Planet Waves FM : Astrology of Marriage; My Theory of Healing

In today’s edition of Planet Waves FM, I look at the current astrology, which involves a Sun-Juno conjunction in Libra — an aspect that is asking some questions about our concept of marriage. I include a discussion of Juno as an astrological factor, as well as some approaches to what it tells us about ourselves. In the second half of the podcast (starting at 30 minutes in) I explore the concept of healing — one of the most misunderstood ideas there is.

Inside the podcasting mill.

This is a follow-up on last week’s discussion with Elisa Novick and offer some of my thoughts about healing process, what a healer is, and how to work with one. I suggest we go beyond seeing a healer as someone with magic powers, or the ability to fix us with their technology, and look at them a someone who holds space and facilitates our process.

Toward the middle of the program, I mention a CD, called My Life in the Bush of Ghosts. This is a masterpiece of found art, an experimental collaboration based on random sounds and assembled with composition by two of my favorite Tauruses, Brian Eno and David Byrne. If you haven’t tuned into the solo work of either of these two composers, you’re in for a treat. This is their first collaboration (as composers — Eno had produced Talking Heads for years). They recently came out with a second one, called Everything that Happens Will Happen Today. These guys are not really musicians — they are artists who happen to express themselves through music (both are excellent painters as well).

Here is your program — and the complete archives — in the old player.

Lovingly,
Eric Francis

Did you know that Planet Waves offers you a variety of astrological readings for every sign in audio format including birthday reports? You’re invited to check them out in our audio store. If you’d like access to Eric’s weekly and monthly horoscopes, visit this link to access your free trial to our premium twice-weekly astrology service.

29 thoughts on “Planet Waves FM : Astrology of Marriage; My Theory of Healing”

  1. “I am insinuating that I’m going to do something different than I would have done five minutes earlier.”

    That’s right. That’s exactly what it means. When I made the vow to remain in fidelity to my husband, it WAS different from what I had been doing before I met him. I had been living a rather promiscuous life before that so that oath or vow meant I was going to do something different after making that vow….and I have.

    Thanks for the explanation; I never knew the reason behind Quakers not swearing oaths. This makes perfect sense.

    I do not think marriage is an oath; I think people make an oath about their marriage and how they will act within it but marriage is not the oath itself. I think marriage is the commitment the two people make, oath or not. The oath is more like a promise the two are making to one another and in public; a statement of intent before witnesses. I say this because in some Pagan societies, marriage doesn’t always come with an oath or vow; it often comes with a stated commitment to be in intimate partnership until it stops working. That’s not the same as an oath or vow.

    Oaths or vows are magical because our words have the power to change how we see others, ourselves and how we act. This is one of the reasons I never use terms of endearment with anyone but my husband and children; words are sacred to me and as such are not to be used unless I really mean what the words imply. As one who studied various types of Pagan religions (eclectic Paganism, Dianic Wicca, Witchcraft, plain Wicca and others) I came to see the value of attaching meaning to words.

    For example, if I say something but act differently, then my words are of no value and others will soon realize this and cease to trust what I say. So I had better mean what I say and say what I mean. That’s why the vow has magic within it; that’s also why breaking it has consequences. If I break my vow, I am not just flippantly doing the opposite of what I said; I have lost credibility with everyone but most of all with myself. I cannot respect myself if I say I will do something and then do something else. People depend on each other and trust one another but that trust will not last if the words they say mean nothing. To remain in integrity with myself, I have to consider carefully what my words mean and say them carefully; especially when dealing with intimate others and commitments.

    I know this is my way of thinking about vows and oaths and not for everyone.

  2. I want to speak – if I may – as a Quaker on the issue of oath taking. Among the few fundamental ideas of Quakerism is that we do not swear oaths. When the “oath” of office of the president (for example) is written, “I hereby do swear (or affirm) that I will…” that is a direct reference to the founding Quakers.

    Here is what we had on our minds. If I swear to tell the truth in court, I am insinuating that I’m going to do something different than I would have done five minutes earlier. When I affirm that I do tell the truth, I am saying, that’s what I do; I’m not going to do anything different with this job or in this testimony than I would do any other day.

    If we look at marriage as an oath, which it is to most people, we see a lot of problems in that the oath is constantly broken. Marriage of affirmation is more like saying, “This is who we are to one another. The marriage does not change anything.” Or how about, “I am in fidelity with you and that is affirmed by our marriage.” Affirmed — not created by.

    Most people believe on some level that marriage as an oath carries a magical power. I would say that’s about 99% of the problem. Oath taking implies allegiance to something other than truth; to the basic facts of existence. It is often used as a ruse for breaking the very pledge that one had promised to keep — i.e., I can be presumed to have told the truth because I took the oath; I can be presumed to be fidelitous because I am married.

    But what are the facts?

  3. “If Juno had the kind of partner who gave her reason to trust, reason to relax and be her deepest Feminine self then She would be more lusty and sexy than anyone would ever have imagined. If she were respected and cherished, then she would be an entirely different energy frequency, wouldn’t she? I see “their” story as our story. This modeling of the primal partnership, and its dysfunctional imbalance has been the underlying framework of the patriarchy which I am so glad is coming to an end.”

    That’s pretty much what I was thinking when I read all about Jono’s history. My next thought and goal is to co-create wih all of “us” a remodeling of that Archetype. We are in this together and we really have a job to do. Thanks for that Willow’s Web link, Eric. She has some GREAT insight for us on what we are doing for ourselves AND the collective.

  4. “An Oath can indeed ” contain the sex drive, curiosity, lust, love, biology or whatever” if it is well-crafted. An oath can and should “take into account human nature”. ”

    In our case, we left out some of the provisions for such things in our public vows because of the attendance of family and people who would not understand such things (both DH and I have strong Capricorn in our charts; his is rising, mine is Moon and Saturn in Cap so no public rocking the family boat).

    Instead, we discussed things privately and agreed on things before we married. We knew we planned on raising children and as I was a child of divorced parents, I made it clear that cheating and/or divorce was out of the question on either side. I proposed that if either of us felt drawn to another, we should discuss it openly with one another and work out a way for it to work; it’s not cheating if it is openly done with approval. The most important thing we agreed on was this; ours is the Primary bond because of the children; anyone we add to the relationship must be told they can only be secondary. If any addition causes any trouble or rift (via their jealousy, possessiveness, divisive talk or actions,) they would be out. We agreed that the partner has veto power when it comes to the addition IF they feel the addition’s actions or attitude threatens the Primary bond or the children in any way. The partner also has say in whether or not the addition becomes a reality BUT with the understanding that s/he must work on any feelings of jealousy, not just say no out of fear.

    So, despite the oaths we publicly took (which I wrote because DH asked me to) we left room privately for those feelings, sexual urges and human nature. So far, neither has found anyone to add to the bond but neither of us is actively looking. Both of us wanted the plan in place in case something happened but we both are content right now and neither really wants the complications adding someone would bring.

    That’s the way people should approach these things; talk about everything. Put it all out on the table, think of every possibility and deal with it before hand and have an agreement in place for what to do about things. Or as I always say to people, be ten steps or twenty years ahead.

  5. “I think the truth is, some people are not wired for oath-taking and others are. Neither is wrong; both are at their best when they understand that about themselves and act accordingly. It is the awareness of which kind of person we are that needs to be sought. If people knew themselves better before going into oaths and vows, there would be a lot less cheating and heartbreak.”

    Exactly! and Beautifully said !! 🙂

  6. Carrie,

    🙂 Thank you for the very appropriate additions. I fully agree. I also agree that down thru the ages both genders have used and abused power to get ahead or to manipulate others. It is a long, sad story but it is more about the use and abuse of power than about marriage, per se. If power were equally distributed between the genders, then would we see so much manipulating going on, I wonder? I honestly don’t know.

    Eric… I would like to politely disagree with the comments on “Oaths”… perhaps I am using the wrong word or perhaps we are using the same word but with different meanings… what I am talking about is the Etheric Container that is created when two (or more) people perform a ritual and make certain agreements before one another, and possibly before their community but at least before one witness. The role of the witness is important for it is the “grounding” factor to bring whatever is agreed to by the parties involved down into form. Without the witness we have only pure potential, from a Quantum perspective.

    An Oath can indeed ” contain the sex drive, curiosity, lust, love, biology or whatever” if it is well-crafted. An oath can and should “take into account human nature”. The problem is that we do not understand what we are doing when we craft these words/agreements and we tend to just say things because we think of it as an empty act, part of something to just add in because it is expected of us. This is the area of Saturn and we must take into account that our words, heart, body and actions must all be in alignment (to the best of our abilities) while still acknowledging that we are evolving beings with very human imperfections. If these realities are brought into the process, then the couple )or group) ought to be able to come up with an agreement that is true and valid FOR THEM.

    This agreement/ “oath” can be anything one wishes to say to one another. This agreement can be as wide open or as narrowly focused as the pair (group) wants. It is up to those individuals who are making the agreement and so often people just accept the words that are handed to them by whoever is presiding over the ritual. How powerful it would be if there was no set standard “vow” to say but instead, as part of the tradition, the couple (or group) had to come up with their own agreements. The point is: what are we agreeing to? Are we truly willing to make this commitment with all of our beingness, to the best of our abilities? If not, then why say so? If one cannot get into full alignment with what one is agreeing to, then you are entering into a false agreement and the Etheric container is already damaged before it has ever had the chance to form. Either change the intention of the agreement or don’t say/do it.

    I also want to acknowledge in this discussion that the act of Marriage has for much of our collective history been rarely about love between people, but more often it is about politics, tradition, social mobility, economics, protection of children, legitimizing bloodlines or peace-making between factions. Marriage for love is a rather recent invention.

    I heard a brief snippet in the news the other day about a proposal being made in Mexico of all places: they are exploring the idea to make all marriage contracts valid for only a short period of time. If you want to get married, great, but the legal contract will only be valid, in the eyes of the government that is, for two years. If after two years the people involved want to renew the contract, great. If not, they are both (all) let out of it at the end of two years.

    This is a very interesting development and would play havoc with all those who profit from the divorce business. There are also deep issues of concern regarding children of such marriages… but I liked hearing that creative re-engineering of “traditional” marriage is being considered by such a large institution and they are apparently taking into account the changing times and human nature.

  7. “But if the marriage is affirming something that is already there, that’s going to work better because there is no weight placed on the “oath” part. The relationship does not have to live up to anything.”

    I think there are times when we grow as people when we have to live up to something. Living up to something makes us responsible in ways not having to live up to things doesn’t. I would also say that often, people only do what they have to do so if they have nothing to live up to, they won’t. If they have no ideal to strive for they won’t strive for it. If they have no weight of commitment, they consciously or subconsciously won’t commit themselves to the growth of the relationship. That’s not to say everyone needs oaths or something to live up to in order to do so; many people aspire to commitment and the growth of the relationship and never need any restraining oath in order to accomplish that.

    Having said that, what I see in these comments is a desire not to be boxed in and for many people that is a legitimate desire and they should not box themselves in with oaths or vows; they grow best when they remain unfettered. However, there are others for which having to live up to something helps them grow; remaining unfettered is chaos for them.

    These seemingly opposing views encapsulate the forces of Uranus and Saturn; Uranus screams freedom and Saturn whispers restraint. Some of us operate under the former better, some under the latter better. There is no ‘only way’ in this issue; that is dichotomous thinking.

    I am speaking from the Saturn group (as if that were not obvious :::smiling:::).

  8. “The real issue is, who set the norm? Who makes the rules that everyone else has to follow?”

    I would posit that a lot of the rules can be found in patriarchy and the denial of the Feminine. I am not a feminist by any means but I do see that the issue of paternity for males is one that requires the securing of the female so that no other males have access; therein lies the oath-making deal.

    Females are made to make an oath of fidelity and though males make the same oath, they are the rule makers so they can break that oath with a lot less negative social consequences than females can. Females must be restrained by exclusivity in such male-dominated social orders.

    An interesting take on what life would be like under a more matriarchal way of being can be found in several of Marion Zimmer Bradley’s books in which females mate with whom they will and males accept this. There are no marriage oaths, no life-long bonds, no restrictions on female sexuality. Children belong to their mothers and both sexes have responsibility to all children of the group or clan. Resource sharing is common in the female-centered groups. It is a fascinating (fictional) look at how things might have been at one time in history.

  9. “The sacred oath is the thing that has the problem. Oaths don’t work.”

    I would disagree because I think that for some, oaths feel comfortable and work very well. As Starhawk used to say (paraphrasing here) a person’s word is important because words change things. Making any oath should never be done without very long and careful and honest consideration. In other words, it is best to know yourself very well if you are going to make an oath. Most people don’t take the time to know themselves well so they make oaths and then find they cannot keep them. Yet some people instinctively feel they can make oaths and keep them; for those people oath-taking works.

    “An oath cannot contain the sex drive, curiosity, lust, love, biology or whatever. An oath cannot contain human nature.”

    No it cannot but the person making the oath CAN contain these things and may find that containment brings forth bloom. Just as a plant can, by limiting the light it is exposed to, be force-bloomed, humans can also blossom in wonderful ways when they restrain themselves at times by oaths taken.

    I have had it both ways; living an unrestrained life emotionally and sexually and living a restrained (by my marriage oath) life emotionally and sexually and I have seen wonderful parts of me grow under both ways of being. There were good things under the former and good things under the latter. Perhaps it was my having had the former that made me sure of my choice for the latter. I thrive under this oath, grow as a person, enjoy a deep and close relationship with DH, and don’t feel like I am missing much most of the time. When I do feel the restraint of the oath, I just remember my previous, unfettered life and I drop into it mentally and emotionally for a bit and remember what it felt like. That memory is pleasant but it reminds me of why I made the oath in the first place. Then I bubble back out of that memory and feel fine.

    I think the truth is, some people are not wired for oath-taking and others are. Neither is wrong; both are at their best when they understand that about themselves and act accordingly. It is the awareness of which kind of person we are that needs to be sought. If people knew themselves better before going into oaths and vows, there would be a lot less cheating and heartbreak.

  10. There are two approaches to marriage: the sacred oath, and an acknowledgment of a relationship that exists. The sacred oath is the thing that has the problem. Oaths don’t work. But if the marriage is affirming something that is already there, that’s going to work better because there is no weight placed on the “oath” part. The relationship does not have to live up to anything.

    An oath cannot contain the sex drive, curiosity, lust, love, biology or whatever. An oath cannot contain human nature.

    Oaths are, in essence, bullshit. I will never taken an oath to tell the truth. Fortunately as a Quaker I have the legal right to AFFIRM that I already tell the truth.

    The oath is not going to turn someone lusty into someone suppressed. How many thousands more years do we need to learn that? And if someone said, “Polgamy is the norm” then we would not be having this discussion. The real issue is, who set the norm? Who makes the rules that everyone else has to follow?

  11. I REALLY like the following and would only make small changes to it (as noted in brackets):

    ” How different would our programming be if this Archetype (in us) was a model of the ideal, mature Male, devoted to his partner[s] and honouring his agreements and responsibilities… and being lusty and loving with her [them] alone thereby keeping the Trust building between the pair [group members] rather than continuously destroying it as the current model does.”

    Bracketed parts are added by me because this concept applies to poly marriages/sacred oaths as well. The same would apply to the Feminine archetype.

    “I am not against wild and lusty behaviour per se. But the marriage agreement is just that, an agreement. A sacred Oath. When that oath/agreement is violated (by either [any] side for any reason), trust is compromised and wounded. The wounded Trust can be recovered if it is understood how the wounding de-powers both [all] partners not just one… in spite of who did what to whom. In our previous karmic cycles which were created in a (mostly) patriarchal set of values, the Feminine in us and the women of the world who held that polarity have had to endure such a loss of trust that it has become almost unbearable to be in our bodies to any great extent because of the humiliation, degradation and abuse that has been thrust upon it, and I mean that most literally. ”

    Again, bracketed parts were added by me to show that the same applies to poly relationships as well.

    I would also say that trust has been broken by women too; women have also (probably because they live under patriarchy) used their bodies (and the strong desire men have for them) against men in many ways. The various games women play (making him work for it, making him ‘pay’ for it with dinner, expensive gifts, etc., saying ‘no’ when she means ‘maybe’ or blaming him for her own sexual desires), damage her credibility and ruin the concept of the Sacred Feminine. These things have also got to stop.

    I just thought it bore mentioning because despite myself being in a monogamous, traditional (one man, one woman) marriage, I think poly marriages (and I wish they were legal) are under the same trust and oath obligations to the sacred feminine and masculine. I also think that patriarchy will fall and as it does, women must stop the games, start being themselves, and help facilitate the balance between the Sacred Feminine and the Sacred Masculine.

  12. I really enjoyed this podcast and last weeks as well. Very thought-provoking indeed.

    I have Juno sitting in a very prominent position in my chart so I have always been drawn to this archetype, even before I knew her placement in my own inner Pantheon of archetypes. I’m also someone who has had to work very hard in my younger days to understand the roots of jealousy as it became a big karmic drama-script that got re-enacted many times thru my various relationships.

    One of the things I’ve observed about Juno is that her “story” , especially the bits about her jealous tirades and struggles for power arise from a culture that was more than a little patriarchal. While no one likes being rejected, lied to , abandoned or otherwise dis-respected in a relationship, her “marriage” seems to exemplify much of how the patriarchy would like to portray marriage; that a woman is to be hunted until captured and once “owned” thru the marriage contract, the husband is then free to continue his lusty ways, almost as a sport, while leaving his wife to stew in the imbalance. Some people have asked; “Why didn’t she just go out and do likewise?” This is an interesting question with a lot of different answers.

    I’d like to take a bit of a risk here in response to Eric’s invitation to dialog about this and report from my Juno-place how she sees this story and her place in it.

    Juno is the Queen of Olympus/Heaven, after all. She sees herself as not only representing a Sacred responsibility to her world, but also needing to set the highest standards of what a loving relationship COULD be. She feels a need to both serve and be revered… not from an egoic point of view, but as an embodiment of the Sacred Feminine. Not so much as the Sacred Whore, as Aphrodite has that job, not as the Sacred Virgin as Diana has tried to take up that misunderstood role. Not as the Sacred Mother- because Demeter does that task beautifully. The aspect of the Sacred Feminine that Juno most wants to embody is that of the Sacred Partner. The One who is an EQUAL to her mate. One who is respected by him, loved by him, and honoured by him. And the one who wants more than anything to be the kind of partner that perfectly compliments the Other. IF she were given her due, she would become more radiant than we could ever imagine, for when the Feminine is loved and adored, she glows and pours forth unending Love… that which we all seek.

    The trouble is, her partner is not a mature example of the Sacred Masculine, even though he is supposedly King of the gods. Imagine how different our relationships would be, our societies, our cultures if this myth were written with a different sort of character in this pivotal role. How different would our programming be if this Archetype (in us) was a model of the ideal, mature Male, devoted to his partner and honouring his agreements and responsibilities… and being lusty and loving with her alone thereby keeping the Trust building between the pair rather than continuously destroying it as the current model does. To be sure, the stories would not be so juicy, but might we not all be better off if we had something more evolved to emulate and aspire towards? Would not the Sacred container of Marriage take on a whole different meaning in our societies if it represented a partnership between mutually empowered and respected equals?

    If Juno had the kind of partner who gave her reason to trust, reason to relax and be her deepest Feminine self then She would be more lusty and sexy than anyone would ever have imagined. If she were respected and cherished, then she would be an entirely different energy frequency, wouldn’t she? I see “their” story as our story. This modeling of the primal partnership, and its dysfunctional imbalance has been the underlying framework of the patriarchy which I am so glad is coming to an end.

    I am not against wild and lusty behaviour per se. But the marriage agreement is just that, an agreement. A sacred Oath. When that oath/agreement is violated (by either side for any reason), trust is compromised and wounded. The wounded Trust can be recovered if it is understood how the wounding de-powers both partners not just one… in spite of who did what to whom. In our previous karmic cycles which were created in a (mostly) patriarchal set of values, the Feminine in us and the women of the world who held that polarity have had to endure such a loss of trust that it has become almost unbearable to be in our bodies to any great extent because of the humiliation, degradation and abuse that has been thrust upon it, and I mean that most literally. Of course, there are all sorts of stages of relationship that lead up to the Marriage agreement. It is my belief that as women, we carry within us that Juno part of us that longs for the kind of partnership that we know is possible. She-in-us, who knows how to give Love unending to her Beloved has been waiting such a long time for her EQUAL Sovereign to show up… to enact the mysteries of the Sacred Union, here and now. She-in-us wants to cast off these false stories of who we think She is, and to take up that which She truly is; the Queen of Heaven… and bring Heaven to Earth.

    I know that some will think that this is an overly romantic notion… especially given our dysfunctional society and dire planetary situation…but one thing that Juno-in-me also has is an uncompromising faith in what she knows in her heart to be possible in Sacred partnership, and for the return of the Sacred Feminine to this world…and she will hold out for that for as long as she has to, and she will put up with the false stories and costumes (for now) because She KNOWS…. she KNOWS that if this split could ever be healed, it will be SO worth all the suffering that has come down thru the ages. The Juno in all of us is holding fast to her highest ideals and that is why we keep trying to make relationships work.

  13. Love it that you brought up the Inner Guide, The inner Knower that the Healer as the main goal of the “healing” introduces to the one who comes to be healed. It was a long time coming for me and the most important relationship that I now have.

  14. Great discussion on healing. It both validates as well as, adds to my own experience. i love the tip about how they feel about sex – mucho importante! With regards to that, I ventured whole-heartedly into the realms of BDSM 2 years ago, having skirted it and played around the edges since puberty. I have been met with extraordinary reactions from a variety of close acquaintances, to the point of being very careful who I divulge that part of my life to. I imagine it being similar to the reactions homosexuals received, say, back in the ’50’s. In many ways it has been a very interesting experience. On the bright side, the first annual FETISH PRIDE parade will be taking place out in California in the spring, so maybe it is time to come out of the closet/dungeon.

    Secondly, I have a very clear memory when I was 4 years old (the last year my parents attended Episcopal church on Sundays), being fascinated by the Holy Spirit and asking my mother about it as well. No information was forthcoming. I feel, in many ways, like I have been on a quest my whole life since, to find it. Maybe there is some good that can come out of the church, who knew?

    Keep up the good work! oh, and I loved Elisa’s piece about the trees! Yah! I have talked to trees my whole life, and mourned them and been taught by them. They are some of my best friends!

  15. well, this makes sense to me:

    “What both sides of this extreme oscillation have in common is the patriarchal destruction of eros. “Eros” is being used here to refer to a person’s capacity for deep communion or even oceanic merger with another. Eros does not necessarily have to involve physical intimacy and it is quite common for sexual transactions to involve no eros at all. Pornographic sex on the level of the genitalia, sex as a metaphor for power, and many other popular versions of sex may be entirely unerotic.”

  16. I had sophisticated girlfriends in that era who turned me onto interesting music – this record was just called Byrne-Eno at the time, the formal title was left out 🙂

    e

    PS, another favorite Eno of mine is Another Green World.

  17. I also want to chime in and add, I very much enjoyed the talk with Elisa last week. Something about her voice/energy was so soothing, even though I’ve never experienced many of the things she was talking about myself, it was pure magic. Hoping to listen to this one in full soon.

  18. It is definitely Byrne-Eno.

    My Life in the Bush of Ghosts is a 1981 album by Brian Eno and David Byrne, titled after Amos Tutuola’s 1954 novel of the same name. The album was re-released in expanded form in 2006.

    Receiving strong reviews upon its release, My Life is now regarded as a high point in the discographies of Eno and Byrne.[11] In a 1985 interview, singer Kate Bush remarked that the album “left a very big mark on popular music,”[12] while critic John Bush describes it as a “pioneering work for countless styles connected to electronics, ambience, and Third World music.”[13] The extensive use of sampling on My Life is widely considered ground-breaking—it was one of the first albums to do so—but its actual influence on the sample-based music genres that later emerged continues to be debated.[14][15]

  19. My Life in the Bush of Ghosts came out in the 80s — one of Eno’s finest. Byrne? I don’t think he was involved in the earlier one. Anyway I’ve been using the 1981 version as a ‘soundsurround’ for writing for decades, literally played the tape to death.

    The only thing I can find now are dubstep remixes (sigh) – too fast, not nearly atmospheric enough.

    ***
    **
    *

  20. i’m curious about the thing mentioned re: if people aren’t totally sex-positive
    (i know that’s not the language used, but i connected it with some different perspectives i’ve been hearing)

    – which is, some people (this is in ‘activism community’) will ‘shoot/shout down’ people by calling them ‘not sex positive’ – and i agree that sex positivism is an antidote to much of the negativity around sexuality in society – but then recently i heard a different view about how the concept of ‘sex positive’ doesn’t really mean anything or make sense, if it’s used in the ‘all sex or anything about sex is good’, and if it’s not being used in that sense, then to use it to try and silence or discount what someone else is saying doesnt’ really work (and if it is used in that previously-mentioned sense, then where’s the stance on sexual assault or childhood sexual abuse, etc… again, it doesn’t seem to make sense in that respect)

    so that’s the prelude, the question is, what would you (Eric) or others think of this kind of perspective on sex:
    http://www.zaporacle.com/born-under-a-blood-red-moon-metamorphosis-of-the-feminine-in-the-dreams-of-young-women/

    it’s coming from another person (Jonathan Zap) whose writing i’ve found online and he seems to have some really interesting and valuable stuff to say … and i see you’ve both been drawn to the Evolver/Reality Sandwich community, so it’d be interesting to hear a take on his piece riffing on interpretations of the dreams of young women, that begins with an introduction, “The most consistent theme these dreams expose is the toxicity of promiscuous patriarchal sexuality. ”

    or, further in, says “Sexuality, and eros in general, has undergone a patriarchal enantiodromia or pendulum swing. Not too long ago in Western culture, and continuing to this day in many subcultures, sexuality was highly repressed and was supposed to occur only in marriage and for the purpose of reproduction. This form of patriarchal sexuality then flipped over, especially in the 1960s, and the new norm became promiscuity. As the lyrics of the classic 1970 song by Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young put it: “If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you with.” What both sides of this extreme oscillation have in common is the patriarchal destruction of eros. “Eros” is being used here to refer to a person’s capacity for deep communion or even oceanic merger with another. Eros does not necessarily have to involve physical intimacy and it is quite common for sexual transactions to involve no eros at all. Pornographic sex on the level of the genitalia, sex as a metaphor for power, and many other popular versions of sex may be entirely unerotic.”

  21. Thanks for this, Eric – didn’t know it, brilliant. Just been to see This must be the place by Italian director Sorrentino starring Sean Penn. May not be out in the States yet. The sound track is by David Byrne – and at a certain point in the film he performs the title track on this kind of revolving stage inside a house – just wonderful. He even makes a cameo appearance in the film, and the point you made comes up, that fundamentally he’s an artist.

Leave a Comment