Yes, of course sex is only a part of the whole - although it is a very pertinent subject for anyone interested in wholeness because it is frequently an either unconscious, or - in the case of Tantra - a conscious attempt at 'making whole', which is also why it is used in so much spiritual-religious symbolism.
And yes, of course there can be sublime communion without sex...
I'm not aware of having said anything that implied in any way that sex is the only way to achieve this... perhaps my insistence on the subject is giving this impression - in which case it's good that you're bringing this up.
As for "sex being so sacred and important that I only want to share it with one person at a time", we all have different ways of celebrating what we feel is sacred.
Our ancestors felt that it was so sacred and important that it ought to be practised ritually by the whole community together - at least at certain specially sacred occasions - as a blessing for the whole land which sustained them.
The forms of expression shift and change, sometimes becoming rigid, sometimes being more fluid - often it seems, reflecting the extent to which a culture is matriarchal or patriarchal, but as long as there are 'individuals' we can assume that there will always be individual preferences.
I am not saying that 'shared sex' is better or worse than sex with 'one person at a time'.
I am only questioning our assumptions about this.
Each of us has to surely find what makes sense for them, what feels right, and what nurtures them and what nurtures the one(s) that they love - and I believe that the more we do that in Freedom rather than unquestioningly out of habit, the more easy it will be to awaken to a Peaceful world.
Peter Littlejohn Cook
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário