Open & Closed Relationships
Love is Love, whatever the form
|
|
|
 Search this Page: Press Ctrl+f to find any term or phrase on this page (Cmd+f for Mac).
|
|
| Author |
Message |
|
|
| Open & Closed Relationships Posted: November 29, 2004 |
 |
|
This Forum is under construction -- content will be added as time permits. We invite you to post messages related to the Topic, and to comment on posts by others below.
For a full list of completed Topics, click here.
This Topic will teach:
Commitment - what it means & what it doesn't. Why anything goes so long as two come together in shared desire.
Plus, a complete guide to loving your insignificant other(s) in open relationships.
_________________
Sexual union is a mirror of Spiritual Union, and a gateway to direct experience of it. |
|
 |
russ
Active User
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
Posts: 159
Location: Indianapolis
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marriage An endangered species? Posted: May 14, 2005 |
|
|
Divorce rate for married couples is over 50% in the US across the board
whether people are "religious " or not. Something is wrong? Maybe, maybe maybe not, but why get married, what does it mean and what is it's purpose?
I am in my third marriage so I am not someone speaking from an Ivory Tower. I am also liberal { classical definition here : generous, inclusive, abundance in sharing} so what ever people choose be it monogamy, polyamory, swinging, wide open , homsexual/lesbian or anything else is fine by me although monogamy is my path.
The "Leave it to Beaver" scenario was blown out of the water during it's hey day but there is in each heart a desire for deep intimacy, connection and union which was Idealized by The Cleavers{ an interesting name choice for the 50's ideal family yes!} and continues to be to this day in music , movies and TV programs like "The King of Queens"& "Raymond"
Programs like "Divorce Court", "Jerry Springer", "Dr Phil", "Maury", et al
portray the incredible diversity of socio-economic and educational levels of couples who are devastated by infidelity/betrayal of trust and end their relationships whatever they may be.
Judge Maybleine Ephram of Divorce Court clarion calls :"look deep before you leap" yet do we and can we really?
I hope those who view this section will "weigh in" with their opinions, and perspectives . Marriage , at least in America, is in a state of flux at best and going down the tubes at worst so come on folks surely you have something to contribute here be it staunch conservatism, way radical expressionism , or some where in between.
_________________
To be loved deeply by someone gives you strength, to love someone deeply gives you courage. Lao Tzu |
|
|
|
|
| Re: Marriage An endangered species? Posted: May 15, 2005 |
|
|
| russ said: |
| Divorce rate for married couples is over 50% in the US across the board whether people are "religious " or not. |
Actually, I read an article last year (in the heat of the Bush/Kerry Conservative/Liberal election race) that showed divorce rates in Republican Texas were among the highest in the nation, and Liberal Massachusetts among the lowest, so religion is obviously not keeping marriages together.
Yes, we clearly need to build our relationships on something deeper and more binding -- our true inner desires. Find someone who shares yours, and build a life together -- and stop judging, moralizing about, and fighting over what those desires are or should be.
_________________
Sexual union is a mirror of Spiritual Union, and a gateway to direct experience of it. |
|
|
russ
Active User
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
Posts: 159
Location: Indianapolis
|
| Back to top |
|
| Re: Marriage An endangered species? Posted: August 10, 2005 |
|
|
I have been reflecting on the role of love in sustaining a long term committment/ marriage. My reflection kept coming back to the "four types of love" proposed by the ancient Greek philosophers and the role that each plays in building a strong yet flexible bond over time and through a variety of circumstances.
The four types of love elucidated by the Greeks are:
Agape/Caritas, Philias, Storge {stor-gay} and Eros
Each is defined as follows
Agape/Caritas : Unconditional Love Selfless love which desires only what is best for the beloved without expectation of return.
Philias: Friendship. Love based on common interests, insights and values coupled with co-operation, mutual respect and understanding
Storge: Affection. A quiet comfortable satisfaction in being together and non sexual expressions of affection. Enjoying each others company.
Eros : Passionate sexual love often referred to as Venus. Usually short lived.
The main complaint of long term lovers is a decline in Eros expressed as losing the passion, spark, chemistry, magic. Does this loss of Eros simply result from the progress of time or is it more a matter of deficiencies/ absenses of expressions of Agape , Philias and Storge on a daily basis which turn off the Eros. There are a plethora of programs and ideas about rekindling Eros through" breaking the habitual" doing different things in different places perhaps with different people. But is this decline in Eros also a result of falling into habitual actions and attitudes which result in closing the heart through failing to express affection, friendship and unconditional love? It's hard to be hot for someone who doesn't want to spend time with you or when your time together is tension filled and argumentative and especially one who "wasn't there for you" when you really needed them to be.
I believe that in a long term relationship the expressions of Agape, Philias and Storge are what keep the fire banked and able to spark up into Eros. Eros is difficult if not impossible to be sustained without everyday expressions of friendship, non sexual affection and unconditional love in a long term relationship.
What do you think ?
_________________
To be loved deeply by someone gives you strength, to love someone deeply gives you courage. Lao Tzu |
|
|
sita
Rising Contributor
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 18
Location: Philadelphia area
|
| Back to top |
|
| Keeping Eros alive in a long term relationship Posted: August 11, 2005 |
|
|
Russ said:
Does this loss of Eros simply result from the progress of time? ......... I believe that in a long term relationship the expressions of Agape, Philias and Storge are what keep the fire banked and able to spark up into Eros. Eros is difficult if not impossible to be sustained without everyday expressions of friendship, non sexual affection and unconditional love in a long term relationship.
What do you think?
I agree with you, Russ.... I have been in several commited relationships, myself, and am currently exploring a new relationship. I find that when my present partner and I are happy in the above 3 areas that you described, rekindling Eros anytime and at will,... by either of us,.... is easy, natural, and spontaneous. Eros is our true nature , our life force, and when we're both open and satisfied on the other levels, our sacred sex energy flows spontaneously..... There is no need to rekindle it from the outside, in fact, the the longer we are together and the deeper we know each other and connect, the easier it is to make love, sacred love......
I find that we also have to be willing to look at our own selves objectively and let go of our own obstacles that prevent us from experiencing our eros within. (I really appreciated reading the forum on Obstacles).....
Therefore, I conclude that "Eros" is usually short lived because couples, selfishly ignore their partners needs. They start projecting their own past injuries onto their present partner. They misunderstand each others intentions. They don't communicate their needs and desires well. And deffinitely as you say... but without understading the cosenquences of their actions,.... they "continue habitual actions and attitudes which result in closing the heart through failing to express affection, friendship and unconditional love".
Last edited by sita on Sat Aug 13, 2005 2:52pm; edited 2 times in total.
|
|
|
|
|
| Keeping Eros alive in a long term relationship Posted: August 12, 2005 |
|
|
I think it's great that the Greeks distinguished between these different types of love. It fits perfectly with a related Topic in this Forum: Many-splendored Love. I'm curious though where you got the definitions, Russ. I'm not a Greek scholar, but my understanding of Eros is that it's more along the lines of your definition of agape, even a step higher -- unconditional love for everything; spiritual love that opens the heart to everything. I presented this idea in the Sacred Sex Tradition Forum on Ancient Greece:
| Gary Joseph said: |
To the Greeks, Eros was the glue or magnetism that holds the universe together. It is the interrelatedness of all life, and the harmony between all beings.
Today, most people equate the word Eros with love and sexuality. There is good reason for that, but Eros is so much more. Love and lovemaking, in bringing people together in union, were part of Eros, but a fuller definition is what we would call 'God's Love' -- that all-attracting force that makes creation a unified diversity, a uni-verse. To the Greeks, human love and sexuality were simply ways to participate in that greater Eros.
Eros is not the physical sex act itself; it is the meaningful connection you feel during sex. That connectedness is not just with your immediate partner, but rather to creation as a whole. You feel a sense of belonging, inclusion, and oneness with creation during sex. That experience, which is exactly what sacred sex creates, is Eros. |
There's clearly a connection between Eros, as defined above, and sexual passion: people whose hearts are open to unconditional love and the harmony of all things show passion for ALL of life, including sex. Perhaps that's where the more common definition of Eros comes from.
Under that definition - love passion - I agree with what you both say, that passion stays alive in a relationship that has the other types of love too: friendship, affection, and unconditional caring.
Sacred sex offers a clear understanding about why these various types of love are present in a long-term relationship, or not. Love flows with life energy. When your life energy is flowing, your heart flows with love. When life energy is blocked, you feel frustrated, angry, impotent, alone, and closed down. The key to keeping love alive in relationship is to keep life energy flowing.
What then, inspires life energy to flow? The answer is DESIRE. When we want something, our juices begin flowing to get that. (See the Desire Forum for a complete explanation).
Physical attraction is a strong factor in this, especially at the start of relationships. This explains why passion is so high at first. But for a long-term relationship to remain healthy and passionate, desire must remain strong at a much deeper level than the physical. The relationship must satisfy it on a day-to-day basis, on every level.
Each of us has life desires -- ideals & goals we want for ourselves; how we want our life to be. We must feel daily progress toward fulfillment of these desires for our life energy to passionately flow. Relationship must contribute to that growth.
The single most significant factor in keeping a relationship together and alive in passion is shared desire. Then, both partners work toward the same goal every day of the relationship. Each sees the other as contributing toward the fulfillment of their own desire, and so mutual friendship, affection, and love grows daily. Love progresses as the fulfillment of mutual desire unfolds.
| sita said: |
| Eros is our true nature.... |
That's exactly true, and we feel it in relationship when our personal desires are being fulfilled by a partner who shares those desires.
This is why I believe it's so important to evolve a thorough and effective matchmaking service for singles -- one that matches according to life desires. The current methods used are not enough, and simply don't work: chance meeting, blind dates (appropriate name), 3-line personal ads in newspapers, brief internet descriptions and a picture, etc. There are some services that now take advantage of computer technology and match according to deeper values, and those are an improvement. But even many of these are too superficial in their approach.
The Love Forum gives a full description of this idea of love based on mutual desire. The Society for Sacred Sexuality is also committed to developing & offering such a matchmaking service to its members.
_________________
Sexual union is a mirror of Spiritual Union, and a gateway to direct experience of it. |
|
|
|
|
| Open & Closed Marriage Posted: August 12, 2005 |
|
|
As far as all this relates to open & closed marriage, I think that simply falls into the category of personal desire -- it is one piece in the picture we have of our life. If our desire is for an open marriage, then find a partner who shares that desire, among others, and build a life together.
I agree with Sita that looking outside your marriage or committed relationship to bring back a spark of passion or excitement isn't a solution. Yes, it may briefly bring some passion into your life, but it doesn't deepen your relationship or resolve the issues that are sapping the passion from it in the first place.
If one is in a passionless relationship due to the above cause (conflicting life desires), and it seems irreconcilable, then face the situation, part ways, wish each other well, and find a more suitable partner.
_________________
Sexual union is a mirror of Spiritual Union, and a gateway to direct experience of it. |
|
|
russ
Active User
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
Posts: 159
Location: Indianapolis
|
| Back to top |
|
| My sources Posted: August 14, 2005 |
|
|
Gary Joseph asked 'Where did you get your definitions?'
As I was reflecting I went to the net and typed in "The four types of Love" I went through virtually all of the sources cited and there was a consensus on those definitions . After reading your reply I went back to the net and looked under "Ancient Greek definitions of Love" and found pretty much the same thing with an interesting twist which surprised me. There was a definite mistrust of Eros because of it's intensity. volitility, and unpredictability{ cupid shooting his arrow is unpredictable and capricious} . Nowhere did I find any definitions of Eros being defined like Agape.
My curiosity is now piqued Gary! Where have you found these definitions? I am not contesting you. History has a way of being manipulated by those in power and those allied with those in power.
Have I run into such a manipulation which you have not ? If so please enlighten me! I am only interested in the truth and expressing it.
_________________
To be loved deeply by someone gives you strength, to love someone deeply gives you courage. Lao Tzu |
|
|
|
|
| Meaning of Eros Posted: August 14, 2005 |
|
|
Our understanding of Eros has fallen prey to the same fate as other sacred concepts, especially those centered around sexuality. What happens is that 'scholars' without spiritual experience or understanding come across customs, ideals, and words from ancient cultures, and interpret them according to their own limited understanding. Because they are 'scholars', their ideas get promoted and disseminated as 'truth'. They don't intentionally deceive; they simply don't know better. Their ideas then become part of society's accepted knowledge.
Thomas Moore, a well-known author and former Catholic monk who has researched and written about sexual issues, writes:
| Thomas Moore, in The Soul of Sex, pp. 11-12 said: |
| In modern times the word eros has been corrupted to refer to plain physical sexual acts, and even to the lowest kinds of sex. The word is actually abhorrent to some people, a surprising development since in classical literature it was a highly spiritual, cosmic, and lofty kind of love. In Greek literature eros is nothing less than the magnetism that holds the entire universe together, and human love in its many forms is simply a participation in that greater eros. |
Moore quotes Carl Jung as echoing this idea:
| Carl Jung, in his Dream Analysis seminar given in 1928-30 said: |
| ....people think that eros is sex, but not at all, Eros is relatedness. |
Moore continues by saying that "it [eros] is the meaningful connection established by sex".
When researching ideas like this, such as I did for much of the Sacred Sex Tradition Forum, I always like to go back to the source, and not take anyone's word for it (i.e. 'scholars'). Below are Plato's ideas from his Symposium.
Several philosophers gather together to discuss the nature of Eros (love). After many accolades poured upon Eros by the other philosophers, Socrates dismisses them all as fanciful discourses devoid of reason, and embarks on a systematic logical argument defining love and its value. A summary of his logic follows:
1. When you love, you love something, not nothing.
2. Love desires something that we do not have, not something we already have.
3. Love desires the beautiful & the good [here 'beautiful' & 'good' are understood as two of Plato's 'pure forms', or spiritual qualities].
Next, Socrates offers a brilliant deduction as a set-up for his conclusion:
4. If love desires the beautiful & the good, it must not possess those qualities itself (point 2); therefore, love (Eros) is neither beautiful nor good.
Socrates then proceeds to defer to the wisdom of a woman named Diotima, whom he calls his instructress in the art of love. She proceeds to point out that:
5. Just because something doesn't possess a quality, doesn't mean it is possessed of the opposite quality; there can be a middle point or a mean between the two.
This leads to Socrates' conclusion (through the persona of Diotima) of the role of Eros in uniting man/woman with the divine:
"What is he, Diotima?" "He is a great spirit, and like all spirits he is intermediate between the divine and the mortal." "And what," I said, "is his power?" "He interprets," she replied, "between gods and men, conveying and taking across to the gods the prayers and sacrifices of men, and to men the commands and replies of the gods; he is the mediator who spans the chasm which divides them, and therefore in him all is bound together, and through him the arts of the prophet and the priest, their sacrifices and mysteries and charms, and all, prophecy and incantation, find their way. For God mingles not with man; but through Love all the intercourse and converse of God with man, whether awake or
asleep, is carried on. The wisdom which understands this is spiritual; all
other wisdom, such as that of arts and handicrafts, is mean and vulgar."
For lovers of Greek philosophy, here is the entire brilliant passage from Plato's Symposium (the entire Symposium may be viewed here):
But if you like to here the truth about love, I [Socrates] am ready to speak in my own manner....
In the magnificent oration which you have just uttered, I think that you were right, my dear Agathon, in proposing to speak of the nature of Love first and afterwards of his works-that is a way of beginning which I very much approve. And as you have spoken so eloquently of his nature, may I ask you further, Whether love is the love of something or of nothing? And here I must explain myself: I do not want you to say that love is the love of a father or the love of a mother - that would be ridiculous; but to answer as you would, if I asked is a father a father of something? To which you would find no difficulty in replying, of a son or daughter: and the answer would be right.
Very true, said Agathon.
And you would say the same of a mother?
He assented.
Yet let me ask you one more question in order to illustrate my meaning: Is not a brother to be regarded essentially as a brother of something?
Certainly, he replied.
That is, of a brother or sister?
Yes, he said.
And now, said Socrates, I will ask about Love: -Is Love of something or of nothing?
Of something, surely, he replied.
Keep in mind what this is, and tell me what I want to know - whether Love desires that of which love is.
Yes, surely.
And does he possess, or does he not possess, that which he loves and desires?
Probably not, I should say.
Nay, replied Socrates, I would have you consider whether "necessarily" is not rather the word. The inference that he who desires something is in want of something, and that he who desires nothing is in want of nothing, is in my judgment, Agathon absolutely and necessarily true. What do you think?
I agree with you, said Agathon.
Very good. Would he who is great, desire to be great, or he who is strong, desire to be strong?
That would be inconsistent with our previous admissions.
True. For he who is anything cannot want to be that which he is?
Very true.
And yet, added Socrates, if a man being strong desired to be strong, or being swift desired to be swift, or being healthy desired to be healthy, in that case he might be thought to desire something which he already has or is. I give the example in order that we may avoid misconception. For the possessors of these qualities, Agathon, must be supposed to have their respective advantages at the time, whether they choose or not; and who can desire that which he has? Therefore when a person says, I am well and wish to be well, or I am rich and wish to be rich, and I desire simply to have what I have - to him we shall reply: "You, my friend, having wealth and health and strength, want to have the continuance of them; for at this moment, whether you choose or no, you have them. And when you say, I desire that which I have and nothing else, is not your meaning that you want to have what you now have in the future? "He must agree with us - must he not?
He must, replied Agathon.
Then, said Socrates, he desires that what he has at present may be preserved to him in the future, which is equivalent to saying that he desires something which is non-existent to him, and which as yet he has not got.
Very true, he said.
Then he and every one who desires, desires that which he has not already, and which is future and not present, and which he has not, and is not, and of which he is in want; these are the sort of things which love and desire seek?
Very true, he said.
Then now, said Socrates, let us recapitulate the argument. First, is not love of something, and of something too which is wanting to a man?
Yes, he replied.
Remember further what you said in your speech, or if you do not remember I will remind you: you said that the love of the beautiful set in order the empire of the gods, for that of deformed things there is no love-did you not say something of that kind?
Yes, said Agathon.
Yes, my friend, and the remark was a just one. And if this is true, Love is the love of beauty and not of deformity?
He assented.
And the admission has been already made that Love is of something which a man wants and has not?
True, he said.
Then Love wants and has not beauty?
Certainly, he replied.
And would you call that beautiful which wants and does not possess beauty?
Certainly not.
Then would you still say that love is beautiful?
Agathon replied: I fear that I did not understand what I was saying.
You made a very good speech, Agathon, replied Socrates; but there is yet one small question which I would fain ask: Is not the good also the beautiful?
Yes.
Then in wanting the beautiful, love wants also the good?
I cannot refute you, Socrates, said Agathon: Let us assume that what you say is true.
Say rather, beloved Agathon, that you cannot refute the truth; for Socrates is easily refuted.
And now, taking my leave of you, I would rehearse a tale of love which I heard from Diotima of Mantineia, a woman wise in this and in many other kinds of knowledge, who in the days of old, when the Athenians offered sacrifice before the coming of the plague, delayed the disease ten years. She was my instructress in the art of love, and I shall repeat to you what she said to me, beginning with the admissions made by Agathon, which are nearly if not quite the same which I made to the wise woman when she questioned me - I think that this will be the easiest way, and I shall take both parts myself as well as I can. As you, Agathon, suggested, I must speak first of the being and nature of Love, and then of his works. First I said to her in nearly the same words which he used to me, that Love was a mighty god, and likewise fair and she proved to me as I proved to him that, by my own showing, Love was neither fair nor good. "What do you mean, Diotima," I said, "is love then evil and foul?" "Hush," she cried; "must that be foul which is not fair?" "Certainly," I said. "And is that which is not wise, ignorant? Do you not see that there is a mean between wisdom and ignorance?" "And what may that be?" I said. "Right opinion," she replied; "which, as you know, being incapable of giving a reason, is not knowledge (for how can knowledge be devoid of reason? Nor again, ignorance, for neither can ignorance attain the truth), but is clearly something which is a mean between ignorance and wisdom." "Quite true," I replied. "Do not then insist," she said, "that what is not fair is of necessity foul, or what is not good evil; or infer that because love is not fair and good he is therefore foul and evil; for he is in a mean between them." "Well," I said, "Love is surely admitted by all to be a great god." "By those who know or by those who do not know?" "By all." "And how, Socrates," she said with a smile, "can Love be acknowledged to be a great god by those who say that he is not a god at all?" "And who are they?" I said. "You and I are two of them," she replied. "How can that be?" I said. "It is quite intelligible," she replied; "for you yourself would acknowledge that the gods are happy and fair of course you would-would to say that any god was not?" "Certainly not," I replied. "And you mean by the happy, those who are the possessors of things good or fair?" "Yes." "And you admitted that Love, because he was in want, desires those good and fair things of which he is in want?" "Yes, I did." "But how can he be a god who has no portion in what is either good or fair?" "Impossible." "Then you see that you also deny the divinity of Love."
"What then is Love?" I asked; "Is he mortal?" "No." "What then?" "As in the former instance, he is neither mortal nor immortal, but in a mean between the two." "What is he, Diotima?" "He is a great spirit (daimon), and like all spirits he is intermediate between the divine and the mortal." "And what," I said, "is his power?" "He interprets," she replied, "between gods and men, conveying and taking across to the gods the prayers and sacrifices of men, and to men the commands and replies of the gods; he is the mediator who spans the chasm which divides them, and therefore in him all is bound together, and through him the arts of the prophet and the priest, their sacrifices and mysteries and charms, and all, prophecy and incantation, find their way. For God mingles not with man; but through Love all the intercourse, and converse of god with man, whether awake or asleep, is carried on. The wisdom which understands this is spiritual; all other wisdom, such as that of arts and handicrafts, is mean and vulgar." |
_________________
Sexual union is a mirror of Spiritual Union, and a gateway to direct experience of it. |
|
|
|
|
| Love & Reasoning Posted: August 14, 2005 |
|
|
As an added point on Plato's exposition of Eros (love) in his Symposium, I think that this rational explanation of the nature and value of love goes a long way toward refuting the arguments presented by many, including religionists, who dismiss or even demonize love because it is 'irrational', 'clouds the mind', or is otherwise on the wrong side of the 'war' between heart & mind. Plato clearly shows, by logical reasoning, the role and value of love & desire in joining us to the divine.
_________________
Sexual union is a mirror of Spiritual Union, and a gateway to direct experience of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are US/Can Pacific Standard Time |
|
Register
Log in
FAQ
Search
MemberList
UserGroups
My Profile
My Messages
