The New Paradigm
vol. II, Number 8

Dear Friends,

Now what on Earth am I going to write about "Sex?" Right at the moment I'm not very sure myself; it's not an easy subject to write about, at least for me. But I promised earlier to address the issue, and although I don't think sex is the most important matter in Human life, it's certainly not unimportant either; and it is a fact (or at least it's my opinion) that the Human Race has suffered enormously through the centuries, and certainly in the present dominant Human culture, because of catastrophic misunderstandings of love, sex and male/female relations. However, writing about it is somewhat like disrobing in public. We all have our biases, beliefs, personal understandings and misunderstandings, which we reveal when we discuss our personal attitudes about anything, but particularly about sex. If you happen to harmonize with what I have to say, well that's just fine; but what if you don't? Come to that, who am I to have anything of importance to say about sex; or for that matter, about anything at all? I'm "just this guy, see?" sharing some thoughts about matters I think are interesting, or important, or both, with others who may or may not have similar interests. That's all.

So again I caution you, the following is only one man's opinion; it is not intended to persuade, but to stimulate thought, in a continuing exploration of Who and What We Are as Human Beings. We are, obviously among a great many other things, sexual Beings, at least so long as we inhabit biological bodies. I can't guarantee at this point that I won't write something below which somebody might find offensive ...so from here on, proceed with caution, and at your own risk.

I find the cultural taste revealed by contemporary television broadcasting standards enormously interesting, inasmuch as it is considered that the graphic, literal, realistic depiction, with painstaking attention to detail, of high-velocity bullets penetrating Human bodies, with the associated blood, destruction and adrenaline, is quite appropriate to the family television screen, and is indeed a common sight at any hour of any broadcast day; yet the depiction of an erect penis penetrating a warm, moist, welcoming vagina is a strictly taboo visual image. Our culture is perfectly at ease, it would seem, with the idea of watching, and allowing our children to watch, for hours on end, angry and desperate men beat each other bloody, shoot each other, stab each other, blow up buildings, automobiles and just about anything else imaginable; but when it comes to explicit love-making, such scenes may only be aired, if ever, late, late at night, long after the kiddies are presumably in bed and fast asleep. Is this not strange? Is perverse too strong a word to describe it?

In my thinking and writing I try to maintain a degree of balance and moderation. I don't like "going to extremes" because I can usually see significant merit, as well as flaws, in both sides of most arguments. However, it is being progressively borne in upon me that our traditional "old paradigm" conceptions and habitual attitudes about just about everything are so "far out on a limb" that in order to, so to speak, get back anywhere near the main stem of balanced living one must part company entirely with "conventional wisdom," "middle-class morality," "traditional values," etc. It seems to me the whole crowd of "Western Civilization" has "gone to extremes" and been "out on a limb" for thousands of years running, and the only way to get back in line with the harmonious and comfortable flow of Life is to part company, or at least seriously and painstakingly reexamine, every conventional concept of "decency," "what is right," "common sense," etc. held as "self-evident" by "old paradigm" society.

This, of course, is more easily said than done, and not even very easily said. There is a great deal of comfort to be had staying more or less in the middle of the "mainstream," and not much comfort in striking off on one's own through unexplored "wilderness." But when the "mainstream" is evidently headed straight over a precipice, is it not a good time to get out of it and take to the bushes? So it seems to me. Any who sincerely wish to join in an impromptu search for the "new paradigm" are naturally always welcome; but I haven't seen any indication it is to be found in, or anywhere near, the "mainstream."

Now when we get into personal attitudes about sex we start cutting pretty near the bone, don't we? It's one thing to talk about politics, or law, or religion, knowledge, belief, and the many other things we have freely discussed in these pages; but when we start talking sex, we're coming close to our most intimate, personal, "private parts." It's not necessarily the most comfortable thing we can do. Is it? Why is that? Could it be that our attitudes about sex are a significant factor in our attitudes about everything we experience; and that if we were to change the first, everything else would naturally "fall into place?" I'm reluctant to press that idea too insistently, because I think we are a great deal else besides sexual Beings. But I think I won't be too far off if I say that, whatever else we may be, so long as we inhabit biological bodies, we are also sexual Beings, yes? Whatever we may think about it, we all have sexual urges, we share a desire for, and an intense enjoyment of, sex. It's "wired in" to our biological machinery. I would say that it was deliberately planned that way, if you will, by "God." Or to be more explicit, "God" invented sex.

It couldn't very well be any other way now, could it? So if we feel shame, or guilt, or anxiety of any kind about our own or one another's sexuality, what does that imply about our attitude and feelings about all of Life? About "God?"

Ever since I was a little boy I have found the religious doctrine of "original sin" entirely incomprehensible - even though I must confess having participated for a number of years in a religion to which the doctrine was central. But that was "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away." Now, as in my youth, it is abundantly clear to me that any claim that "God" has ever created anything with the slightest flaw, or even with the possibility of becoming flawed (e.g. "the fall of Man"), must be a complete misconception. Nothing that is "flawed" can possibly endure. I just don't see any way around it. In the course of Human life and Human history people naturally exercise the entire spectrum of choices open to us by our very nature; and it is incumbent upon each of us individually, and upon "nobody else," to decide, to choose in every circumstance the course of action we shall take, the preferences we shall pursue.

It is difficult for me to keep this discussion confined within the narrow domain of just "Sex," for anything that is Cosmically true and applicable to sex, it seems to me, applies as well to just about everything else. Nevertheless, in one sense "Sex" is a particularly apt context in which to consider such matters, because it is usually confined to two or a relatively small number of participants; and what they do with one another, so long as it is mutually agreeable, has little if any impact upon anybody outside that particular circle. Few other Human activities are as easily isolated for the sake of consideration. If one decides to dam a section of a stream, for instance, everybody upstream and downstream upon whom such a dam would have an impact is necessarily a "participant" in the act. If shim who decides to dam the stream does not consult shim's neighbors, shim may be committing a species of "rape" by building the dam. Sexual relations are usually, at least potentially, considerably more "tidy" than this, and consequently easier to sort out.

The cardinal rule that seems to me to apply to all domains of Human endeavor is, "I shall be at liberty to exercise all my will, so long as I take no action that compromises the same liberty for another." That, or something like it, may well be the operative "Law of the Universe" - only it is seldom evident in contemporary Human society because so much of "old paradigm" Human activity is centered around the Cosmic folly of attempted control over the actions of "others." Even the choice to attempt control over the actions of "others" has some Cosmic validity, however, so long as there are "others" willing to acquiesce under such control. I merely point out that the issue is a matter subject to the conscious choice of every individual; and it is a choice that may be changed at any time by anybody.

In this sense, sexual choices are a microcosm of all the choices available upon the vast smorgasbord of Life. Traditionally, they are carefully regulated by social structures such as "morality," the "sacrament of marriage," etc. Sexual matters in particular are "governed" with painstaking care by ecclesiastical and civil "authorities," ostensibly to promote the "success" of a relationship that may be many things, including sexual, between two individuals. In such carefully contrived "matings" the menu of choices open to the couple themselves is drastically curtailed by the wishes and/or demands of "others." The couple must be of the appropriate race, in many instances, or tribe, or religion, or social stratum, or gender. They must have the "approval" of friends and family, kith and kin, "Church" and "State." They may labor under the dictum that their sexual congress is an essentially burdensome duty for the single purpose of procreation; that they are bound to each other for eternity, or at least for so long as their bodies shall function - "'til death do ye part;" that their sexual choice is forever after limited exclusively to each other, and that they shall have committed a grievous "sin" should either of them, particularly the woman, ever explore any alternative to the course mapped out for her by "society." The general formula for such couplings is in effect basically one of ownership of each by the other, or more frequently, of the woman by the man, but not the other way round; and of the couple together by both "Church" and "State."

At this date some of these attitudes may sound somewhat antiquated; but even so, for those who value them and follow them with sincere intent, I have no argument. They too are among the choices Life has to offer, and who am I, or anyone else, to say anybody should not be faithful to shim's sincere belief? But what of those who are bound by such constraints, perhaps because they were taught them from childhood, yet chafe under them in their hearts? What of the woman, or man, who strays from shim's vows of "sexual fidelity" and engages in one or more clandestine "adulterous affairs" - and feels the burden of "sin," of "infidelity," of shame? Such episodes often end badly, perhaps, or may be the occasion of great anguish and emotional stress - but not necessarily for the reasons claimed by the "authorities."

I venture to suggest that "the act," whatever it may be, is not nearly as significant as what the participants think and feel about "the act." Say "the act" is "adultery." What then? Typically, the "adulterer" feels guilty, right? And feels obligated to conceal shim's "crime" or "sin" from shim's spouse. Well, how can that not put a strain on any relationship? It's dishonest; one person is misrepresenting shimself as a "faithful spouse" while violating the trust of shim's partner. That can hardly lead to a very satisfactory result. And suppose the partner discovers shim's "faithless spouse's" "infidelity?" "I've been betrayed!" "How could you, you beast!?" ...and so on. Yet what has actually happened? One party to a marriage has exercised a sexual choice outside of that relationship - which in itself is neither good or bad (in my opinion), it's just a choice. It may be in violation of an agreement, i.e. "marriage vows," but if those vows were engineered by "somebody else," such as "society," "the Church," etc., maybe they're not entirely applicable - or applicable at all. The most unfortunate aspect of such circumstances is not the act of "adultery," but the fact that one partner feels obliged to behave dishonestly in relation to the other. It doesn't have to be that way.

Another couple may have the exact same "act" occur, yet handle it entirely differently. They may have had a prior understanding between them that they do not "own" each other; they are together because, not only do they love each other, they also like each other; respect each other; honor each other's uniqueness and respect each other's freedom of choice. They do not depend upon each other to fulfill their reciprocal deficiencies; each is secure in shim's own identity, purpose and direction, and their relationship, whatever it may be, is so by their mutual choice and conscious intention. If one engages once, or occasionally in a sexual liaison outside their relationship, there is no reason not to be honest and up-front about it; nor is there a reason for jealousy or anxiety on the part of the other partner.

Or take yet a third instance in which a couple maintain a monogamous heterosexual relationship through the years, with never an "adulterous" incident taking place - not because "adultery" is "forbidden," but simply because it is not the choice of either partner. Anything wrong with that?

So what; am I advocating "adultery," "licentious libertinism," "lust," "promiscuity?" Obviously not; nor am I arguing against them. I'm only pointing out that choice is a fundamental aspect of Being Human, whether we're talking about sex, or food, or whether to turn left or right at an intersection. Each of us must choose at every crossroads in Life - which is to say, ultimately, every moment of every day - what we will and will not do under infinitely variable circumstances. Every choice we make has consequences for ourselves and others, and the game of Life consists (at least in part) of learning the art and science of anticipating consequences and selecting by our choices the consequences most agreeable to ourselves. Allowing "others," such as "Church," "State," "morality," "common decency," "conventional wisdom," etc. to dictate our choices for us is also a choice bearing consequences. If you, or I, or anybody, find such consequences thoroughly satisfactory, good for us. Then I guess we have little further to discuss. I must say, though, that I do not find choices dictated by "others" to be at all satisfactory, even if they happen to be the choices I would otherwise make myself; so please forgive me if I mutter out loud as I cast about me for more satisfactory alternatives.

Speaking strictly of sexual choices, I would think that there are with few exceptions no two contemporaneous Human Beings on the Planet who are not at least potential sexual partners - regardless of any existing "law," "morality" or "tradition" to the contrary. That represents quite a diverse palette of sexual choices; but it makes no demands upon anybody as to what shim's choice(s) may actually be. That is for each one of us to decide, in cooperation or collaboration with our various partners. I suggest, however, that satisfactory results are most likely in relationships in which the "Cosmic Law" mentioned above, or something like it, is mutually understood and practiced: "I shall be at liberty to exercise all my will, so long as I take no action that compromises the same liberty for another." That is, rape, or the forcing of one's will upon another, sexually or otherwise, is Cosmically certified to produce unsatisfactory results; but there is no such objection to any mutually agreeable Human activity. Only remember that, as in the instance of damming a stream, "mutually agreeable" must apply to all participants.

Accordingly, my personal "sexual fantasy" I must confess spills quite a way beyond the narrow domain of sex. If I had my druthers, I'd druther participate in a community, or society, or preferably, world, in which the common understanding among the population is that each is a Sovereign Cosmic Being, utterly at liberty to do anything whatsoever; coupled with the clear understanding by all that every Human action is inseverably joined to its consequences. Such a community, society or world exists because individual Sovereign Beings find it preferable to interact with others of their kind than to isolate themselves from Human contact; consequently it is clear that the health and happiness of the entire community is directly related to that of each individual, and vice-versa. This is not "legislated" by any "authority" whatsoever; it is simply the view of clear perception, which in my fantasy is common to all in exactly the same way that "fight/flight" is the common perception in "old paradigm" communities. Therefore it is clearly to the advantage of each participant in my "fantasy community" to be in harmonious, loving relationship with all others. Many people today may dismiss my fantasy as an "impossible dream," but I think it is possible and will sooner or later, in some form, be achieved; because that within each of us which is the essence of "All-That-Is" will never rest until it has achieved the experience of unbridled liberty and boundless love; and will never rest even then, because rest, in the sense of stasis, is not a property of Life, of Being.

This is, in broad strokes, my idea of a "new paradigm" community. In such a community, every Human interaction and endeavor, whether sexual or otherwise, is conducted with deepest respect, honor and love of all participants, i.e. of everybody touched in any way by any given action. Sex, in particular, is freely and responsibly shared by all who wish to share it, with whom they reciprocally wish to share it, and not with any who for any reason do not so wish. All ideas of coercion, or clandestine manipulation, or hidden agendas, etc. are utterly foreign to such a community, for it is not to anybody's personal advantage to maneuver anybody else into a disadvantageous position of any kind, or a position not of each individual's conscious choosing; for that can do nothing but weaken the health of the community as a whole, which only exists because of the advantages it yields to its participants. The stability of such a community, society, world, is automatic and dynamically self-adjusting, for it is governed, not by "ordinance" of tyrants or "legislation" of parliaments, but by the universal principle of Self-interest, with the common understanding, entirely missed in all "old paradigm" societies, that the Self is the Whole, and the Whole is the Self, for every One. I venture to suggest that if this principle were prevalent in sexual practice the world would be unrecognizably transformed from its historical shape; for if it were the prevailing sexual practice, it is inconceivable that it should not also be the prevailing commercial practice, the prevailing cultural practice, the prevailing spiritual practice.

That, anyway, is my "sexual fantasy." Do you think it will ever materialize in "reality?"

Love & Light,

-- Harmon
J. Harmon Grahn

"Sex"
copyright 1999 by J. Harmon Grahn.
Verbatim copying and redistribution are permitted
in any medium provided this notice is preserved.