Support our Kickstarter

The Sexual Revolution, Take Two

Rev_80808_large.jpg

The following article originally appeared in Conscious Choice magazine.

 

For the last few years, I have been exploring the nature of sexuality, love, and relationships, both personally and philosophically. When I separated from my last partner, I realized that I did not feel that monogamy was working for me as a model. Yet I also knew that I craved long-lasting, deep, and sustainable relationships. Since then, I have sought to reconcile my conflicting yearnings, and wondered if other models of relationships are possible or desirable.

Just as we are undergoing a second stage of the process of shamanic initiation that was curtailed at the end of the 1960s, we have entered a wiser and more integrated phase of the Sexual Revolution that crested thirty-five years ago. A more conscious approach to erotic relationships requires a sympathetic awareness of the differences between men and women, and an acceptance of individual distinctions as well. In the 1950s, the scandalous Kinsey Report on human sexuality revealed the vast variety of human sexual experience, and showed that a huge number of people sought intimate contact outside of the confines of their marital relationships. The opening of sexuality in the 1960s led to deflationary decadence in the disco culture of the 1970s, and a pop cultural ambience of constant stimulation and insatiation that the philosopher Herbert Marcuse called "repressive desublimation."

We are still struggling with millennia of negative conditioning – Judeo-Christian guilt, shame, and original sin – around the subject of sexuality. We also belong to a culture that denigrates bodily pleasure and intimacy. In our culture, infants are separated from their parents as soon as they are born and placed in hospital nurseries. In tribal and aboriginal cultures, infants tend to be almost inseparable from their mothers' bodies for the first years of their life. As Robert Lawlor notes in his book Earth Honoring, absence of touch in early life may have long-lasting psychological consequences: For aboriginal peoples, happiness is a natural state of being. For denizens of the modern industrialized world, happiness tends to be a distant and almost unattainable goal.

We may not be able to make meaningful progress in the world without a new paradigm for understanding, and embodying, eroticism in its many forms - our dominating attitude toward nature and the Earth is the result of an age-old schism between masculine and feminine energies that requires rebalancing, in the bedroom and the boardroom and the individual psyche. In the twentieth century, psychoanalysts such as Sigmund Freud and Wilhelm Reich realized that misdirection of sexual energy led to build-ups of frustration and aggression, both individually and collectively. Wars and other mass psychoses such as fascism can be linked to sexually repressive or abusive practices in childrearing. The unnatural desire for power over others and control of other people's reproductive functions by fundamentalists and leaders of the radical right could be the result of psychological complexes caused by distortions of sex energy in early childhood, leaving permanent wounds.

Beyond the use of sex for procreation, many spiritual disciplines – including Tantra, Taoism, and Western alchemy – employ sexual energy for spiritual self-creation, channeling the life-force inward and upward through practices involving breath control, vaginal muscular control, semen retention, and visualizations. A disciplined approach to sexual liberation that applies such practices – a ritualized and resacralized realization of Eros – could become an essential aspect of future human development. In an increasingly overpopulated world, a revisioning of sexuality as one pathway to higher consciousness and the Sacred – and of pleasure and happiness as natural aspects of being – could lead to a profound paradigm shift.

For men and women, a transformation of consciousness around sexuality takes different forms. Young men in our culture are conditioned to avoid emotion and intuition and reared on violent video games and horror films that give them a predatory and alienated sense of self, and an aggressive orientation toward sexuality. Young women learn to use their sexual attractiveness as a form of power that can bring them material rewards – and to see their "value" as attached to their desirability. The only way to overcome these deeply ingrained and highly toxic cultural stereotypes is through inner work, warrior determination, and the lived expression of new cultural archetypes.

In a culture that allows for and encourages individual variety in relationship and sexual preferences, some people will remain happily monogamous, but some will prefer to create new models combining personal liberation, self-discipline, and commitment. A deeper integration of masculine and feminine energies could only happen through a compact based on trust, cooperation, acceptance of difference, and a willingness to collaborate in exploration.

Historically, cultural change starts with the few and moves to the many. If a small group – an alternative culture defined by self-awareness and acceptance of difference – makes a real shift in their expression of sexual polarity, love, and relationship dynamics, this new model could quickly become available to a much larger population. Lately, I see many signs of this change happening in the communities that I visit, as if some ancient wall of silence, judgment, and accumulated mistrust between men and women is finally crumbling, allowing for new levels of communion.


Image: " Samvara" by seriykotik1970 / Ian Goulden used under a Creative Commons license.

 

Comments

eeew!!

Sorry, it's the visuals. I'm thinking of those HBO late night reality shows with sad couples strenuously engaging in adventuresome alternative arrangements. 

There are side effects

I have friends who were born into the 60's free love commune life, and they were really screwed up by it.  Some even became conservatives later in life (the ultimate form of mental damage)  

Monogamy and Evolution

In the news today: http://tinyurl.com/32hkfd

"'Prior to the discovery of the new specimens, scientists did not know that Homo erectus males were far larger than the females,' said Dr Emma Mbua, one of the team. 'This sexual dimorphism is considered a primitive character because it occurs in other apes,' she said, standing in front of the bones at Kenya's National Museum. She said this could also mean the sexual behavior of Homo erectus was more like that of apes, where individuals, especially males, mate with several partners, sometimes in a few hours, than that of its more monogamous human successors."

This new discovery implies that monogamy may have played a significant role in the evolution of Homo sapiens and the ways in which this species differed from Homo erectus.

Does this new data on human evolution also imply that polyamory is not as adaptive or progressive as Daniel claims, but something that has more in common with the culture of Homo erectus over a million years ago?

2 lanes to love?

Daniel, I wondered when you would post this here. Evolution could be a product or producer of more enlightened states. I do question if polyamorous relationships are more evolved than a strong, long term, monogamous relationship. I know people who grew up in the 70’s as swingers and still do swing, but much less now as they are committed to their family. I’ve also known people to have open marriages, akin to polyamory, that ended in very friendly terms, but not due to outside relationships.

My ex-husband and I explored polyamory and swinging for a brief period of time, and neither worked for us. Both had their drawbacks. I do not presuppose that either would not work for some people. My experience lead me to the conclusion that strong, deep commitment to the process of a relationship is a great form of meditation and practice.Such a relationship is a great dance through struggle and happiness. With the right partner passing through time is so filled with play. It is so much fun when you have the right partner to dance with!

We all have our own paths. For some that may mean exploration with many before finding the one. It may be that evolution could occur from either angle.

model

i realy dont know why you would need a model for somthing like love since i can hardly break the code to play the game, how can any1 give some kind of plan with emotions? i think we can think of models by millions but not live in em.

Challenging

I had a great, albeit modestly inebriated, conversation about polyamory at a fire circle this summer. One person defined himself as polyamorous, which to him meant that he had a committed long-term partner while having outside relationships for indeterminate spells: "girlfriends" and "boyfriends" he called them. Another person defined himself as a "swinger," meaning that he and his partner had a committed relationship but had sexual relations with other people. The rest of us were your garden-variety monogamists, some in relationships, some not. It was curious to me that the "swinger" expressed the most indignation at the prospect of polyamory. "Oh, I could never do that" was his perfunctory response to the notion of his partner having an ongoing relationship with someone besides himself. Us monogamists were more curious, wondering what it would be like, how we could do it, what are the benefits, etc. I asked the polyamorist what he thought the key to their success was. "We were together for 10 years beforehand." This suggested to me that these kinds of relationships are most effective when the couple has a terrifically strong and time-tested base from which to branch out. Overall, I was left feeling that there are tremendous challenges awaiting those who endeavor to go outside the bounds of conventional relationship models. I think that may be a key difference between the mindset of this "second stage" and the free love of the 60s: it is less about good times and more about hard work, and it is not risk-free - there are significant costs when things go awry.

Take two indeed... but watch out!

The 60’s brought in a new way of thinking and liberation unprecedented in human history. It showed us by experience that we can break away from social models and conditioning and explore our boundaries to whatever limits we desire. It was not just a social revolution but a thrust from the mind and spirit towards freedom and truth.

However, as history is witness, it all came to a pause, in very similar ways as many other idealist movements have come to a pause. It started with powerful ideals and revelations yet over time it seemed to degenerate into pleasure seeking and ego inflating and selfish pursuits. This was very clearly reflected in the seventies during the times of Disco.

So this is what I think is happening. I come from a software programmer background so let me explain it using an example along those lines. Imagine you are a software program designed by the divine universe. This program is perfect in all its sense, with self awareness and self correction. This program runs on a computer (the universe) that is running instances of other programs that where created just like you but with different running parameters (meaning the same base but different configurations). But in a sense everyone has the same base code and everyone is in the computer so as such they are all connected and one.

Everything was running merrily and all programs where working as they should be doing, performing the functions they where created for until one day when somehow a virus entered the system the programs lived in. This piece of virus was a nasty little bugger, as it got embedded in the programs that where currently running and then, over time as the programs multiplied (yes this was part of their function as they where intelligent programs creating improved copies of themselves before terminating) the virus attached itself to the copies so that in the end it appeared as if the virus was part of the normal behaviour of the programs themselves.

After many thousands of years, the virus has multiplied so that is present in almost every running program. Not only that, but the virus has now many variations. A program may have many running viruses running on its execution. Luckily, built into the system was a powerful antivirus that ran every so often. The function of this antivirus was to bring awareness of the program to the running programs so that they could attempt to correct the situation and fix their bugs. However since the virus is so ingrained, it takes the antivirus several iterations to remove the virus from the system.

I believe this antivirus is running now and ran before in the 60’s. What caused the 60 revolution to be curtailed was the virus corrupting the effort that the antivirus had catalyzed. Now we have to learn from the past and identify what is this virus. This is what I believe the virus to be.

  • Desire for pleasure, pleasure seeking (different from pleasure enjoyment of the moment). This leads to degeneration of ideals.
  • Greed – Wanting more and more of something material
  • Vanity – Ego inflation, wanting to be recognized and show off
  • Envy, Jealousy, Discrimination – Seeing things and others as better or worse and desiring to be like them or having negative emotions towards them because of resentment.
  • Hypocrisy – lacking integrity, saying one thing and doing another
  • Dishonesty – exaggerating or curtailing the truth for ego inflating/defensive purposes
  • Anger and Hate – being disconnected with each other and such not having love for one another and for oneself. This is manifested most of the time as passive anger, ie withdrawal, coldness, politically correctness.

This is what I thing the virus tools are to avoid detection by the program:

  • Laziness, Sloth, Satisfaction – keeps the program from working at full capacity
  • Distraction – a powerful tool used by the virus to misdirect any efforts made by the program to identify the virus.
  • Doubt – This makes the program not execute proper procedures that would aid it in removing the virus.
  • Fear – the ultimate virus control and defense mechanism. When all fails the virus uses fear to establish itself firmly back in place.

      So, as long as we have the virus ingrained in us, our efforts will be curtailed. We need to start with ourselves by removing this virus and then expand the effort and not the other way around. It is easy to blame governments and corporations for doing the evil of the world but it is much harder to admit the faults within us. If we do, and heal ourselves from this virus, we can avoid repeating the same patterns of the past and continue where the 60’s revolution left off.

On further reflection

I re-read your post and this part stuck out:

 

"When I separated from my last partner, I realized that I did not feel that monogamy was working for me as a model. Yet I also knew that I craved long-lasting, deep, and sustainable relationships. Since then, I have sought to reconcile my conflicting yearnings, and wondered if other models of relationships are possible or desirable."

 

Please don't take this as judgement, but the core issue here is not your relationships with others, it is your relationship with yourself. You have a void and could not fill it with one person, so you seek a patchwork to bring wholeness. This will still not work. The more your energy is directed outside to other people, the further away from your core you travel. Rather, fill the void from the inside out rather than the outside in. If you can be happy all by yourself without any human contact then you have achieved freedom, after that, relationships with other will be harmonious because you will not be dissatisfied with them because they didn't meet your desires. Meet your own desires. You don't need anyone else to be happy and complete.  Craving anything is the path to sadness.  Don't crave and don't look for anything.  Never expect that another person will meet your needs, when you do such a thing you hand the keys to your emotional and spiritual well being over to someone else, who is probably more interested in what you are going to do for them.  Even better, serve others without concern for your own needs.

craving

 Hi Pranava,

 One danger of the new spiritual culture is pressure to pretend to be something you are not. Yes, in a perfectly ideal world where I had attained my absolute self-transcendence, I might crave nothing because I would have attained utter self mastery and nondual unity with the cosmos. But in this relative world in which I live and breathe, I do crave fulfilling love relations with women who share my desire for liberation. 

I  feel that lack of self worth and lack of trust are two intimately related conditionings that lead us away from reaching the deeper frequencies of love. I also agree with many of Osho's insights, including the idea that love begins with yourself and moves outward from there.  

In Qabala, they talk about the "return of the Shekinah," the feminine aspect of divinity, and see that return as a necessary part of recovery of wholeness. 

"Will the transformation."-Rilke

"you don't anyone else to be happy and complete..."

i was compelled to comment on the post above...

it's a known fact at this point that we die without each other... relationship, communication, touch, and sensual love. infants die immediately without these elements, adults just die a little slower. please see a fantastic, potent little book called

A GENERAL THEORY OF LOVE, by lewis, amini, and lannon.

this is the fantasy of ascetics... to not need, crave, or look for anything outside of one's self. unfortuantely, a lot of corruption occurs as people try to enforce these impossible ideals - or they adopt toxic or unhealthy substitutes for intimacy.

call it the 'tantric' path, or simply call it the human path, we accept that we need each other in this embodied, earthly predicament, and we make the best of it with grace, generosity, artfulness, consciousness, and compassion.

there may not necessarily be a 'void' that needs to be filled from within, by the choice of polyamory. intimacy, in all it's infinite variations, is an essential nutrient to us humans that looks different for each of us.

in regards to romance, some people are by nature or by choice need monogamous, other polyamorous. neither is wrong or right, as a rule that applies to all. what an exciting world we live in, with such possibilities of our own creation!

cheers to Daniel that he discovered what he needed and wanted for himself, and he embraced that with a refreshing naked and ethical honesty.

PS - i would love a follow-up piece with different real-life examples of creative, unique, loving relationship models.

 love,

bast8

Long Hard Road?...

I think we have a long way to go before we'll know either way on this subject. Perhaps not long in the way that we currently measure time but perhaps so relatively speaking, insofar as we have some troublesome collective growth to go through. What this whole subject area seems to represent though is an engagement with some very powerful paradoxes inherent to human 'nature', whatever that may be. I mean, in my personal experience I have come to conclusions which frequently change. I simultaneously wish we could get past our jealousy whilst feeling it often. This is where i agree with the comments about change coming from within. However, that seems to beg a digression into a metaphysical debate about solipsism and free will. Are we island selves? Does enlightnenment necessarily lead to a permanant state of harmony with others if indeed others truly exist? Paradoxes abound, surely there is a balance to be struck someday.

questions not answers

 First we need better questions, grounded in the authentic paradoxes of our erotic nature. I think that once people are open to the paradoxes, and working on articulating their own desires and fears, we are moving in the right direction. 

 It is interesting how our language tends to fail us when it comes to the intimate realm of personal relationships. What doesn't get expressed remains caught in the subconscious. 

"Will the transformation."-Rilke

Yes!

I only just spotted this comment Daniel. I have to agree. This is perhaps where a shift on a cultural level or within our collective consciousness/unconscious might be the thing to see us truly change with regard to relationahips and intimacy. A linguistic change, a change in our manner of communication, all are inherent to our understanding of our sexual and spiritual interactions with one another. This is also perhaps where matters will become more focussed on and through our intuition which will hopefully be as strong a tool as our powers of reason and rationality are now. Alone, one side of the coin always fails us.

Nice article anyway, it has clearly provoked some interesting thoughts and opinions!

what kinds of examples?

daniel, i feel like this article sort of "fell off". i'd love to hear some examples of what it is you're seeing in communities these days.

i'm not so sure monogamy works for me, either - but then again, i move around a lot and am a woman in my 30s with a sex drive that increases by the hour (blame it on age and higher sex education). my experiences with non-monogamy were positive growth experiences, painful as they sometimes were, but they also involve a LOT more work. quite frankly, not everyone's got the time for that, either.

i used to be an extremely jealous person. after i entered an open relationship, i had to face jealousy on a pretty regular basis, as did my partner. i can't speak for him, but working with the issue instead of attempting to avoid it at all costs (via typical "jealous girlfriend" behavior) did wonders for me in matters of self esteem and personal freedom.

regardless, i'm still not sure we're where we're need to be with this on a consciousness level, and most people who think it SOUNDS appealing really have no idea what kind of work and time consumption is involved to make it happen effectively. it's not simply an attitude change or the discussion of boundaries and such (humans are humans, boundaries always get crossed, and then you have to sit down and discuss it all over again). i know that for myself, i ain't got the time for all that. i'll wait until we're all standardized non-monogamous creatures, i guess or, as i've been doing, staying single and moving around a lot. ;-)

The difference btw Freud and Reich

Propaganda Anonymous In terms of the 'misdirection of sexual energy' while looking in Freud and Reich. Freud thought Reich went too far in his theories about sex and sexual energy. Freud stated in 'Civilization and its Discontents' how Sexual Frustration was almost necessary in order for society to conitue. He called that 'Sublimation' Freud thought that the mysterious, almost demonic like, Id would wreck civilization worst than COUM if people indulged too much into things like Non-Monogamy. Reich used to be a star apprentice to Freud. But they broke ties around the issue of Sex and Sexual sublimation. Reich saw a deeper level to people. Deeper than the ravenous 'ID.' A level to people that was soft, gentle and caing. I think Daniel extrapolates nicely some of the things Reich spoke about. ONE very importantv point to Reich's understandings here... REICH believed that it was impossible for Non-Monagamous relationships to survive within a Capitalist Syetem... Sorry folks...But Reich was a registerd Communist. And when they seemed crazy to him he went even more Individualistic... He appeared more and more like a Anarchist! The institution of Marriage is an Economic Institution. And repressive economic systems are perpetuated thru institutions like this. At least, so says Reich...

I think its vital that we

I think its vital that we remember that posession is not an absolute evil. To posess something, display ownership, entitlement, or to claim specific, egoic, space--whether it be energetically, relationally, or materially, is not a necessary evil. The necessary evil can just be the concept itself. Once given back to the infinite, removed from whatever structure or other concept it is placed with, on top of, through, etc, it is no longer there to fret over. The ego isn't evil. Evil---is. It's as simple as returning to identity. We might consider that we often make fundamentalism out of our relativism. In this sense our spirituality becomes idyllic. We make conceptual monuments to relativism!!! We weave large narratives about the evolution of mankind through religious concepts, and we think because our story is our own, our own, mine, mine, that it is correct. It certainly is this---of no more consequence than anything else. There is nothing outdated, damaging, or de-evolved about monogamy, commitment, relational ownership or jealousy. Fear has no object and neither does arrogance. We can sit on the planet in the mud among the trees or blast off to Sirius, but I think its vital to remember that peace is here with us now, already. Have sex in the streets! Find your soulmate. Let our yes be yes and our no be no. Identity. Adam Elenbaas

The Rick Rodríguez Story

There are some serious lessons to be learned from polyamorous experiments of the 60s. Cult Killer: The Rick Rodríguez Story should be required viewing:

http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Cult_Killer:_The_Rick_Rodriguez_Story

Polyamorous marriages

--

What's Wrong with Monogamy?

What's Wrong with Monogamy?

Hi Daniel,

I want to ask, what's your age? Life experience? How many relationships have you been in?

I have found these factors to determine my interest in the dating/relationship realm, more than any other. When you're young and good-looking enough (not too marked by wrinkle and blotch), it's easy to be attracted to what's new, what's novel; to the enlivening (if somewhat shallow) sparkle that someone new possesses.

As I've moved to the mid end of my 30s, I've consistently found some very primal, very human, very mammalian urges taking a deep, resounding hold of me: a need for regular, consistent, intimacy, of a psychic, emotional, spiritual and physical kind; and I don't want to have to hunt for it, I don't want to go through a million layers of self and other-discovery.

Yes, I assume the discoveries are always going to be there - but I want some bedrock, some deep, fertile soil. I want to build, to have contact with my loved one more often, more regularly, as a regular feature in my world. I have a lot of love to share, and I don't want to have to spread it around too much, to get the deeper parts of myself nourished, or fed, spiritually, psychologically, emotionally or physically.

To be clear, I could not have withstood a relationship of the constancy of what I have now - I would have run, screaming for space. It's not monogamy I feared, it was overexposure to my own psyche, my own personality, reflected in a relationship. I don't think that's a bad thing, though; I was young, I was doing my best, dealing with my life and my issues, growing, achieving, accomplishing. I had a full plate. Except, I kept going back to the well, looking for that deeper love. I'd take a drink, or two or three, but pretty soon I'd feel the pressure build - I didn't quite know how to process everything I was feeling. So, I'd pull back, work on it, but then, that relationship had passed. We were 'just friends,' at that point, if we were anything.

There are many trials in a relationship - space, dealing with personality quirks and issues (of self and of partner). But I think one of the greatest trials of a serious, long-term relationship, is that knowledge, that no matter how much you love each other, no matter how good you are with each other, to each other, someday, the world's going to turn, and there will be a loss, a kind of ending. Someone always leaves the planet first, for some reason or another. And that is its own kind of anxiety.

I wonder now, if I postponed simply loving someone 'monogamously' - that is, in a deeply consistent, kind, loving, committed, 'I'm not going to run away when there are even major problems' sort of way - because somewhere inside I don't ever want to feel that loss. The loss of separation by death, perhaps. My spiritual interests tell me that life continues far past the material boundaries of this little, messy world of ours.. but right now, and for the foreseeable future, I'm quite attached to this world, and I know that there will be pain from that attachment.

I suppose I'm ready to choose that, for all the love, and warmth, and stability, and energy that it brings - it does bring a great deal of energy, of vitality, of life-force, of forward-moving activity into life, a good relationship that focuses on achievement of dreams, as well as sharing of love.

So...thanks for posting your dilemma, and letting me share my thoughts.

I'm with you, Daniel....

I think there is a common misconception that non-monogamy= no commitment. This is simply not true. Building a solid open relationship takes a huge amount of commitment, it is just a different kind of commitment.

A lot of us have been pushed, like square pegs into round holes, trying to fit into the way we are 'supposed' to be in relationships, but it doesn't make us happy. There are a million different kinds of relationships, from totally monogamous to totally open and everything in between. It's up to you and your partner(s) to figure out what works for you. As long as you agree on what you want, you can make it work.

 

I am proud to have a strong, long term, open relationship, and it works for me. I can't imagine living any other way.

love and sexuality are divisible

Thank you for your courageous and clear words, Daniel. It's not popular, but it's an "unconvenient truth": love and sexuality are divisible, must be divisible such as all ressources in our world: air, water, energy. Love and sex are not an exclusive property of one partner. If we don't learn this primordial fact, all efforts for peace and freedom will fail. Lou-Andreas Salomé, a psychoanalyst said in 1904 (!!): "The character of sexuality is in it's essence not monogamy but anarchy." That's also my experience in my life and in my profession: I'm a lutheran reverend and shamanic working psychotherapist in Germany. Hanns-Martin hannsmartinhager@yahoo.de www.purepraesenz.de

Real Network

It's my conviction that our thoughts got remains in the cosmos. Each thought, each feeling. If we live our thoughts and feelings congruently and if we canalize them, we are capable to manage a new (old) consciousness and prepare with it an information-tool of cosmos -for everyone, who would like to access. Often I ask myself how I am be able to "publish" any thougt or feeling. I am be able to do this... simply I only THINK. The cosmos is the biggest for all attainable medium, I know this from my personal experience about this solidarity and the input, that I cover from it and prepare me on 2012 -and the time behind 2012, in giant-steps at the moment. Personally, I know these conflicting yearnings, that physical and mental union in one person seeks, I have discovered myself and my sexuality with 38 as a woman consciously and how much positive energy I connect with it, how much unites me with Earth-Energy, the real union and lasting relationship I have found in the universe, in ALL, which exists. Daniel, I read your book, it is not always simple for me, I read it slowly, because I know, that it's an "opener" for me. Your thoughts are not only in your writings, they are accessible for same-frequencies in the cosmos. (sorry for my German-English) Namaste! YoSam

 "The true voyage of discovery is not to look for new landscapes but to have new eyes."(Marcel Proust)

Giving new life to relationship struggles

In 2002, 19 years after a failed marraige and a failed searching relationship, I decided to make an attempt to understand how to love a man unconditionally. I have an affectionate friend, probably the most charismatic man I know and also a confirmed bachelor with a long line of admirers and hunters in his wake. Over coffee I asked him if through his life and our affectionate relationship he would teach me how to love a man unconditionally. After almost choking on his coffee and tossing it around in his mind he agreed this could be interesting. We made guidelines of what would be allowed: holding hands,tender touching, embracing, sending flowers, walking together in peaceful places without too much talking...but we would not cross the line from a deeper intimacy with one another to sexual escapades. This experience lasted til 2005, it was strongly marked by two significant inner battles with more shallower relationship expressions and urges like the need to possess, alter and change, jealousy, stubborness, power and a deep seething frustration. He confessed to me that he bagan the experience thinking the learning would be only mine..only to discover later that he had become as much entangled and enmeshed in the entire experience. Our struggle to overcome and rid these seemingly deepseated negative expressions of relationship did not die without tremendous soul searching and wrestling with entangled inner feelings. At the end we had both found a sensuous depth of expression quite remarkable...the distance of a room could part us but our eyes, face and body expressions had become so refined we no longer needed words. A touch was felt so deeply it was electrifying and if we approached one another in a crowd without knowledge of presence, sight unseen we knew one anothers touch. We wonder today, although more soul companions than friends and still apart how we ever were so lucky to find the courage to try to do relationship in a deeper way.