zengirl Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 Happened to come across this, and it reminded me of what was missing when I see some bitterness here. For example, this part stands out to me I've had a lot of less lucky connections in my life. I've experienced my share of the manipulative side of the feminine: the victim, the rageful, the vengeful. And I have seen the ugly side of the masculine psyche in myself. A few weeks prior to meeting Chameli, my wife, something deep and profound shifted in me, which I believe can shift for anyone in the same way. and this That's where the whole thing starts for all of us, when we realize that we don't yet know how to love. And that's that the big question that you have to consider: "Is that okay with me?" Never mind how much money you make, or how many friends you have on Facebook, no matter how nice a house you live in, or no matter how big a car you drive, no matter how impressive your partner's bust size, or how much you meditate and become spiritual... have you loved for real, in a total and undefended way? If not, and here's where you have to be honest with yourself, is that OK with you? Is it OK to die one day without the heart's gift having been fully given? The article is here. Why It's Wise to Worship a Woman BTW: While I don't generally like the phrase "worship" being applied to men or women ("He should worship me like I'm a pretty, pretty princess!" blech), don't let the words in the title fool you---that's not what this man is talking about. He's talking about the worship and love that happens in a good marriage and partnership; it's mutual, I'm sure. And I also think you could apply this as a woman, for why it's wise to truly love and worship a fellow (not just any gal or any fellow, mind you).
witabix Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 I read that article zengirl, but it certainly did not resonate with me or my experiences. I saw a person in love with love, not with another person. The symbolism and language were good but as for the reality, I am not so sure. I don't know if I would be comfortable with a woman reversing the genders and thinking of me like that. For me I don't think there is any great mysticism about people, or their motivations. Perhaps my heart is jaded and tired of the games I see being played. These days I do not long for a woman to 'worship' nor do I wish any one to think of me in those terms. I have had the bravery that the author spoke of, little good it did me in the end. I too share his experience of "of the manipulative side of the feminine: the victim, the rageful, the vengeful. And I have seen the ugly side of the masculine psyche in myself." However I would put it in these terms "I have seen my rage, vengeance and victimhood displayed in a horribly ugly way". There is no ugly side to masculinity or femininity, people do ugly things. There is no mystical center, IMO, to either gender. It was interesting to read though.
Simon Attwood Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 I feel there is something narcissistically unhealthy, or at least potentially so, about what that article is suggesting. If someone needs to constantly reassure their partners self image and value in order to maintain a state of happiness in a relationship, man or woman, it firstly points to a low sense of value and self image in the person being reassured. The other problem is that the low self value and self image is a core problem; and as such it is hungry, and it is rarely ever sated; it's like a virus, the more it is fed, the more it grows and the more it needs feeding, unless the core problem is confronted. You may end up trying to fill a need that can never be met, a void that can never be filled. A good book to read on the subject would be "Emotional Vampires" by Albert J Bernstein.
Author zengirl Posted August 21, 2010 Author Posted August 21, 2010 I read that article zengirl, but it certainly did not resonate with me or my experiences. I saw a person in love with love, not with another person. The symbolism and language were good but as for the reality, I am not so sure. I don't know if I would be comfortable with a woman reversing the genders and thinking of me like that. For me I don't think there is any great mysticism about people, or their motivations. Perhaps my heart is jaded and tired of the games I see being played. These days I do not long for a woman to 'worship' nor do I wish any one to think of me in those terms. I have had the bravery that the author spoke of, little good it did me in the end. I too share his experience of "of the manipulative side of the feminine: the victim, the rageful, the vengeful. And I have seen the ugly side of the masculine psyche in myself." However I would put it in these terms "I have seen my rage, vengeance and victimhood displayed in a horribly ugly way". There is no ugly side to masculinity or femininity, people do ugly things. There is no mystical center, IMO, to either gender. It was interesting to read though. I agree that it's overly mystical in its phrasing, as well as its emphasizing the duality of the masculine and the feminine. (I'm a big believer of both forces being in people of both genders.) I thought it resonated with me because it's more about universal and freely-given love. And how pain often stops people from giving such. I liked the metaphor of the walls to the deity for that reason. If someone needs to constantly reassure their partners self image and value in order to maintain a state of happiness in a relationship, man or woman, it firstly points to a low sense of value and self image in the person being reassured. The other problem is that the low self value and self image is a core problem; and as such it is hungry, and it is rarely ever sated; it's like a virus, the more it is fed, the more it grows and the more it needs feeding, unless the core problem is confronted. Interesting. I so didn't see it as being about what the other person needs. I thought the love ("worship") was given freely for the sake of loving, not for the sake of reassuring the other partner. I agree that what you are saying would be unhealthy.
witabix Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 (I'm a big believer of both forces being in people of both genders.) I agree with your belief. I have experienced a wide variation in many people of both genders of the 'stereotypical' gender roles. I think we place too much emphasis on people 'fitting' a role that befits their gender, it is definitely changing these days. I thought it resonated with me because it's more about universal and freely-given love. And how pain often stops people from giving such. I also agree that pain does stop one loving. I liked the metaphor of the walls to the deity for that reason. The metaphor would work better for me if you placed 'love' at the centre of the temple, and viewed the walls around it as the obstacles that are placed in the way of finding love. The same kinds of obstacles stop us finding love for one self. I think painful experiences are a major factor in holding us back from loving ourself or one another. Even if you see good examples of love around you it is difficult to draw comparisons/knowledge. People are so complex, so unpredictable, as to make it almost impossible for you to tread the same path and find the same outcome as another has. I am very happy for the author to have found what he has found, had I found the same thing would I even recognise it as such? The whole universe of relationships, affection, love, hate and all the other emotional contents and our separate paths to where we start from make it all so unpredictable. We simply do not have the ability to predict what will happen next. Oftentimes our intuition and experience lead us to make educated 'guesses' but how many times are we wrong. To return to the adjusted 'Temple of Love' metaphor, it is a though we all can see the 'temple' and we all agree that it contains 'love', and we all have a map of some sort. But there is no way orienting your self on the map, no way of knowing where you start from, or where everyone else is. As you go you keep making changes, scribbling on your map. The more you change and backtrack and alter the map the more difficult it becomes to read it. Until you are left with a dog-eared piece of paper covered in notes and ideas and dead ends. Realising that you may have made it into the middle of the temple and blundered right past your goal because you could not recognise it when it was right there in front of you. Or was it ever there at all? That was a bit of a ramble, but I hope you know what I am trying to mean!
Author zengirl Posted August 21, 2010 Author Posted August 21, 2010 The metaphor would work better for me if you placed 'love' at the centre of the temple, and viewed the walls around it as the obstacles that are placed in the way of finding love. The same kinds of obstacles stop us finding love for one self. I think painful experiences are a major factor in holding us back from loving ourself or one another. I don't really like the idea of love as something you "find" which is why I liked it, as a choice to get closer to the essential and total nature of another person. That's how I took the metaphor. The more devout they were in worship of the deity, the more they focused their lives on that worship (replace the word "worship" with love for the purposes of a relationship), the closer they could come, and the more beauty and love they could receive. Of course, rushing right to the center isn't the best way. It should be a gradual opening up, as we should be sure we are investing our energy loving the right person! To return to the adjusted 'Temple of Love' metaphor, it is a though we all can see the 'temple' and we all agree that it contains 'love', and we all have a map of some sort. But there is no way orienting your self on the map, no way of knowing where you start from, or where everyone else is. As you go you keep making changes, scribbling on your map. The more you change and backtrack and alter the map the more difficult it becomes to read it. This is what I liked about what I saw in the metaphor. It wasn't about simply a destination; it was about a choice, changing your own practices and state of mind to achieve love. I think this may be self-love or a loving partner. I see what you mean, but I think viewing love as a prize, rather than an action, is what causes a lot of romantic distress. It was what I liked about the metaphor. Also, note that it's not that everyone who only got to an outer level felt depressed about it. He phrased it in such a way that, to me, it felt joyous to be anywhere in the temple, just more joyous as you get towards the center. But I understand that what rings true with me won't ring true with everybody!
witabix Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 I don't really like the idea of love as something you "find" ................................. the more they focused their lives on that worship (replace the word "worship" with love for the purposes of a relationship), the closer they could come, and the more beauty and love they could receive. Of course, rushing right to the center isn't the best way. It should be a gradual opening up, as we should be sure we are investing our energy loving the right person! Yes, I know thats the way I came across, but I agree, not something you find, as you would an object. This is what I liked about what I saw in the metaphor. It wasn't about simply a destination; it was about a choice, changing your own practices and state of mind to achieve love. I think this may be self-love or a loving partner. An interesting viewpoint and one I had not considered. Perhaps the male part of my brain (which is most of it) took over and I remained 'goal' oriented in my view of his story. but I think viewing love as a prize, rather than an action, is what causes a lot of romantic distress. Love as a noun, not an adjective. I'm not sure about that. I think of lot of people 'engage in the activity of love' but not in the 'spirit of love'. Also, note that it's not that everyone who only got to an outer level felt depressed about it. He phrased it in such a way that, to me, it felt joyous to be anywhere in the temple, just more joyous as you get towards the center. Does that introduce a hierarchy of 'worship/love'?
somedude81 Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 (edited) Eh, I really have no idea what the point of the article and this thread is. Everybody has walls around their heart, that's nothing new. Though it was interesting to see what the different levels are. Apparently I've never been to the third wall with a woman. I'm not going to make a woman altar and worship it. That actually violates the second commandment. How is any of that supposed to make one feel better if they are feeling discouraged and bitter? The only semi-relevant thing he says is to give women compliments. Edited August 21, 2010 by somedude81
nddb Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 Every guy I know who put a woman on a pedestal ended up getting shafted. Every woman I know who got put on a pedestal ran the other way as fast as she could. The ones who stayed around ended up having to live with some impossible expectation, and were either miserable or ended up leaving.
meerkat stew Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 "Vomit icon" x 10. OK not that bad but close. Going through life kissing people's asses and blowing sunshine is the very root of the "nice guy" problem so many complain about. I wonder what the recipients of all the author's compliments feel after a few days of that? Either boredom or mild annoyance most likely. I think the author of that has some serious mommy issues. The way to worship a woman is to see her in her awesome life creating power, flirt with and seduce her politely and respectfully but also assertively and forcefully, give her a strong, masculine man to crave, and see how many orgasms you can give her before she passes out. That's worship.
Author zengirl Posted August 22, 2010 Author Posted August 22, 2010 Love as a noun, not an adjective. I'm not sure about that. I think of lot of people 'engage in the activity of love' but not in the 'spirit of love'. Originally Posted by witabix I think love is best used as a verb, not a noun. Loving someone else should be done for oneself, just as healthy worship is, not for others, including the one you love. That was what I saw. (Of course, if you get close enough, you'll sometimes find the subject of this love unworthy, and that's where discretion comes in and you make sure you devote yourself to something worthy of your love.) In general: Y'all are quite literal. Maybe you have to be into Eastern religions and philosophy to get the metaphor. (I suppose the way "worship" is used in the Judeo-Christian West is very different from the way I view it.) Though I'm not surprised at the viewpoints. It's funny because I feel like we've read two entirely different things. I know it's not just a strict male/female thing, because it was one of my male friends that actually forwarded this to me. And the author is male. And obviously the article was driven by many male readers writing to him. "Vomit icon" x 10. OK not that bad but close. Going through life kissing people's asses and blowing sunshine is the very root of the "nice guy" problem so many complain about. I wonder what the recipients of all the author's compliments feel after a few days of that? Either boredom or mild annoyance most likely. I think the author of that has some serious mommy issues. The way to worship a woman is to see her in her awesome life creating power, flirt with and seduce her politely and respectfully but also assertively and forcefully, give her a strong, masculine man to crave, and see how many orgasms you can give her before she passes out. That's worship. Love (or "worship") isn't about compliments. Nor do I see the author say much about compliments at all. . . Nor do people, in the metaphor, worship the Hindu deity insincerely. Putting someone on a pedestal is an insincere form of love or worship.
meerkat stew Posted August 22, 2010 Posted August 22, 2010 Nor do I see the author say much about compliments at all. Did you even read the whole soppy mess? or just blindly link it? "The second way to get started: make a practice, a discipline, of telling your woman, or any woman, ten times a day something which you adore about her. "I love the smell of your shampoo." "I love the way you laugh." "The color of your eyes is so beautiful." :sick: As far as pedestalizing goes: "First, do what I did, and create an altar in your room dedicated to Divine Feminine. Put only symbols of the feminine on it. I have a painting called "Beatrix" by Dante Gabriel Rossetti. I have a statue of Quan Kin. Populate your altar with anything that reminds you of the feminine, and spend a few minutes of the day in worship. Yes, worship. Adoration. Devotion. Offer up rose petals. Offer poems. Offer everything, and beg Her to reveal Her innermost essence to you." Sounds like the next step for this dude is "It puts the lotion in the basket" seriously. "When you learn how to pay attention to the essence of the feminine in this way, you fall to the floor in full body prostration, tears soaking your cheeks and clothes, and you wonder how you could have ever taken Her, in all of Her forms, for granted even for a second." He's one step away from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsDoTC5TCxY&feature=search This guy skips the figurative and EXPRESSLY puts women on a pedestal, talking of building a fricking ALTAR to the feminine? This guy objectifies women in a worse way than the most hardened chauvanist ever could, but I suppose, since it's -favorable- objectification that doesn't really count, right? Can you imagine a more boring spineless date than with this guy? Imagine him in bed? How much obsequious toadying do women really want from their men? Not much according to my results in taking women away from such toadies with only the slightest effort Serious.... mommy... issues.
meerkat stew Posted August 22, 2010 Posted August 22, 2010 Y'all are quite literal. Maybe you have to be into Eastern religions and philosophy to get the metaphor. (I suppose the way "worship" is used in the Judeo-Christian West is very different from the way I view it.) .... It's funny because I feel like we've read two entirely different things. Just saw the above gem. How much more LITERAL can one get with respect to "worship" than actually BUILDING A PHYSICAL SHRINE IN ONE'S HOUSE??????? containing iconography of the "female." That's not exactly metaphorical of anything other than a very unhealthy outlook on gender dynamics. What if you went back in time to whomever was responsible for the Lao Tzu and suggested, "You know what, let's split these two up and give them their own separate books, the Book of Yin and the Book of Yang, waddya say?" What if you went back to the writer of the Tibetan Book of the Dead and suggested, "You know what? let's split these peaceful and wrathful deities away from their consorts and give the consorts their own book, the peaceful deities theirs, and the wrathful deities theirs, waddy say?" What if you went back to whomever is responsible for Genesis and suggested, "You know what, let's split this up into the Book of Adam and the Book of Eve, that way we can add more narrative as to the struggles of each of them individually upon temptation, sin and expulsion, waddyasay?"
Recommended Posts