Cowgirl Interlude: Filthy Gorgeous Things dot com

I just added this to my Links over there on the right. I want to call attention to one of the articles, which refers to one of the best passages in one of my favorite author’s books.

Kim Anami writes:

http://filthygorgeousthings.com/modern-love/how-to-make-love-stay 

In Tom Robbins’ book, Still Life with Woodpecker he asks, “Who know how to make love stay?” It’s an excellent question. He answers it:

“Love is the ultimate outlaw. It just won’t adhere to any rules. The most any of us can do is to sign on as its accomplice. Instead of vowing to honor and obey, maybe we should swear to aid and abet. That would mean that security is out of the question. The words “make” and “stay” become inappropriate. My love for you has no strings attached. I love you for free.”

She goes on to give examples from her life coaching practice.

Sometimes it has felt lonely to be kinky, poly, intellectual, philosophical, mystical and kinky like me, and then I find others who are like me in some of those ways. I even followed the link to Sigmund Fuller’s page off of this article. I clicked on “Books to Read,” and was stunned and surprised to find the first book on the list was “Stumbling on Happiness,” by Daniel Gilbert.

Realistically, other people must have read this book, but it isn’t as if I meet those people every day. Oh, maybe I do. In some of these ways. And I’m not meeting the actual people. Chances are that in person some of them are full of new age fru fru. But the articles are beautiful and sexy and thought-provoking.

Go look:

http://www.filthygorgeousthings.com

Love, Ann

Musical Orgies

Yes, yes. I realize that I left off on doing The Work on some things in the previous “to be continued.”  I’ll do that presently, but first this . . .

 

Have I written before on how closely music is related to sex? probably. What have I not related to sex ?

Still, having come from Gabriel’s warm embrace into the orgiastic energy of this Irish jam, well, the similarity strikes me again.

Start with the bouzouki player. I told him he had “Dangerous Fingers.”  (She trails off, watching them.) 

Ah. Excuse me – I got a bit distracted there. That, and I’m writing this thing in longhand at a table in the pub. Yes, again. If there is no singing, I tend to read or write while I’m here. I’ll type it up later.

My question is this:

Why can’t people as easily gather for a group sex jam as they do for music?

We all know I’m not really polyamorous, but I’ve had a few new interests pop up lately, and it’s got my brain on sex again. None of them are lifetime love candidates, and they are all but one involved with someone else (whose consent they have for such dalliances, though I haven’t gone there with *any* of them, yet.)

Let’s see. There are about 4 fiddlers, a couple of pennywhistles, at least one concertina I can see, 2 flutes, a boudran (did I spell that right?), a harp, and of course, a bouzouki.

One musician starts a tune, those who know it join in – usually most of them. I think they’ve been playing together here for a long time. So, like lovers, they know the moves. They know what they like. The can improvise around each other. Now, notice, this isn’t like you just threw a few people who could play instruments all together and they just played. There’s a core group that seems to be here every week. Some come and go ( *ahem* ) and others stay the whole night. Some watch, catch the tune and then play, learning as they go. About three of them seem to either know every tune or be *such* good musicians that they play nearly every tune. I’m betting on the latter.

Isn’t sex like that?

Please don’t misunderstand – I’m not into group sex. Never have been. I’ve been in bed with a couple of other people a few times, and usually, I prefer one-on-one, like 99% of the time. I’m just noticing that if there were a community, an openness, connection and flow between a core group and some other regulars – well, group sex could be a *lot* better and a lot more satisfying – just like this music.

Of course, just as I’m writing this, a cute blond starts playing her pennywhistle for all she’s worth. She’s blowing and fingering the slender silver instrument quite masterfully. Her hair is slippingout of its tie and falling erotically over her face. Yes, she looks just like she sounds like she does – like her lips are wrapped around someone she really loves. It’s a thing of beauty.

The drummer beating time seems to fit – what does it matter what her lips are wrapped around?  I think one of the musicians saw me laughing and figured out why. I am really quite tickled at her timing.

This is just a thought. I know others have thought it. “Stranger in a Strange Land” has a few similar ideas and with all the connection and well, grokking, that would make such an experience desirable.

I’d be interested in other writings that have similar passages or themes. For that matter, if you know of any groups that have practiced either the music or the sex, without all the drama that usually accompanies such scenes, that would be interesting to know.

The old hippie slogan comes back to me:  “Make love, not war.”

And my personal favorite, which I’d like in white script on a pink t-shirt:  “Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.”

It’s hard not to write something really trite, like “we could make beautiful music together.” And we are. That’s how the world looks to me when I drop my stories.

Love, Ann

Truth/Lie, Pain/Pleasure, Works/Fails

I read something in Steven’s blog (http://www.sashen.com/blog) where he said there was only one thing he was interested in. I wondered what that was, so I asked. He says he is interested in how systems work. I asked if that includes things like his body and he said that was one of his favorite systems to learn about. He’s taken up sprinting and has a couple of meets coming up. It seems like he’s trying to see what he can do with that body-system-thingy.

Hmm. “How systems work” didn’t sound like anything I was interested in, but I tend to be interested in things he writes and says, so what is the overlap?

I’m sure that “how systems work” includes how minds work. Just look at the reading list at http://www.quantumwealth.com/resources.

Of course, I was wondering because I’ve always said there was only one thing I was interested in. But it has changed. Well, what I’m interested in didn’t really change, but how I think about it has definitely changed.

I used to say that spirituality was the only thing that I was interested in.

Nowadays, I can’t find a “spirit” to have a “ual” much less an “ality!”

Now what? I still have this stuff I do and stuff I don’t do.  🙂  

In fact, you may recall that questioning that has led me to some very interesting insights.

For example: 

I’m a person who is spiritual. Is that true?

or anything beginning with:

I need . . .

or

I want . . .

Is that true?

Anyway, there are a couple of other people who seem to have, if not just one interest, at least one umbrella interest that covers what I know of what they do. 

I’ve found myself very interested in what they do, so maybe there is something similar there. I’m curious. Maybe the one thing I am interested in is learning, but there are a lot of things I could care less about learning – how to fix my car, for example. I’m happy to pay someone else to do that! So, learning doesn’t really cover what it is that interests me, but it is part of it.

If I’m reading them right, it seems to boil down to:

Katie – Truth/Lie, which she seems to equate with Pleasure/Pain.

What she actually says is “If it hurts, you’re lying.”

Steven – Works/Fails

This is my way of expressing what Steven said as a duality about he is only interested in “how things work.”  Works/Fails is not what he said, but my interpretation of what he said. I think this may be important because saying you are interested in how things work could  be something that isn’t exactly a duality, but more beyond the idea of works/doesn’t work. 

(Bear with me, I write to think these things through.)

But, let’s start with Katie. She says that she is “someone who knows the difference between what hurts and what doesn’t.”  The Work of Byron Katie is based largely on finding out what is true and when we are lying to ourselves.

Question 1 is “Is that true?”

Question 2 is “Can you absolutely know that is true?”

Question 3 explores what happens when we believe the thought, “How do you react when you believe that thought?” Most of the time, it seems like the reactions are things I would describe as painful or undesirable.

Question 4 is “Who would you be without that thought? or that story?”  and most of the time, I find things like peace and other pleasurable feelings, experiences and situations.

Then we Turn It Around, another important thing about checking for truth:  check both sides, all sides, all possibilities. 99 times out of 10 (not a typo) I find that the Turn Arounds are at least as true as the original thought. Sometimes they are simply Someone Else’s Business, not something I can know.

Okay, that’s one person’s take on things. 

Steven’s interest in “how systems work,” sounds a bit more complex – a bit trickier.

The minute he said it, I could see how that fit. I love listening to him explain how things work once he has them figured out. On the other hand, sometimes I do tune out. I’m not interested in how everything works, just some things.

For the title of this blog, and for a little Re-Pairing the Universe (see Shampoo Methods on the right or Steven’s IAM Meditation on it) I rephrased what Steven said as works/fails. It’s often when something doesn’t seem to work, at least not the way I thought it would, that I start noticing it at all. We’re all that way. We can’t notice everything all the time, but when something isn’t working, we notice.

At the same time, as I think about it, it’s pretty clear that being interested in “how systems work” is quite different from just focusing on works/fails. That pairing is great for Re-Pairing, but the interest is beyond that. It’s quite subtle. And seems like it could be fairly potent – analogous to a quantum leap, even, which is to say that small difference can result in big differences. It’s one thing to be interested in a process and how it works, quite another to focus on whether it is “working” or “not.”

I wonder if the one thing I’m interested in is “how people work?”

No. That’s not it. I can see how a lot of people “work” and I can’t do anything much about how other people work.

Maybe it’s how I work? That’s pretty self-centered, but it’s honest. I can’t really know how anyone else works, exactly, except that we’re all pretty similar, as I discussed in a recent post.

I do tend to take whatever someone is saying and immediately check how that would be for me or how that would work for me, or I instantly think it wouldn’t be the same for me or wouldn’t work for me.

Hmm . . . people, communication, teaching, learning, words, all of these things interest me. I am certainly interested in truth. This morning while I was first thinking about this, before it became a blog, I was wondering if it’s truth I’m really interested in. I am very interested in truth. Genuine people, stories that give me an “aha,” things like that. It’s the “aha’s” combined with people that is part of what led me to say I was only interested in spiritual things, and then, that really, everything is spiritual. But I’m not really interested in everything. What is it?  

I’m open for comments here. 

I’m still wondering what it is that interests me. I’m looking for a little clarity here.