God & Union
I don't know if I could have an open heart without an open sex; without being open toward the movement of my desire, and being loving with it. I'm not sure if ecstatic states can be had without being open to one's sexuality. For me, I know that the sense of ecstatic moments are nourished by being open to the way my sexual energy moves and flows. A regular practice of embracement - self and/or other - appears to nourish the openness of my heart, and the openness of my brain to moments of ecstasy in midst of life.
When the wind rustles through the trees, the rain falls gently, the storm rattles my home, or the light of our Great Star, our beloved sun, meets the gray clouds of a late fall afternoon, the ecstasy of life then, moves through my bones, through my central column, making it shake. Could I allow that had I not practiced allowing the energy of sexual love to permeate my energy body?
I often ponder about the traditions that make men abstinent monks. I can see that it's useful, at first, for a man, to refrain from seeking sexual release. For a woman, for me, if the man is in bed with her, me, focused on his release, it is highly unsatisfying, and I may prefer such a man's abstinence with me over his sexual availability.
But as a woman, I do not find it spiritually beneficial to go without sexual life, as I experience it as truly nourishing, and opening my heart, mind, and spirit. Sexual release for a woman is usually not a quick affair: It takes time to arrive in deep pleasure, a journey of building, and moving with waves of expansion, contraction, feeling, emotion, reluctance, and opening, a constantly shifting changing tapestry of physical, emotional, and spiritual experience.
However, the quality of the sexual connection is crucial for whether the experience is nourishing or frustrating. I appreciate a man who is able to hold his seed, because I love to share each other for extended periods of time, where the connection and emotional/spiritual journey becomes primary, and orgasmic release a pleasant side effect. I wonder if holding one's seed, and prioritizing connection over outcome, would be a substitute for male monkhood and abstinence, a substitute that would include women into spiritual expansion, and would allow her to meet divinity where it often dwells for us: in the experience of deep ecstatic contractions of the womb. In this way, a woman would benefit from a man's sexual discipline.
Religions' hostility toward women's sexual nature greatly disturbs me in many other ways, as well. One of them is that I have observed that in some spiritual settings, women are expected to cover up to not trigger a man's sexual desire, while the men do not need to worry about how much clothes they wear. This means, women are expected to both protect men from their sexual responses as well as to suppress their own reactions when a man's visibility or actions triggers her sexual response. Have you noticed that men take their shirts off without second thought? As if their sisters had no appetites that get roused by vision. Or maybe men do know that, but they know that it's legally sanctioned for them to show nipples and get the women's heads turning. They probably also feel safe showing their nipples, because they know women are highly practiced in containing their sexual excitement; whereas a woman, displaying such freedoms - will still be considered responsible for sexual aggression coming her way.
I want to see a world where both sexes become equally responsible for harnessing their sexual responses upon arousal triggered with wisdom and care. Where both sexes acknowledge their contribution to the other's arousal; a world in which a woman whose sexual force is apparent is expected to choose a lover wisely - and therefore never pressured into sexual connection, or ostracized, for being visible as a sexual being. I want to live in a world in which it is safe for women, me, to be present to our sexual force, present to, as I like to call it: the Virgin Force.