Were it otherwise, our species would die out.
"... We seek a course toward reproducing our own kind through the maze and morass of contradictory drives... The complex and uncertain journey is not made one iota easier by ... being directed toward what is ultimately, under its many-layered raiment of sexuality, the simple need that an ovum be fertilized."
There is no question that one of the main functions of sexuality is reproduction. For many creatures, from earthworms to aardvarks, that may be the sole function. (Although I strongly suspect that earthworms, not to mention aardvarks, enjoy the process.) I don't believe that's true when we are talking about primates. Sex has a whole bunch of functions for human beings and even for our closest relatives, the chimpanzees and the bonobos. (For a bit more on this see my post Bonobos and Chimpanzees, 7/30/08.) As primatologist Frans de Waal once pointed out, "Chimps use violence to get sex, while bonobos use sex to avoid violence." No one who studied bonobos would believe that their only use of sex was for reproduction.
I want to look at three of what I think are the main functions of sex for human beings. (I suspect that there are others, but this is what I want to focus on.)
And, yes, the first is reproduction. If we didn't have sex and reproduce, we would, as Sherwin Nuland pointed out, die out. The Shakers are an interesting example of that. On the other hand, what Dr Nuland and many other advocates of sex as reproduction fail to observe is that we are now in a situation of population overshoot. We don't need to always reproduce--in fact, increasing reproduction may also cause the human race to die off. (For more on controlling population see my very early post Five Simple Things You Can Do to Reduce Population, 8/21/08.)
This also fails to observe how important sex is for same sex couples and even heterosexual couples that don't want children--or couples who have had children and don't want more or are beyond the age of child bearing. (Not to mention for people who engage in non-couple sex like masturbation, threesomes, etc.) This is one of the main reasons heterosexual people practice birth control--they want to have sex without reproducing. And I've never heard even religious groups say that couples beyond their reproductive years have to stop having sex. Sex must have a purpose beyond reproduction.
Here's one. Pleasure. Sex is pleasurable and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think that one of the nicest functions of sex is to give another person pleasure. Yes, we ourselves get pleasure from sex, but what a gift it is to give pleasure to another person--hopefully making them very happy. I think this is a wonderful function of sex.
And here's another. Connection. Sex is one way (but hardly the only way) to help people feel closer. It literally can be a way to connect very closely with another human.
There are many, many people using sex for pleasure and connection, as a way of being loving with another person (or with themselves) who have no interest in using it to have children. While reproduction is important (and problematic as well) it is hardly the only function of sex.
Quote of the Day: "Sex is for pleasure, a complete and worthwhile goal in and of itself. People have sex because it feels very good, and then they feel good about themselves." - Dossie Easton and Catherine Liszt
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Same Sex Marriage and Social Change
In spite of how it feels sometimes, social change happens--and it sometimes happens fairly quickly. The Vietnam War was ended. Racism is not okay today. It still exists, even if we have a black president, but the very fact that Obama is in office shows how much things have shifted. Discrimination against women is no longer okay either, even if the Equal Rights Amendment never passed.
But if you want to see the speed at which things can shift, look at what's happened over the last decade with same sex marriage. Prior to 2012, thirty states banned it--including eleven states which voted to ban it in 2004 and seven more voting to ban it in 2006. However, last year four states voted in favor of it. It's now legal in twelve states and the District of Columbia, and one of last week's Supreme Court decisions made California the thirteenth state. The polls have shifted over the last five years from a majority of the country opposing same sex marriage to a majority favoring it. I think the Supreme Court was pushed into their twin decisions last week. It wasn't hard to see which way the wind was blowing.
While some of this has come about because of protests and other actions, I think most of the change was due to hard work in what I will call 'education' and Joanna Macy refers to as 'A Shift in Consciousness'. (For more about these ways of looking at social change strategy, see my posts on Creating Social Change, 7/2/08, The Great Turning, 1/15/09, and Social Change: My View, 6/29/10.) I think that change came about mostly because queer marriage activists kept putting out one clear, simple message: "I deserve the right to marry the person I love." They made it clear that this was a matter of fairness and justice.
On Wednesday of this week I went to a public reading (led by the governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick) of a speech by Frederick Douglass, "The Meaning of the Fourth of July for the Negro". It was given in 1852 before the civil war and the end of slavery. It was a powerful speech, mainly because Frederick Douglass had one clear message in it: slavery was inhuman and violates all the principles implied in the American Revolution. He makes a very clear and simple case for it--this is just wrong and there can be no argument about it.
I think that the climate change people are trying to do something similar now--putting out a message that fossil fuels cause climate change and we are going to need to stop using them. We'll see how well it can be heard.
At some point, I'm hoping the message will get out that our whole way of life is oppressive and not sustainable and that we could live very differently--and live quite well. It's a hard message to get out, but I take heart when I see what's happening with same sex marriage, and what happened with slavery. Social change is indeed possible, but it takes time and persistence.
Quote of the Day: "But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? ...
"Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employments for my time and strength than such argument would imply." - Frederick Douglass
But if you want to see the speed at which things can shift, look at what's happened over the last decade with same sex marriage. Prior to 2012, thirty states banned it--including eleven states which voted to ban it in 2004 and seven more voting to ban it in 2006. However, last year four states voted in favor of it. It's now legal in twelve states and the District of Columbia, and one of last week's Supreme Court decisions made California the thirteenth state. The polls have shifted over the last five years from a majority of the country opposing same sex marriage to a majority favoring it. I think the Supreme Court was pushed into their twin decisions last week. It wasn't hard to see which way the wind was blowing.
While some of this has come about because of protests and other actions, I think most of the change was due to hard work in what I will call 'education' and Joanna Macy refers to as 'A Shift in Consciousness'. (For more about these ways of looking at social change strategy, see my posts on Creating Social Change, 7/2/08, The Great Turning, 1/15/09, and Social Change: My View, 6/29/10.) I think that change came about mostly because queer marriage activists kept putting out one clear, simple message: "I deserve the right to marry the person I love." They made it clear that this was a matter of fairness and justice.
On Wednesday of this week I went to a public reading (led by the governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick) of a speech by Frederick Douglass, "The Meaning of the Fourth of July for the Negro". It was given in 1852 before the civil war and the end of slavery. It was a powerful speech, mainly because Frederick Douglass had one clear message in it: slavery was inhuman and violates all the principles implied in the American Revolution. He makes a very clear and simple case for it--this is just wrong and there can be no argument about it.
I think that the climate change people are trying to do something similar now--putting out a message that fossil fuels cause climate change and we are going to need to stop using them. We'll see how well it can be heard.
At some point, I'm hoping the message will get out that our whole way of life is oppressive and not sustainable and that we could live very differently--and live quite well. It's a hard message to get out, but I take heart when I see what's happening with same sex marriage, and what happened with slavery. Social change is indeed possible, but it takes time and persistence.
Quote of the Day: "But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? ...
"Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employments for my time and strength than such argument would imply." - Frederick Douglass
Sunday, August 12, 2012
The Pan Poly Path
I have mentioned in this blog that I'm bi and poly (ie, bisexual and polyamorous--see Sex and Squeamishness, 8/9/08). Part of my reason for identifying as bisexual is my age--that's what I've identified with since high school (forty-five years). The problem with bisexuality is that it assumes there are only two sexes, but if I were choosing an identity today, I'd probably say I was pansexual since I think I could be as easily involved with someone who identified as trans or genderqueer as I could with someone who identifies as a woman or a man.
All of which seems moot at the moment since I've taken a vow of abstinence while I'm pursuing community. But as I'm exploring love (see my last post), I'm beginning to see other possibilities. Sufi dancing (particularly the 'partner' dances where you keep switching partners and you never know who you'll get next) has also helped me see this in a new light. (Not to mention studying about bonobos, who are truly pan and poly sexual. For more on bonobos, see Bonobos and Chimpanzees, 7/30/08.)
I think that all love is erotic, in some way. It doesn't mean I have to have sex with anyone, just acknowledge that there is a sexual/sensual element to all my loving--and this is a good thing.
And the fact that I can love anyone (being pan) and many people (being poly) opens me up to truly loving everyone I meet--regardless of gender, looks, age, race, class, etc, etc. I can just greet each person I meet (like I try to do when I'm Sufi dancing) with lots of love and joyousness. I have taken my sexuality and turned it into a spiritual path, opening myself up to loving everyone regardless of who they are. Because everyone deserves love. And that starts with me loving them--as much as I possibly can.
Quote of the Day: "Our loving finds a new depth, one that is both personal and impersonal. ...
"... the relationship journey is not about two people becoming one. It is about realizing that we are all one vast, loving heart." - Jett Psaris and Marena Lyons
All of which seems moot at the moment since I've taken a vow of abstinence while I'm pursuing community. But as I'm exploring love (see my last post), I'm beginning to see other possibilities. Sufi dancing (particularly the 'partner' dances where you keep switching partners and you never know who you'll get next) has also helped me see this in a new light. (Not to mention studying about bonobos, who are truly pan and poly sexual. For more on bonobos, see Bonobos and Chimpanzees, 7/30/08.)
I think that all love is erotic, in some way. It doesn't mean I have to have sex with anyone, just acknowledge that there is a sexual/sensual element to all my loving--and this is a good thing.
And the fact that I can love anyone (being pan) and many people (being poly) opens me up to truly loving everyone I meet--regardless of gender, looks, age, race, class, etc, etc. I can just greet each person I meet (like I try to do when I'm Sufi dancing) with lots of love and joyousness. I have taken my sexuality and turned it into a spiritual path, opening myself up to loving everyone regardless of who they are. Because everyone deserves love. And that starts with me loving them--as much as I possibly can.
Quote of the Day: "Our loving finds a new depth, one that is both personal and impersonal. ...
"... the relationship journey is not about two people becoming one. It is about realizing that we are all one vast, loving heart." - Jett Psaris and Marena Lyons
Monday, August 6, 2012
The Great Triple Love
In the middle of all my busyness and worry, I want to write about love. Love, compassion, kindness, caring, concern, generosity, and forgiveness. These are central themes in my life and I'd like to devote my next two posts to them.
I see love (etc) as having three focuses. (Many religious people will want to add a fourth.)
I want to begin with love of self. This is often disparaged as being selfish, yet it's absolutely essential. The bible says (Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:31), "Love your neighbor as yourself." It sounds good, but how would that work if you didn't love yourself? At a Sufi dance I went to, someone taught us the song, "I love me so much, That I can love you so much, That you can love you so much, That you can start loving me." (Attributed in at least one place to James Bevell.) I think we need to begin by loving ourselves.
This allows us to love others, which is the second focus of love. I will talk more about this in my next post, but I think we need to focus on loving everyone we possibly can. The bible says to not only love your neighbor, but to love your enemies (Matthew 5:44), love the stranger (Deuteronomy 10:19), and, most important, love one another (John 13:34). While I think it's important to love everyone, I think it's most important to love everyone you come in contact with. (Loving world figures, people in the news, "the oppressed", "the oppressors", politicians, etc, is good but I think it does more good for you then for them--unless you actually see them or email them or otherwise get in contact with them.) I try to imagine how I can be loving with each person I meet today.
Beyond loving others is loving the world. This focuses on the natural world, but includes humanity since, really, we are part of the natural world. We forget how dependent we are on it but gaia/the ecosystem/the earth gives us our life as well as what we need to live. We wouldn't live a minute without it and it is a beautiful, amazing process that isn't hard to love if we open ourselves up to it. And we need to love and care for the world because if it dies we die and everything we love dies.
So we need to love ourselves, others, and the world, and we need to work on ourselves, support each other, and take care of the world. This is why I talk about personal growth, social change, and ecological awareness.
However, from a whole systems perspective, as well as an ecological perspective, a Buddhist perspective, a Taoist perspective, etc, there really isn't any separation between ourselves, everyone else, and the world. We are all one giant interconnected system and therefore the Great Triple Love is really only one love. Love all, serve all, be grateful to everyone, be grateful for everything.
Quote of the Day: "If you love yourself, you love everybody else as you do yourself. As long as you love another person less than yourself, you will not succeed in loving yourself, but if you love all alike, including yourself, you will love them as one person..." - Meister Eckhart
I see love (etc) as having three focuses. (Many religious people will want to add a fourth.)
I want to begin with love of self. This is often disparaged as being selfish, yet it's absolutely essential. The bible says (Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:31), "Love your neighbor as yourself." It sounds good, but how would that work if you didn't love yourself? At a Sufi dance I went to, someone taught us the song, "I love me so much, That I can love you so much, That you can love you so much, That you can start loving me." (Attributed in at least one place to James Bevell.) I think we need to begin by loving ourselves.
This allows us to love others, which is the second focus of love. I will talk more about this in my next post, but I think we need to focus on loving everyone we possibly can. The bible says to not only love your neighbor, but to love your enemies (Matthew 5:44), love the stranger (Deuteronomy 10:19), and, most important, love one another (John 13:34). While I think it's important to love everyone, I think it's most important to love everyone you come in contact with. (Loving world figures, people in the news, "the oppressed", "the oppressors", politicians, etc, is good but I think it does more good for you then for them--unless you actually see them or email them or otherwise get in contact with them.) I try to imagine how I can be loving with each person I meet today.
Beyond loving others is loving the world. This focuses on the natural world, but includes humanity since, really, we are part of the natural world. We forget how dependent we are on it but gaia/the ecosystem/the earth gives us our life as well as what we need to live. We wouldn't live a minute without it and it is a beautiful, amazing process that isn't hard to love if we open ourselves up to it. And we need to love and care for the world because if it dies we die and everything we love dies.
So we need to love ourselves, others, and the world, and we need to work on ourselves, support each other, and take care of the world. This is why I talk about personal growth, social change, and ecological awareness.
However, from a whole systems perspective, as well as an ecological perspective, a Buddhist perspective, a Taoist perspective, etc, there really isn't any separation between ourselves, everyone else, and the world. We are all one giant interconnected system and therefore the Great Triple Love is really only one love. Love all, serve all, be grateful to everyone, be grateful for everything.
Quote of the Day: "If you love yourself, you love everybody else as you do yourself. As long as you love another person less than yourself, you will not succeed in loving yourself, but if you love all alike, including yourself, you will love them as one person..." - Meister Eckhart
Friday, December 31, 2010
Love in Action
This will be sort of a wrap up post--at least for this calendar year, although I will be referring to a lot of posts that I wrote through the two and a half years of this blog.
My last post was on the importance of love (Love is the Source, 12/25/10). But in my very early post on Loving-Kindness and Social Change (6/24/08) I pointed out that love wasn't enough. You need to work as well. You need to put love to work.
Freud said, "Love and work are the cornerstones of our humanness." Kahlil Gibran puts it even better, "Work is love made visible." So my question is, how do we take our love and make it work in the world?
The first, and a very important way as far as I'm concerned, to put love into action, is through forgiveness. I wrote a post on this a couple of years ago (Forgiveness, 8/7/08) where I quoted Martin Luther King as saying, "Forgiveness is not an occasional act: it is an attitude." Being forgiving and taking an attitude of forgiveness seems a very real way of making love visible.
The Buddhists have some very definite ideas about making love visible. One of these is doing a loving-kindness meditation. (I wrote about this in my posts on Spreading Love, 3/26/10, and Resources for Loving-Kindness, 3/30/10.) They also talk about the 'Brahmaviharas' (or Four Immeasurables/Boundless Virtues/Heavenly Abodes,etc). These are loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity--or as I put it in my post, The Four Gardeners (2/14/2010), simply Love, Compassion, Joy, and Serenity. I later talked about Patience, Forgiveness, Generosity, and Healing, in a post I called And Their Four Offspring (2/24/10), since I saw them proceeding from the four 'boundless virtues'. The more that we practice all of these the more that I think we can spread love in the world.
Rachel Naomi Remen (see my post on Blessings, 3/9/10, and More Blessings, 3/23/10) doesn't talk much about love, but she does talk about blessing others and serving others which I think are marvelous ways of putting love into action. The Dalai Lama uses the phrase 'to benefit others' (see Benefiting Others, 7/21/10) which I think conveys much of the same thing.
Another direct way of showing love is through physical affection--both nonsexual affection and sexual affection. (I have written about this in my posts on Love and Affection, 7/28/08, and Touch, Affection, and Sex, 6/30/09.) In fact, I think any form of closeness can show love. (Also see my post on Intimacy, 7/3/09.)
A great way of demonstrating love and creating closeness is by simply listening. I've written about it in my post on Listening to Each Other (6/7/10). I've also written about it in terms of Stephen Covey's fifth 'habit': 'Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood' (see Seek to Understand, 11/11/10) and in terms of Marshall Rosenberg's 'Nonviolent Communication' (also known as 'Compassionate Communication'--see my post on Nonviolent Communication, 11/25/10). When we really listen to each other, when we truly seek to understand another person, we are doing more than simply showing them respect. In a very real way we are loving them. (I have been studying and trying to practice Tonglen which is a very radical Tibetan Buddhist meditation where you imagine yourself taking in all the hard and awful things in the world, and send out good stuff, like love, joy, and healing. I realized a little while ago that when you can listen to another person's tales of woe--their irritations, upsets, worries, fears, and stories of maltreatment--and respond with compassion and caring, you are doing tonglen.)
Finally, as we go beyond loving each person to loving the whole world--not just the people but the animals and plants and microorganisms and the entire ecosystem--we are truly spreading love. Joanna Macy talks about seeing the 'World as Lover' (see World as Lover, 1/15/10) Yes, I believe that we can love the entire planet--and this means we need to show our love by taking good care of it. I've been thinking a lot about what I will call the great triple love: loving ourselves, loving each other, and loving the world--and in action that becomes caring for ourselves, caring for each other, and caring for the world. This is what I see as major social change, and what I see as love in action.
May you have all the love you could ever want and may you spread much love through the world in this upcoming year.
Quote of the Day: "We cannot avoid Using power,
Cannot escape the compulsion To afflict the world,
So let us, cautious in diction And mighty in contradiction,
Love powerfully." - Martin Buber
My last post was on the importance of love (Love is the Source, 12/25/10). But in my very early post on Loving-Kindness and Social Change (6/24/08) I pointed out that love wasn't enough. You need to work as well. You need to put love to work.
Freud said, "Love and work are the cornerstones of our humanness." Kahlil Gibran puts it even better, "Work is love made visible." So my question is, how do we take our love and make it work in the world?
The first, and a very important way as far as I'm concerned, to put love into action, is through forgiveness. I wrote a post on this a couple of years ago (Forgiveness, 8/7/08) where I quoted Martin Luther King as saying, "Forgiveness is not an occasional act: it is an attitude." Being forgiving and taking an attitude of forgiveness seems a very real way of making love visible.
The Buddhists have some very definite ideas about making love visible. One of these is doing a loving-kindness meditation. (I wrote about this in my posts on Spreading Love, 3/26/10, and Resources for Loving-Kindness, 3/30/10.) They also talk about the 'Brahmaviharas' (or Four Immeasurables/Boundless Virtues/Heavenly Abodes,etc). These are loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity--or as I put it in my post, The Four Gardeners (2/14/2010), simply Love, Compassion, Joy, and Serenity. I later talked about Patience, Forgiveness, Generosity, and Healing, in a post I called And Their Four Offspring (2/24/10), since I saw them proceeding from the four 'boundless virtues'. The more that we practice all of these the more that I think we can spread love in the world.
Rachel Naomi Remen (see my post on Blessings, 3/9/10, and More Blessings, 3/23/10) doesn't talk much about love, but she does talk about blessing others and serving others which I think are marvelous ways of putting love into action. The Dalai Lama uses the phrase 'to benefit others' (see Benefiting Others, 7/21/10) which I think conveys much of the same thing.
Another direct way of showing love is through physical affection--both nonsexual affection and sexual affection. (I have written about this in my posts on Love and Affection, 7/28/08, and Touch, Affection, and Sex, 6/30/09.) In fact, I think any form of closeness can show love. (Also see my post on Intimacy, 7/3/09.)
A great way of demonstrating love and creating closeness is by simply listening. I've written about it in my post on Listening to Each Other (6/7/10). I've also written about it in terms of Stephen Covey's fifth 'habit': 'Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood' (see Seek to Understand, 11/11/10) and in terms of Marshall Rosenberg's 'Nonviolent Communication' (also known as 'Compassionate Communication'--see my post on Nonviolent Communication, 11/25/10). When we really listen to each other, when we truly seek to understand another person, we are doing more than simply showing them respect. In a very real way we are loving them. (I have been studying and trying to practice Tonglen which is a very radical Tibetan Buddhist meditation where you imagine yourself taking in all the hard and awful things in the world, and send out good stuff, like love, joy, and healing. I realized a little while ago that when you can listen to another person's tales of woe--their irritations, upsets, worries, fears, and stories of maltreatment--and respond with compassion and caring, you are doing tonglen.)
Finally, as we go beyond loving each person to loving the whole world--not just the people but the animals and plants and microorganisms and the entire ecosystem--we are truly spreading love. Joanna Macy talks about seeing the 'World as Lover' (see World as Lover, 1/15/10) Yes, I believe that we can love the entire planet--and this means we need to show our love by taking good care of it. I've been thinking a lot about what I will call the great triple love: loving ourselves, loving each other, and loving the world--and in action that becomes caring for ourselves, caring for each other, and caring for the world. This is what I see as major social change, and what I see as love in action.
May you have all the love you could ever want and may you spread much love through the world in this upcoming year.
Quote of the Day: "We cannot avoid Using power,
Cannot escape the compulsion To afflict the world,
So let us, cautious in diction And mighty in contradiction,
Love powerfully." - Martin Buber
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Love is the Source
When I began this blog, my third post was on Loving-Kindness and Social Change (6/24/08). My very first quote in my very first post was from the Dalai Lama, "My religion is kindness." While I've been clear that this blog is about social change, I've also been clear that love, kindness, forgiveness, and compassion are at the base of any real change.
I think that love is at the core of most spirituality. Many religions acknowledge this. In the Gospel of John, Christ tells his apostles to "Love one another." In fact, in the First Letter of John, he says it outright: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." This goes all the way back to Leviticus in the Torah, "Love your neighbor as yourself..." Love even extends to our 'enemies'. In Matthew, Christ says to "Love your enemies" and in the Torah, in Exodus, God tells Moses, “If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to return it. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help them with it." (In other words, be kind and helpful even to those who hate you.)
The Qu'ran begins with the line, "In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate..." and most of the following chapters (or suras) begin with this also. In Islam, in other words, God is mercy and compassion. The Sufis are particularly taken with love. I've heard it said that to the Sufis, God is Love, Lover, and Beloved. In my post on Rumi Night, a few days ago (12/20/10) I quoted from Mevlana Jalaluddin Rumi, Sufi poet and mystic, "Love comes on strong, consuming herself, unabashed."
The Buddhist scriptures contain a whole piece on Loving-Kindness, the Metta Sutta, which says, "Even as a mother protects with her life, her child, her only child, so with a boundless heart, should one cherish all living beings..." In Hinduism, Bhakti Yoga is focused on love and devotion. Practitioners (according to the Bhagavad Gita) need to be "devoted to the welfare of all beings" and be someone who hates no one, "is friendly and compassionate... and... forgiving". (Chapter 12, The Way of Divine Love)
The witches I've hung around with follow the Charge of the Goddess that proclaims, "My love is poured out upon the earth..." and "...all acts of love and pleasure are My rituals." Thorn Coyle, a witch from the Reclaiming and Feri traditions says that "Love is that which uses the life force well, and for the good of all. ... It is a sharing, the underpinning of life that infuses all."
Some very radical folks also speak highly of love. Emma Goldman called love "the strongest and deepest element in all life, the harbinger of hope, of joy, of ecstasy..." Che Guevara said, "At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love." Malcolm X said, "...understanding creates love, love creates patience, and patience creates unity." And Martin Luther King claimed that "Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend."
It's Christmas, which seems to me a celebration of love. Whatever path you follow, may it be a path of love. I believe that love is the source, the very foundation of what we need to do in the world. Whatever you do, do it with love. Loving one another is social change.
Quote of the Day: "The success of love is in the loving - it is not in the result of loving. Of course it is natural in love to want the best for the other person, but whether it turns out that way or not does not determine the value of what we have done..." - Mother Teresa
I think that love is at the core of most spirituality. Many religions acknowledge this. In the Gospel of John, Christ tells his apostles to "Love one another." In fact, in the First Letter of John, he says it outright: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." This goes all the way back to Leviticus in the Torah, "Love your neighbor as yourself..." Love even extends to our 'enemies'. In Matthew, Christ says to "Love your enemies" and in the Torah, in Exodus, God tells Moses, “If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to return it. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help them with it." (In other words, be kind and helpful even to those who hate you.)
The Qu'ran begins with the line, "In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate..." and most of the following chapters (or suras) begin with this also. In Islam, in other words, God is mercy and compassion. The Sufis are particularly taken with love. I've heard it said that to the Sufis, God is Love, Lover, and Beloved. In my post on Rumi Night, a few days ago (12/20/10) I quoted from Mevlana Jalaluddin Rumi, Sufi poet and mystic, "Love comes on strong, consuming herself, unabashed."
The Buddhist scriptures contain a whole piece on Loving-Kindness, the Metta Sutta, which says, "Even as a mother protects with her life, her child, her only child, so with a boundless heart, should one cherish all living beings..." In Hinduism, Bhakti Yoga is focused on love and devotion. Practitioners (according to the Bhagavad Gita) need to be "devoted to the welfare of all beings" and be someone who hates no one, "is friendly and compassionate... and... forgiving". (Chapter 12, The Way of Divine Love)
The witches I've hung around with follow the Charge of the Goddess that proclaims, "My love is poured out upon the earth..." and "...all acts of love and pleasure are My rituals." Thorn Coyle, a witch from the Reclaiming and Feri traditions says that "Love is that which uses the life force well, and for the good of all. ... It is a sharing, the underpinning of life that infuses all."
Some very radical folks also speak highly of love. Emma Goldman called love "the strongest and deepest element in all life, the harbinger of hope, of joy, of ecstasy..." Che Guevara said, "At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love." Malcolm X said, "...understanding creates love, love creates patience, and patience creates unity." And Martin Luther King claimed that "Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend."
It's Christmas, which seems to me a celebration of love. Whatever path you follow, may it be a path of love. I believe that love is the source, the very foundation of what we need to do in the world. Whatever you do, do it with love. Loving one another is social change.
Quote of the Day: "The success of love is in the loving - it is not in the result of loving. Of course it is natural in love to want the best for the other person, but whether it turns out that way or not does not determine the value of what we have done..." - Mother Teresa
Monday, December 20, 2010
Rumi Night
(There will be a break for a while in my series on Survival Resources while I publish some posts on other matters but I have a bunch more to come on it.)
I have been Sufi dancing a lot lately.
On Friday night, my local Sufi group held a Rumi Night. Apparently, December 17th, 1273, was when Mevlana Jalaluddin Rumi, Sufi poet and mystic, died. Every year at this time, festivals are held in his honor.
We were asked to bring a poem of his and be prepared to recite it. I didn't recite my poem (shy person that I am) but I did memorize one, and I want to post it here:
Love Is Reckless
Love is reckless; not reason.
Reason seeks a profit.
Love comes on strong, consuming herself, unabashed.
Yet, in the midst of suffering,
Love proceeds like a millstone,
hard surfaced and straightforward.
Having died to self-interest,
she risks everything and asks for nothing.
Love gambles away every gift God bestows.
Without cause God gave us Being;
without cause, give it back again.
Gambling yourself away is beyond any religion.
Religion seeks grace and favor,
but those who gamble these away are God's favorites,
for they neither put God to the test
nor knock at the door of gain and loss.
Quote of the Day: "Come, come, whoever you are.
"Wanderer, worshipper, lover of leaving — it doesn't matter,
"Ours is not a caravan of despair.
"Come, even if you have broken your vow a hundred times,
"Come, come again, come." - Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi
I have been Sufi dancing a lot lately.
On Friday night, my local Sufi group held a Rumi Night. Apparently, December 17th, 1273, was when Mevlana Jalaluddin Rumi, Sufi poet and mystic, died. Every year at this time, festivals are held in his honor.
We were asked to bring a poem of his and be prepared to recite it. I didn't recite my poem (shy person that I am) but I did memorize one, and I want to post it here:
Love Is Reckless
Love is reckless; not reason.
Reason seeks a profit.
Love comes on strong, consuming herself, unabashed.
Yet, in the midst of suffering,
Love proceeds like a millstone,
hard surfaced and straightforward.
Having died to self-interest,
she risks everything and asks for nothing.
Love gambles away every gift God bestows.
Without cause God gave us Being;
without cause, give it back again.
Gambling yourself away is beyond any religion.
Religion seeks grace and favor,
but those who gamble these away are God's favorites,
for they neither put God to the test
nor knock at the door of gain and loss.
Quote of the Day: "Come, come, whoever you are.
"Wanderer, worshipper, lover of leaving — it doesn't matter,
"Ours is not a caravan of despair.
"Come, even if you have broken your vow a hundred times,
"Come, come again, come." - Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Deserving Love
Turil has a blog that I sometimes comment on, just as she sometimes comments on my blog. A little while ago she wrote a post entitled 'Why do you deserve to be loved?' She raises a lot of good points in this post: the fact that many people grow up without understanding that they deserve love and the fact that many who are bullied about their sexuality commit suicide, feeling that they are unlovable. She asked readers to respond to why we deserved to be loved.
My response was (and she asked me to clarify it) was that being loved was our birthright, that we deserve love simply for being human. For me real love is unconditional--we don't 'deserve' it any more than we 'deserve' food or air.
This isn't to say that we always get unconditional love. Unfortunately many parents, who themselves have never gotten unconditional love, put a price on their affection ('I will love you as long as you... ') or, worse yet, give the message to their children that they are unlovable.
But love is not about conditions. Love is not about being good or bad or being any particular way. Love is, as someone said, like the sun, it shines on everyone.
Love is at the core of most religions. According to one source I found on line, it says to 'love your neighbor' eight times in the bible. My favorite is where Jesus say to "love your neighbor as yourself" which, I think, clearly implies that we must love ourselves. Jesus even says to love our enemies. And the Dalai Lama claimed, "My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness." Love, kindness, and compassion are what real spirituality is about.
This is a blog about social change, and I believe that love is also at the heart of real social change. Che Guevara put it, "At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." Love is what changes the world.
It is simple, as far as I'm concerned. Everyone needs love and everyone deserves love.
Quote of the Day: "Love, the strongest and deepest element in all life... Love needs no protection; it is its own protection. So long as love begets life no child is deserted, or hungry, or famished for the want of affection." - Emma Goldman
My response was (and she asked me to clarify it) was that being loved was our birthright, that we deserve love simply for being human. For me real love is unconditional--we don't 'deserve' it any more than we 'deserve' food or air.
This isn't to say that we always get unconditional love. Unfortunately many parents, who themselves have never gotten unconditional love, put a price on their affection ('I will love you as long as you... ') or, worse yet, give the message to their children that they are unlovable.
But love is not about conditions. Love is not about being good or bad or being any particular way. Love is, as someone said, like the sun, it shines on everyone.
Love is at the core of most religions. According to one source I found on line, it says to 'love your neighbor' eight times in the bible. My favorite is where Jesus say to "love your neighbor as yourself" which, I think, clearly implies that we must love ourselves. Jesus even says to love our enemies. And the Dalai Lama claimed, "My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness." Love, kindness, and compassion are what real spirituality is about.
This is a blog about social change, and I believe that love is also at the heart of real social change. Che Guevara put it, "At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." Love is what changes the world.
It is simple, as far as I'm concerned. Everyone needs love and everyone deserves love.
Quote of the Day: "Love, the strongest and deepest element in all life... Love needs no protection; it is its own protection. So long as love begets life no child is deserted, or hungry, or famished for the want of affection." - Emma Goldman
Friday, March 26, 2010
Spreading Love
I am not a believer in an afterlife or reincarnation, but I was intrigued when one of my housemates told me he used to do past-life regressions. He claimed that when people were asked the purpose of that particular life, 90% said the purpose of their life was to learn how to love. (The other 10% said it was to learn how to use power more wisely.) Rachel Remen, in her book My Grandfather's Blessings (see my last post and my post of 3/9/10), claims that "According to those who have returned from a near-death experience, we are all here to grow in wisdom and learn how to love better." (Her definition of wisdom is, "Wisdom is not something that we acquire; it is something that over time we may become. It involves a change in our basic nature, a deepening of our capacity for compassion, lovingkindness, forgiveness, harmlessness, and service. ... Our capacity for wisdom naturally grows throughout our lives.")
I am still not ready to buy into an afterlife, but I am intrigued by the notion that the purpose of life is to learn to love better.
I have been practicing meditations on Loving-Kindness everyday for a while now. I have actually started to teach this (occasionally) to other people. It is a wonderful practice. You begin by sending loving-kindness to yourself, then extend it to a beloved person--a mentor, teacher, or very dear friend; then a close friend or a family member that you are close to; then a 'neutral person', someone you have no particular feelings about; then someone you are having difficulty with; finally, extend wish of well being for all 'sentient beings'.
As you work with it, you can just extend that wish for everyone's happiness and well-being into a constant refrain repeated throughout the day. As one teacher I heard said, just repeating it often re-patterns our brain.
Now, I do various versions of this several times a day because I badly need to do them. You can read all my posts on love, compassion, and forgiveness and you might think that I'm this amazing, constantly loving person. I'm not. If you met me in person, you might find that I am often an anxious, frantic, frustrated mess. I can be rude, self-absorbed, controlling, and judgmental. I do all these meditations because I need them. I remind myself to be patient and forgiving with everyone, including myself. I try to be joyful and loving--my latest goal is to look at everyone I meet with 'love and delight'. I don't always succeed, but this is an 'aspiration' meditation. This is my goal and I am slowly working toward being that cheerful, loving person I want to be.
I truly think this is some of the most important work that I need to do, perhaps the work that all of us need to do. Spreading love isn't enough, but it is a profound beginning. I do think that if we could get to a place where most people lived simply, treated everyone equally, acted cooperatively, and practiced sustainability, a place where everyone's basic needs were met, it would make the world far, far better, even without love. I also believe that only when we start spreading love will the real healing of the world begin.
(I hope to put out a list of resources for doing loving-kindness meditation in my next post.)
Quote of the Day: "When the rivers and air are polluted, when families and nations are at war, when homeless wanderers fill the highways, these are traditional signs of a dark age. ...
"Practicing loving-kindness toward ourselves seems as good a way as any to start illuminating the darkness of difficult times.
"... There's so much resentment and so much resistance to life. In all nations it's like a plague that's gotten out of control and is poisoning the atmosphere of the world. At this point it might be wise to wonder about these things and begin to get the knack of loving-kindness." - Pema Chödrön
I am still not ready to buy into an afterlife, but I am intrigued by the notion that the purpose of life is to learn to love better.
I have been practicing meditations on Loving-Kindness everyday for a while now. I have actually started to teach this (occasionally) to other people. It is a wonderful practice. You begin by sending loving-kindness to yourself, then extend it to a beloved person--a mentor, teacher, or very dear friend; then a close friend or a family member that you are close to; then a 'neutral person', someone you have no particular feelings about; then someone you are having difficulty with; finally, extend wish of well being for all 'sentient beings'.
As you work with it, you can just extend that wish for everyone's happiness and well-being into a constant refrain repeated throughout the day. As one teacher I heard said, just repeating it often re-patterns our brain.
Now, I do various versions of this several times a day because I badly need to do them. You can read all my posts on love, compassion, and forgiveness and you might think that I'm this amazing, constantly loving person. I'm not. If you met me in person, you might find that I am often an anxious, frantic, frustrated mess. I can be rude, self-absorbed, controlling, and judgmental. I do all these meditations because I need them. I remind myself to be patient and forgiving with everyone, including myself. I try to be joyful and loving--my latest goal is to look at everyone I meet with 'love and delight'. I don't always succeed, but this is an 'aspiration' meditation. This is my goal and I am slowly working toward being that cheerful, loving person I want to be.
I truly think this is some of the most important work that I need to do, perhaps the work that all of us need to do. Spreading love isn't enough, but it is a profound beginning. I do think that if we could get to a place where most people lived simply, treated everyone equally, acted cooperatively, and practiced sustainability, a place where everyone's basic needs were met, it would make the world far, far better, even without love. I also believe that only when we start spreading love will the real healing of the world begin.
(I hope to put out a list of resources for doing loving-kindness meditation in my next post.)
Quote of the Day: "When the rivers and air are polluted, when families and nations are at war, when homeless wanderers fill the highways, these are traditional signs of a dark age. ...
"Practicing loving-kindness toward ourselves seems as good a way as any to start illuminating the darkness of difficult times.
"... There's so much resentment and so much resistance to life. In all nations it's like a plague that's gotten out of control and is poisoning the atmosphere of the world. At this point it might be wise to wonder about these things and begin to get the knack of loving-kindness." - Pema Chödrön
Friday, July 3, 2009
Intimacy
Here I'm talking about moving beyond physical affection/connection/intimacy to emotional intimacy, being able to open up with another person and create a deep connection. I'm talking about relationships with a big R.
Intimacy implies vulnerability--which means that safety and security need to be present in order for us to be intimate. We crave this kind of connection but because of how vulnerable it makes us, most of us are also scared of it.
As I have said or implied in many previous posts, our current society takes this desire for intimacy, relationship, connection and uses it to try to sell us stuff we don't need. Creating real intimacy is a difficult but rewarding path. It means taking risks and getting close to people. It means getting hurt, again and again, and still reaching out and trying to get close.
Somewhere I read the story of the two porcupines trying to keep warm. They would move closer together, only to stick each other with their quills. Then they would move apart but as things got colder they would move together again only to get stuck again.
It's truly a dance. It's easy to drug ourselves with TV, shopping, the internet, and often real drugs (including alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco) rather than try and get close and get hurt.
If you are involved with someone (or someones), even just as close friends, try and get closer. What gets in the way?
If you are not involved with anyone, try reaching out (again).
I often say that the goal of simple living is to have less stuff and more connections, but the truth is: it isn't easy.
Resources:
Peter Fox, "How to build intimacy"--A family therapist's take on intimacy and relationships; his site has lots of other useful information
Harriet Lerner, The Dance of Intimacy--A guide to relationships for women (but hopefully usable by anyone)
Stephen and Ondrea Levine, Embracing the Beloved--Relationship as a spiritual path; a primarily Buddhist perspective but drawing on a number of traditions; for couples ready to truly deepen their relationship and individuals ready to add a deeper component to all their relationships
Linda Marks, Healing the War between the Genders--While it focuses on male-female relationships, it contains much that's useful in any relationship; has a number of exercises on opening to intimacy and developing intimacy
Virginia Satir, Making Contact--A little book about how to be emotionally honest and connect with people
Quote of the Day: "Psychological intimacy is about attachment, connection, being safe to express tenderness and vulnerability with family, close friends as well as in sexual relationships. ... It grows with trust, courage, self-disclosure and feedback and withers without them." - Peter Fox
Intimacy implies vulnerability--which means that safety and security need to be present in order for us to be intimate. We crave this kind of connection but because of how vulnerable it makes us, most of us are also scared of it.
As I have said or implied in many previous posts, our current society takes this desire for intimacy, relationship, connection and uses it to try to sell us stuff we don't need. Creating real intimacy is a difficult but rewarding path. It means taking risks and getting close to people. It means getting hurt, again and again, and still reaching out and trying to get close.
Somewhere I read the story of the two porcupines trying to keep warm. They would move closer together, only to stick each other with their quills. Then they would move apart but as things got colder they would move together again only to get stuck again.
It's truly a dance. It's easy to drug ourselves with TV, shopping, the internet, and often real drugs (including alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco) rather than try and get close and get hurt.
If you are involved with someone (or someones), even just as close friends, try and get closer. What gets in the way?
If you are not involved with anyone, try reaching out (again).
I often say that the goal of simple living is to have less stuff and more connections, but the truth is: it isn't easy.
Resources:
Peter Fox, "How to build intimacy"--A family therapist's take on intimacy and relationships; his site has lots of other useful information
Harriet Lerner, The Dance of Intimacy--A guide to relationships for women (but hopefully usable by anyone)
Stephen and Ondrea Levine, Embracing the Beloved--Relationship as a spiritual path; a primarily Buddhist perspective but drawing on a number of traditions; for couples ready to truly deepen their relationship and individuals ready to add a deeper component to all their relationships
Linda Marks, Healing the War between the Genders--While it focuses on male-female relationships, it contains much that's useful in any relationship; has a number of exercises on opening to intimacy and developing intimacy
Virginia Satir, Making Contact--A little book about how to be emotionally honest and connect with people
Quote of the Day: "Psychological intimacy is about attachment, connection, being safe to express tenderness and vulnerability with family, close friends as well as in sexual relationships. ... It grows with trust, courage, self-disclosure and feedback and withers without them." - Peter Fox
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Touch, Affection, and Sex
With this post I am moving beyond our security needs to our needs for contact and connection with other people. I am going to start with the most basic, the physical connection that most people crave. I wrote a post about this last summer when I wrote about Love and Affection (7/28/09). In the post I discussed the work of James Prescott who documented the connections between violence and the lack of physical affection.
We all need touch/physical contact with others. My quote on last summer's post was Virginia Satir's statement that we need four hugs a day for survival and twelve hugs a day for growth. Which leads to the question of how many of us are lucky if we get any hugs?
We live in a touch phobic society. Touch is often used for violence, and this is a main reason for the social adversion to touch. Touching has to be done with care, communication, and permission in order to feel safe. As a result, it isn't done enough. I think most of us are starved for physical affection and real connection with others.
Advertisers prey on this lack of touch, affection, and connection to get us to buy stuff. I think that if we had more human contact we wouldn't need so many things in our lives.
There are many types of touching and physical affection and sex is one of them. We need nonsexual touch and we don't absolutely need sex (truly, if I had to choose I would take hugs over sex), but sex is a wonderful way of giving pleasure to another human being--one more creative way of touching someone else. Unfortunately, sex has too often been used with power rather than permission, leading to abuse of many kinds. Sex, as well as most other kinds of touching, needs to be approached with vulnerability--with asking permission and checking out what the other person needs. It needs to be combined with intimacy--but that is the subject of the next post.
Resources:
Cuddle Parties--I have mixed feelings on this: on one hand it is a wonderful, nonsexual way to have physical contact with others and learn some skills around how to give caring, consensual touch, on the other hand I'm not happy that people charge for this since it seems another way to take advantage of the fact that pleasurable touch is such a scarce resource in this society; I only wish we could easily and freely give this to each other
George Downing, The Massage Book--Massage is a lovely way of using touch for healing and this book, first published in 1972, gives good advice on how to do it
Dottie Easton and Catherine Liszt, The Ethical Slut--While this book is a mainstay of the polyamory community, it has useful things to say to monogamous people as well; I think of it as a book on ethical sexuality that talks about how to be sexual in a way that treats others well
Linda Marks, Healing the War Between the Genders--While focusing on female/male relationships (and vice versa), the book has useful things to say about sexuality and touch in general; it includes a list of basic human needs that includes "nurturing, nonsexual touch and holding" as well as a mediation on this, as well as steps to work on a more "Integrated Sexuality"
Ashley Montagu, Touching:The Human Significance of the Skin--An anthropologist looks at the functions of skin and the necessity of our being touched; somewhat dry and academic, it also appears to be out of print, although available through libraries and used bookstores
Quote of the Day: "Sex really is a physical expression of a whole lot of stuff that has no physical existence: love and joy, deep emotion, intense closeness, profound connection, spiritual awareness, incredibly good feelings, sometimes even ecstasy." - Dottie Easton and Catherine Liszt
We all need touch/physical contact with others. My quote on last summer's post was Virginia Satir's statement that we need four hugs a day for survival and twelve hugs a day for growth. Which leads to the question of how many of us are lucky if we get any hugs?
We live in a touch phobic society. Touch is often used for violence, and this is a main reason for the social adversion to touch. Touching has to be done with care, communication, and permission in order to feel safe. As a result, it isn't done enough. I think most of us are starved for physical affection and real connection with others.
Advertisers prey on this lack of touch, affection, and connection to get us to buy stuff. I think that if we had more human contact we wouldn't need so many things in our lives.
There are many types of touching and physical affection and sex is one of them. We need nonsexual touch and we don't absolutely need sex (truly, if I had to choose I would take hugs over sex), but sex is a wonderful way of giving pleasure to another human being--one more creative way of touching someone else. Unfortunately, sex has too often been used with power rather than permission, leading to abuse of many kinds. Sex, as well as most other kinds of touching, needs to be approached with vulnerability--with asking permission and checking out what the other person needs. It needs to be combined with intimacy--but that is the subject of the next post.
Resources:
Cuddle Parties--I have mixed feelings on this: on one hand it is a wonderful, nonsexual way to have physical contact with others and learn some skills around how to give caring, consensual touch, on the other hand I'm not happy that people charge for this since it seems another way to take advantage of the fact that pleasurable touch is such a scarce resource in this society; I only wish we could easily and freely give this to each other
George Downing, The Massage Book--Massage is a lovely way of using touch for healing and this book, first published in 1972, gives good advice on how to do it
Dottie Easton and Catherine Liszt, The Ethical Slut--While this book is a mainstay of the polyamory community, it has useful things to say to monogamous people as well; I think of it as a book on ethical sexuality that talks about how to be sexual in a way that treats others well
Linda Marks, Healing the War Between the Genders--While focusing on female/male relationships (and vice versa), the book has useful things to say about sexuality and touch in general; it includes a list of basic human needs that includes "nurturing, nonsexual touch and holding" as well as a mediation on this, as well as steps to work on a more "Integrated Sexuality"
Ashley Montagu, Touching:The Human Significance of the Skin--An anthropologist looks at the functions of skin and the necessity of our being touched; somewhat dry and academic, it also appears to be out of print, although available through libraries and used bookstores
Quote of the Day: "Sex really is a physical expression of a whole lot of stuff that has no physical existence: love and joy, deep emotion, intense closeness, profound connection, spiritual awareness, incredibly good feelings, sometimes even ecstasy." - Dottie Easton and Catherine Liszt
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Peace on Earth
I had spoken with one of my housemates about the research I had been doing about bonobos and chimpanzees (see my post of 7/30/08) as well as the research of James Prescott on the human need for affection and it's relationship to war and aggression (in my post of 7/28/08). One day I found a book by my computer: Peacemaking among Primates by Frans de Waal. It turned out that my housemate had a copy he bought long ago and found it among his books. He thought I'd be interested in it.
Of course, I was. The book details the ways that reconciliation is practiced among five primate species: chimpanzees, rhesus monkeys, stump-tailed monkeys (also known as the bear-macaque), bonobos, and humans. For anyone who assumes that other animals don't 'kiss and makeup', the book is a revelation.
Chimpanzees may be patriarchal and aggressive, but they also understand cooperation. While there are dominants and subordinates in their hierarchies, there is also a lot of mutual reassurance between them that, as de Waal puts it, "makes rivalry among males less divisive... The males' hierarchy canalizes aggression in predictible directions and unifies the competitors." This is not so true for female chimps, who seem to hold grudges. Males also form coalitions that allow them to take power and stay in power. De Waal details one series of coalitions that I realized was also written about by Matt Ridley in The Origin of Virtue. (See my post of 9/14/08.)
Rhesus monkeys are a variety of the primate genus known as macaques. (The Latin name for the genus is Macaca--the same word that got Republican George Allen in trouble in 2006.) According to de Waal, Rhesus females have a society ordered by strong matrilineal hierarchy. The daughters of high status females also become high status females and the daughters of low status females are low status females. De Waal claims that "Young females stay with their mothers and sisters to integrate for life into one of the tightest and most complicated social systems known in the animal kingdom." Males do not stay with their families past adolescence, but come and go based "... on contests among the males themselves, and also perhaps what the female community thinks of them." They are a very aggressive species. "The frequency and fierceness of attacks among these animals is amazing." De Waal details how within their very rigid social structure, reconciliation occurs much more often between males and males, and males and females, than between females and females, and how the female-female reconciliation that does take place is mostly between female monkeys of similar social status.
In contrast to the rhesus macaques, the stump-tailed monkeys (another macaque species) have a matrilineal hierarchy that is looser and "relatively egalitarian" (at least compared to the rhesus). They have frequent reconciliations (after over half the conflicts) and, unlike the rhesus monkeys who often reconcile by 'accidentally' ending up in close proximity, stumptails look each other in the face and sometimes have very public peacemakings, with loud noises so that their whole group is aware of what has happened.
The chapter on bonobos mostly has information similar to what I've written earlier about them. (See my post of 7/30/08.) De Waal talks about his studies that indicate a strong link between food and sex for the bonobos and says that "erotic interactions may be essential for group harmony". He goes on to say "Sexual conflict resolution is the key to bonobo social organization, and individuals learn its strategic value at an early age."
De Waal devotes his final chapter to a fifth primate species: humans. He talks about the interconnections between aggression and reconciliation in human history. He dicusses the need to save face in order to reconcile and tells the story of a couple among the forest people in the Congo that had a very public fight. They began tearing their house of sticks and leaves apart, each of them becoming more and more miserable in the process. Finally the man got an idea after they had torn the leaves off the walls and were about to remove the final poles. He suddenly "told his wife that she could leave the sticks alone; it was only the leaves on the roof that were dirty." She caught on and the two of them began pretending that they weren't engaged in a horrible argument at all but only taking apart the house to clean the leaves. The two of them actually "carried the leaves to the stream and washed them." No one in the village believed this but everyone played along to support the reconciliation. De Waal looks at inequality and human reconciliation and mentions the tendency of nonhierarchal groups toward conflict and fission. Yet he also points out how well female bonobos get along without hierarchy and says this is a subject deserving on more study. He finishes the book by saying that the aggressive tendencies of our species are unlikely to go away, but neither is our 'heritage of reconciliation'. We may be war-like but we are also good at making peace.
Quote of the Day: "Forgiveness is not, as some people seem to believe, a mysterious and sublime idea that we owe to a few millennia of Judeo-Christianity. It did not originate in the minds of people and cannot therefore be appropriated by an ideology or religion. The fact that monkeys, apes, and humans all engage in reconciliation behavior means that it is probably over thirty million years old..." - Frans de Waal
Of course, I was. The book details the ways that reconciliation is practiced among five primate species: chimpanzees, rhesus monkeys, stump-tailed monkeys (also known as the bear-macaque), bonobos, and humans. For anyone who assumes that other animals don't 'kiss and makeup', the book is a revelation.
Chimpanzees may be patriarchal and aggressive, but they also understand cooperation. While there are dominants and subordinates in their hierarchies, there is also a lot of mutual reassurance between them that, as de Waal puts it, "makes rivalry among males less divisive... The males' hierarchy canalizes aggression in predictible directions and unifies the competitors." This is not so true for female chimps, who seem to hold grudges. Males also form coalitions that allow them to take power and stay in power. De Waal details one series of coalitions that I realized was also written about by Matt Ridley in The Origin of Virtue. (See my post of 9/14/08.)
Rhesus monkeys are a variety of the primate genus known as macaques. (The Latin name for the genus is Macaca--the same word that got Republican George Allen in trouble in 2006.) According to de Waal, Rhesus females have a society ordered by strong matrilineal hierarchy. The daughters of high status females also become high status females and the daughters of low status females are low status females. De Waal claims that "Young females stay with their mothers and sisters to integrate for life into one of the tightest and most complicated social systems known in the animal kingdom." Males do not stay with their families past adolescence, but come and go based "... on contests among the males themselves, and also perhaps what the female community thinks of them." They are a very aggressive species. "The frequency and fierceness of attacks among these animals is amazing." De Waal details how within their very rigid social structure, reconciliation occurs much more often between males and males, and males and females, than between females and females, and how the female-female reconciliation that does take place is mostly between female monkeys of similar social status.
In contrast to the rhesus macaques, the stump-tailed monkeys (another macaque species) have a matrilineal hierarchy that is looser and "relatively egalitarian" (at least compared to the rhesus). They have frequent reconciliations (after over half the conflicts) and, unlike the rhesus monkeys who often reconcile by 'accidentally' ending up in close proximity, stumptails look each other in the face and sometimes have very public peacemakings, with loud noises so that their whole group is aware of what has happened.
The chapter on bonobos mostly has information similar to what I've written earlier about them. (See my post of 7/30/08.) De Waal talks about his studies that indicate a strong link between food and sex for the bonobos and says that "erotic interactions may be essential for group harmony". He goes on to say "Sexual conflict resolution is the key to bonobo social organization, and individuals learn its strategic value at an early age."
De Waal devotes his final chapter to a fifth primate species: humans. He talks about the interconnections between aggression and reconciliation in human history. He dicusses the need to save face in order to reconcile and tells the story of a couple among the forest people in the Congo that had a very public fight. They began tearing their house of sticks and leaves apart, each of them becoming more and more miserable in the process. Finally the man got an idea after they had torn the leaves off the walls and were about to remove the final poles. He suddenly "told his wife that she could leave the sticks alone; it was only the leaves on the roof that were dirty." She caught on and the two of them began pretending that they weren't engaged in a horrible argument at all but only taking apart the house to clean the leaves. The two of them actually "carried the leaves to the stream and washed them." No one in the village believed this but everyone played along to support the reconciliation. De Waal looks at inequality and human reconciliation and mentions the tendency of nonhierarchal groups toward conflict and fission. Yet he also points out how well female bonobos get along without hierarchy and says this is a subject deserving on more study. He finishes the book by saying that the aggressive tendencies of our species are unlikely to go away, but neither is our 'heritage of reconciliation'. We may be war-like but we are also good at making peace.
Quote of the Day: "Forgiveness is not, as some people seem to believe, a mysterious and sublime idea that we owe to a few millennia of Judeo-Christianity. It did not originate in the minds of people and cannot therefore be appropriated by an ideology or religion. The fact that monkeys, apes, and humans all engage in reconciliation behavior means that it is probably over thirty million years old..." - Frans de Waal
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Containers
Walk down a city street and look at people. How often do you make judgements based on how the people you see look? On the other hand, how else do you decide who you want to meet?
I've been thinking a lot about this lately and noticing my reactions to folks I see on the streets or in the train. I've decided that making decisions on the basis of how someone looks, and picking your friends (and even lovers) on the basis of their appearance, is like deciding to drink beverages based on what the bottles look like. You could be guzzling poison out of a shiny and pretty new vessel while ignoring healthy juices and water because the jars are plain or ugly.
When I look at all these attractive people, I remind myself that it's the container that I'm drawn to. What the person looks like says nothing about their character, their values, their personality, or who they really are. If we don't know someone, all we see is the container, not the stuff inside.
I've heard lots of talk about the problems with meeting people over the internet and lots of worries about it, but I think there are ways in which it's actually better. When I find profiles of people, I don't pay a lot of attention their pictures, if they post them; I pay attention to what they say. This way I get a chance to connect with people who are interested in the things that I'm interested in, people who claim to share my values.
In a similar way, I am going to events that are about subjects that are important to me, partly as a way to meet people. I figure, if they're coming to this they are probably interested in something I'm also interested; I should talk with them and find out what else they are interested in. If we do have a lot in common, maybe I should get to know them better. And their appearance has nothing to do with any of this.
Unfortunately, I need to admit that I'm not immune to visual judgements. I find myself thinking, 'There's an interesting looking person...' before I remember that it's the container I'm looking at. I have no idea what this person is really like, what they believe, whether I would enjoy their company. None of that has anything to do with appearances.
Quote of the day: "The most winning woman I ever knew was hanged for poisoning three little children for their insurance-money, and the most repellent man of my acquaintance is a philanthropist who has spent nearly a quarter of a million upon the London poor." - Arthur Conan Doyle
Word (or phrase) of the day: Autopoesis
Hero(es) of the day: Robert Owen
I've been thinking a lot about this lately and noticing my reactions to folks I see on the streets or in the train. I've decided that making decisions on the basis of how someone looks, and picking your friends (and even lovers) on the basis of their appearance, is like deciding to drink beverages based on what the bottles look like. You could be guzzling poison out of a shiny and pretty new vessel while ignoring healthy juices and water because the jars are plain or ugly.
When I look at all these attractive people, I remind myself that it's the container that I'm drawn to. What the person looks like says nothing about their character, their values, their personality, or who they really are. If we don't know someone, all we see is the container, not the stuff inside.
I've heard lots of talk about the problems with meeting people over the internet and lots of worries about it, but I think there are ways in which it's actually better. When I find profiles of people, I don't pay a lot of attention their pictures, if they post them; I pay attention to what they say. This way I get a chance to connect with people who are interested in the things that I'm interested in, people who claim to share my values.
In a similar way, I am going to events that are about subjects that are important to me, partly as a way to meet people. I figure, if they're coming to this they are probably interested in something I'm also interested; I should talk with them and find out what else they are interested in. If we do have a lot in common, maybe I should get to know them better. And their appearance has nothing to do with any of this.
Unfortunately, I need to admit that I'm not immune to visual judgements. I find myself thinking, 'There's an interesting looking person...' before I remember that it's the container I'm looking at. I have no idea what this person is really like, what they believe, whether I would enjoy their company. None of that has anything to do with appearances.
Quote of the day: "The most winning woman I ever knew was hanged for poisoning three little children for their insurance-money, and the most repellent man of my acquaintance is a philanthropist who has spent nearly a quarter of a million upon the London poor." - Arthur Conan Doyle
Word (or phrase) of the day: Autopoesis
Hero(es) of the day: Robert Owen
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Sex and Squeamishness
This blog is not about sex. It's a blog about social change and transformation; in a real way, it's about human life and about making life better for everyone. But human life includes sex and part of the work of human liberation includes sexual liberation.
Some of the most interesting new terms around alternatives are from sexuality and gender, and I regularly include them in my "Word or phrase of the day". I hope I haven't offended anyone, but I want you to know that these things exist. I will not put profanity or obscenity on this blog, there won't be any graphic or clinical descriptions, but I do intend to discuss alternative lifestyles, some of which are focused around gender and sexuality. (I realize that I've already discussed the bonobos, who are an alternative sexuality unto themselves, and they aren't even human!) If you can't deal with the fact that there are people who have unusual views on sexual, etc, matters, this isn't a blog you should be reading. On the other hand, if you see the term GLBT and think, 'Shouldn't there be a few more initials?', you are probably reading the right blog. Not that this will be a constant focus of this blog; just that it's part of the mix.
Someone read my friend Laura's blog and didn't like the language she used. Now, unfortunately, there is a big 'Content Warning' that you have to go through before you can get to her blog. I like to think that because I am careful about the language here and don't have any sexual descriptions or crude language in these posts, that kind of thing won't happen to me. I like to think that there isn't any 'objectionable' material here. But I guess that depends on your squeamishness around these matters.
While I'm talking about sexuality, I'll give a little disclosure. I am bisexual, which means I can be involved with women as well as men. Probably more accurately, I'm pansexual, open to relationships with people of many genders. (But I am cisgendered--that is, I am not transgendered myself.) I'm also polyamorous, which means I can be involved with more than one person at a time. And I think of myself as queer, because I don't fit into a heterosexual (not to mention monogamous) world. It's probably not necessary, but I'll say it anyway: I don't think there is anything wrong with being heterosexual, monogamous, cisgendered, vanilla, etc, anymore than there is anything wrong with being white, male, rich, middle-class, able-bodied, young, middle-aged, and so forth. If we want to make a world that works for everyone, we want to make a world that accepts everyone. I'm not saying you should be any particular type of alternative sexuality, just that these sexualities exist, and there are good people of every sexuality and gender. And if you can't deal with that, you are looking at the wrong blog.
Quote of the day: "As long as sex is dealt with in the current confusion of ignorance and sophistication, denial and indulgence, suppression and stimulation, punishment and exploitation, secrecy and display, it will be associated with a duplicity and indecency that lead neither to intellectual honesty nor human dignity." - Alfred Kinsey
Word (or phrase) of the day: Boi
Hero(es) of the day: Vandana Shiva
Some of the most interesting new terms around alternatives are from sexuality and gender, and I regularly include them in my "Word or phrase of the day". I hope I haven't offended anyone, but I want you to know that these things exist. I will not put profanity or obscenity on this blog, there won't be any graphic or clinical descriptions, but I do intend to discuss alternative lifestyles, some of which are focused around gender and sexuality. (I realize that I've already discussed the bonobos, who are an alternative sexuality unto themselves, and they aren't even human!) If you can't deal with the fact that there are people who have unusual views on sexual, etc, matters, this isn't a blog you should be reading. On the other hand, if you see the term GLBT and think, 'Shouldn't there be a few more initials?', you are probably reading the right blog. Not that this will be a constant focus of this blog; just that it's part of the mix.
Someone read my friend Laura's blog and didn't like the language she used. Now, unfortunately, there is a big 'Content Warning' that you have to go through before you can get to her blog. I like to think that because I am careful about the language here and don't have any sexual descriptions or crude language in these posts, that kind of thing won't happen to me. I like to think that there isn't any 'objectionable' material here. But I guess that depends on your squeamishness around these matters.
While I'm talking about sexuality, I'll give a little disclosure. I am bisexual, which means I can be involved with women as well as men. Probably more accurately, I'm pansexual, open to relationships with people of many genders. (But I am cisgendered--that is, I am not transgendered myself.) I'm also polyamorous, which means I can be involved with more than one person at a time. And I think of myself as queer, because I don't fit into a heterosexual (not to mention monogamous) world. It's probably not necessary, but I'll say it anyway: I don't think there is anything wrong with being heterosexual, monogamous, cisgendered, vanilla, etc, anymore than there is anything wrong with being white, male, rich, middle-class, able-bodied, young, middle-aged, and so forth. If we want to make a world that works for everyone, we want to make a world that accepts everyone. I'm not saying you should be any particular type of alternative sexuality, just that these sexualities exist, and there are good people of every sexuality and gender. And if you can't deal with that, you are looking at the wrong blog.
Quote of the day: "As long as sex is dealt with in the current confusion of ignorance and sophistication, denial and indulgence, suppression and stimulation, punishment and exploitation, secrecy and display, it will be associated with a duplicity and indecency that lead neither to intellectual honesty nor human dignity." - Alfred Kinsey
Word (or phrase) of the day: Boi
Hero(es) of the day: Vandana Shiva
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Bonobos and Chimpanzees
Bonobos are apes that look similar to chimpanzees. (There are physical differences, but I'm not enough of a primate expert to be able to pick them out.) Their behavior, however, is something else. You have to read a lot about them to believe that they exist. They seem like something a sex-obsessed leftie would dream up, but they're quite real. Frans de Waal, an expert on Bonobo behavior, describes them as being "female-centered, egalitarian, ... and substitute sex for aggression." That is an understatement.
(There is a lot of information on the web about bonobos--much of it is from de Waal, but other stuff collaborates his findings. If you want to read a fun blog look at Bonobo Handshake, written by a researcher at the Lola ya Bonobo Sanctuary in the Congo.)
Chimpanzees and bonobos are the two primates that seem most closely related to humans. More than 98% of their DNA is identical to ours. But the behaviors of bonobos and chimps couldn't be more different. Bonobos are a true matriarchal society--bonobo males stay near their mother throughout their life and in bonobo society, it's the mothers that are dominant. However, in chimpanzees, aggressive males rule.
"The most important fact, which has remained unchanged over the last three decades of bonobo research, is that there exist no confirmed reports of lethal aggression, neither from the field nor from captivity. For chimpanzees, in contrast, we have dozens of cases of adult males killing other males, of males killing infants, of females killing infants, and so on. This is in the wild. ... There is absolutely no dearth of such information on chimpanzees, which contrasts greatly with the zero incidence in bonobos. " (Frans de Waal)
De Waal cautions against 'fairy tale' writing about bonobos. There are plenty of conflicts between bonobos. But generally the animals deal with them by 'sexual conflict resolution', a true case of 'make love, not war'.
"... at a forested sanctuary at Kinshasa it was recently decided to merge two groups of bonobos that had lived separately, just so as to induce some activity. No one would ever dream of doing this with chimpanzees as the only possible outcome would be a blood bath. The bonobos produced an orgy instead." (from an article by Frans de Waal)
Bonobos are overall more co-operative and egalitarian than chimpanzees. In experiments reported in the journal Current Biology, bonobos were able to cooperate better to retrieve food than chimpanzees (although chimpanzees hunt cooperatively in the wild), particularly when the food wasn't easy to divide.
So here are our two closest primate 'relatives'--one that's dominated by aggressive males that engage in hunting and warfare, and one that's headed up by the females, that's cooperative and relatively egalitarian, and where sex, rather than violence, is used to deal with conflict. As de Waal says, "The chimpanzee resolves sexual issues with power, the bonobo resolves power issues with sex..." In my last post, I wrote about our need for physical affection and how lack of affection is correlated with violence. Here we can see that it's not just true for human beings.
Frans de Waal has written a book called Our Inner Ape pointing out how similar the behavior of chimps and bonobos is to human behavior and how our biology is connected with their biology. He talks about the chimpanzee and the bonobo within each of us, and seeing humans as a hybrid of the two.
I'm sure anyone who has read much of this blog has no doubt which of the two I'd like to see humans be more like. But de Waal has also written a book called Peacemaking Among Primates where he talks about reconciliation behaviors in many ape and monkey species, including chimps and bonobos. He points out that forgiveness is not just a human characteristic.
Before you let anyone convince you that we can't change war, hierarchy, and domination, beause patriarchy, imperialism, and militarism are in our genes, check out the bonobos. Some of our closest relatives are peaceful bi/poly* feminists.
(*Bisexual and polyamorous. I'll talk more about being bi and poly in a future blog.)
Quote of the day: "...the art of sexual reconciliation may well have reached its evolutionary peak in the bonobo. For these animals, sexual behavior is indistinguishable from social behavior. Given its peacemaking and appeasement functions, it is not surprising that sex among bonobos occurs in so many different partner combinations, including between juveniles and adults. The need for peaceful coexistence is obviously not restricted to adult heterosexual pairs." - Frans de Waal
Word (or phrase) of the day: Biomass
Hero(es) of the day: Viktor Frankl
(There is a lot of information on the web about bonobos--much of it is from de Waal, but other stuff collaborates his findings. If you want to read a fun blog look at Bonobo Handshake, written by a researcher at the Lola ya Bonobo Sanctuary in the Congo.)
Chimpanzees and bonobos are the two primates that seem most closely related to humans. More than 98% of their DNA is identical to ours. But the behaviors of bonobos and chimps couldn't be more different. Bonobos are a true matriarchal society--bonobo males stay near their mother throughout their life and in bonobo society, it's the mothers that are dominant. However, in chimpanzees, aggressive males rule.
"The most important fact, which has remained unchanged over the last three decades of bonobo research, is that there exist no confirmed reports of lethal aggression, neither from the field nor from captivity. For chimpanzees, in contrast, we have dozens of cases of adult males killing other males, of males killing infants, of females killing infants, and so on. This is in the wild. ... There is absolutely no dearth of such information on chimpanzees, which contrasts greatly with the zero incidence in bonobos. " (Frans de Waal)
De Waal cautions against 'fairy tale' writing about bonobos. There are plenty of conflicts between bonobos. But generally the animals deal with them by 'sexual conflict resolution', a true case of 'make love, not war'.
"... at a forested sanctuary at Kinshasa it was recently decided to merge two groups of bonobos that had lived separately, just so as to induce some activity. No one would ever dream of doing this with chimpanzees as the only possible outcome would be a blood bath. The bonobos produced an orgy instead." (from an article by Frans de Waal)
Bonobos are overall more co-operative and egalitarian than chimpanzees. In experiments reported in the journal Current Biology, bonobos were able to cooperate better to retrieve food than chimpanzees (although chimpanzees hunt cooperatively in the wild), particularly when the food wasn't easy to divide.
So here are our two closest primate 'relatives'--one that's dominated by aggressive males that engage in hunting and warfare, and one that's headed up by the females, that's cooperative and relatively egalitarian, and where sex, rather than violence, is used to deal with conflict. As de Waal says, "The chimpanzee resolves sexual issues with power, the bonobo resolves power issues with sex..." In my last post, I wrote about our need for physical affection and how lack of affection is correlated with violence. Here we can see that it's not just true for human beings.
Frans de Waal has written a book called Our Inner Ape pointing out how similar the behavior of chimps and bonobos is to human behavior and how our biology is connected with their biology. He talks about the chimpanzee and the bonobo within each of us, and seeing humans as a hybrid of the two.
I'm sure anyone who has read much of this blog has no doubt which of the two I'd like to see humans be more like. But de Waal has also written a book called Peacemaking Among Primates where he talks about reconciliation behaviors in many ape and monkey species, including chimps and bonobos. He points out that forgiveness is not just a human characteristic.
Before you let anyone convince you that we can't change war, hierarchy, and domination, beause patriarchy, imperialism, and militarism are in our genes, check out the bonobos. Some of our closest relatives are peaceful bi/poly* feminists.
(*Bisexual and polyamorous. I'll talk more about being bi and poly in a future blog.)
Quote of the day: "...the art of sexual reconciliation may well have reached its evolutionary peak in the bonobo. For these animals, sexual behavior is indistinguishable from social behavior. Given its peacemaking and appeasement functions, it is not surprising that sex among bonobos occurs in so many different partner combinations, including between juveniles and adults. The need for peaceful coexistence is obviously not restricted to adult heterosexual pairs." - Frans de Waal
Word (or phrase) of the day: Biomass
Hero(es) of the day: Viktor Frankl
Monday, July 28, 2008
Love and Affection
In some of my earliest posts, I talked about how important love is. Being loving is fine, but it's also important that it's expressed.
I believe that affection, particularly physical affection, is an important way of telling people they are loved. And, while I can be an advocate for sexuality as a means for giving pleasure and affection to others, probably even more important are those physical but nonsexual means of showing affection: cuddling, snuggling, hugging, holding, holding hands, giving massages/backrubs/footrubs, and, of course, kissing. Nonphysical ways of showing affection are important as well: smiling at people and telling them you like them, or even saying "I love you".
The need for physical affection begins young.
James Prescott, a neuropsychologist formerly with the National Institute of Health, started his career by following the lead of primate experimenters such as Harry Harlow, who showed that monkeys raised without some type of physical connection (even such a minimal connection as clutching a cloth 'surrogate mother' as opposed to a metal wire one) became anxious and violent. He then turned to anthropological findings to see how much this need for affection applied to human beings. Dr. Prescott looked at the literature covering 49 different societies, and found that cultures which provided high levels of infant physical affection were very low in adult violence, and cultures which did not provide much infant physical affection were high in adult violence. There were a few cultures that didn't fit that picture but it turned out that all the high infant affection, high violence cultures punished premarital sex and all the low infant affection, low violence cultures permitted premarital sex. Prescott says that without the premarital sex factor the presence or absence of infant physical affection predicts adult violence 80% of the time, and when the premarital sex factor is included, the two variables are a 100% accurate predictor of adult violence. There is a whole website devoted to the work of James Prescott and other relevant literature entitled The Origins of Peace and Violence.
Other researchers support much of this. Tiffany Field, who has done a great deal of research on the need for infant touch and stimulation, also looked at studies that used massage with aggressive adolescents. According to her, this research suggests that touch and human contact reduced violent behavior in these teens.
I don't think it's an accident that our patriarchal, capitalist society, downplays physical affection. Lack of affection not only increases the likelihood of violence, it creates lonely, needy people who are prey for advertisers who use sexual motifs to suggest that their product will give you what you are missing (not to mention being prey to military recruiters). Imagine if we had all the affection and connection that we needed. Maybe we wouldn't need so much in the way of material goods. Maybe we wouldn't need heirarchies and domination. Maybe there would be a lot less violence in the world.
Reach out to someone. Let them know that you care. Give them a hug if they want it. Love and affection are revolutionary acts.
Next: Sex, affection, equality, and violence among the primates.
Quote of the day: "We need 4 hugs a day for survival. We need 8 hugs a day for maintenance. We need 12 hugs a day for growth." - Virginia Satir
Word (or phrase) of the day: Geothermal
Hero(es) of the day: Phan Thị Kim Phúc
I believe that affection, particularly physical affection, is an important way of telling people they are loved. And, while I can be an advocate for sexuality as a means for giving pleasure and affection to others, probably even more important are those physical but nonsexual means of showing affection: cuddling, snuggling, hugging, holding, holding hands, giving massages/backrubs/footrubs, and, of course, kissing. Nonphysical ways of showing affection are important as well: smiling at people and telling them you like them, or even saying "I love you".
The need for physical affection begins young.
James Prescott, a neuropsychologist formerly with the National Institute of Health, started his career by following the lead of primate experimenters such as Harry Harlow, who showed that monkeys raised without some type of physical connection (even such a minimal connection as clutching a cloth 'surrogate mother' as opposed to a metal wire one) became anxious and violent. He then turned to anthropological findings to see how much this need for affection applied to human beings. Dr. Prescott looked at the literature covering 49 different societies, and found that cultures which provided high levels of infant physical affection were very low in adult violence, and cultures which did not provide much infant physical affection were high in adult violence. There were a few cultures that didn't fit that picture but it turned out that all the high infant affection, high violence cultures punished premarital sex and all the low infant affection, low violence cultures permitted premarital sex. Prescott says that without the premarital sex factor the presence or absence of infant physical affection predicts adult violence 80% of the time, and when the premarital sex factor is included, the two variables are a 100% accurate predictor of adult violence. There is a whole website devoted to the work of James Prescott and other relevant literature entitled The Origins of Peace and Violence.
Other researchers support much of this. Tiffany Field, who has done a great deal of research on the need for infant touch and stimulation, also looked at studies that used massage with aggressive adolescents. According to her, this research suggests that touch and human contact reduced violent behavior in these teens.
I don't think it's an accident that our patriarchal, capitalist society, downplays physical affection. Lack of affection not only increases the likelihood of violence, it creates lonely, needy people who are prey for advertisers who use sexual motifs to suggest that their product will give you what you are missing (not to mention being prey to military recruiters). Imagine if we had all the affection and connection that we needed. Maybe we wouldn't need so much in the way of material goods. Maybe we wouldn't need heirarchies and domination. Maybe there would be a lot less violence in the world.
Reach out to someone. Let them know that you care. Give them a hug if they want it. Love and affection are revolutionary acts.
Next: Sex, affection, equality, and violence among the primates.
Quote of the day: "We need 4 hugs a day for survival. We need 8 hugs a day for maintenance. We need 12 hugs a day for growth." - Virginia Satir
Word (or phrase) of the day: Geothermal
Hero(es) of the day: Phan Thị Kim Phúc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
