Sex is an authentic aspect of our individual and communal existence. The problem is that we seem to see it as the deepest level of intimacy, rather than as an outward bodily expression of a process that is a mutual, interior, dwelling "within" together. Sex is a ‘form' of conveying intimacy, but in our obsession with the form, we may have missed the ‘content.' Unfortunately, we have decreed it sacred territory and therefore have inadvertently misinterpreted sex as intimacy.
Nevertheless, everybody wants some and, of course, you want some too! But why do we want it so much? Could it be that we have distorted its purpose? We all ‘experience' sex as necessary, and even nature attests to that 'necessity.' But, alas, we have made it so much more profound and this may be the problem. It's interesting how, in our obsession with sex as our chief means of intimacy, "fuck" is often prefixed to every profound experience we describe. It does seem apparent that sex is one of, if not the most profound, experience the everyday man/woman can access, since it gets talked about even with experiences that do not involve sexual activity.
Because of my vocation I've had the privilege of intellectually considering sex and intimacy from a distance through the discussions of other couples. I now have come to question, not the dualistic separation between male and female, but the dualistic separation between sex and intimacy. To my mind, this is the conflict of opposites that should be explored and our desire to merge these two conceptualizations is what creates all the conflict. Many books written about bridging the differences between men and women fail to understand the difference between sex and intimacy. Maybe that is the bridge we seek to cross, but fail to locate.
Sex is NOT intimacy. Yet we seem to have classified it as such and many of our western social institutions perpetuate that classification in extremely exaggerated ways (especially the psychological sciences). Nevertheless, we often provide ‘lip-service' to that very sentiment and women continue to inform men that "sex is not intimacy" and men respond reflexively "then, what the fuck is intimacy!" thereby, demonstrating that they have, in fact, defined it. Women then respond with the conventional wisdom of "more cuddling," thereby keeping it in the realm of bodily engagement. In our consistent repetition to understand the dualistic, yin/yang and resulting differences between men and woman, we should first start by understanding the difference between intimacy and sex. This is because they are worlds apart.
Bodies are poor conduits of communication and often seem to get in the way of our most profound and deepest level of communication - intimacy. Notice that if you look up the word ‘intimacy' in the dictionary this is what you might find, "(1) a close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving personal relationship with another person or group (2) a close association with or detailed knowledge or deep understanding of a place, subject, period of history, etc.: an intimacy with Japan.(3) sexual intercourse." (Dictionary.com).
In the first two definitions we can see the concepts "close, "familiar" and "loving" as well as "detailed knowledge" and, the most profound, a "deep understanding." These terms are rather abstract and fail to relate to the usual attachments of an embodied fixed-self, but seem to point to a profound "knowledge" or a deep engagement devoid of bodily involvement.
And then, we have the conventional definition of "sexual intercourse." Notice how, in this definition of intimacy, the act of copulating takes on the defining quality, and is equivalent to, a "deeper understanding." Yet, if you examine the physical parameters of "sexual intercourse," you may note that it seems to be quite a rote, repetitive and mechanistic engagement of two (or more) bodies. Copulation tends to be limited in the ways it can be performed (although in 25 years as a practicing psychotherapist, just when I thought I had heard everything, someone presents a startlingly novel approach to the joining of bodies and the tools involved. But still, the activity becomes mechanistic).
Yet, intimacy seems to have no such limitations and just when we think we cannot go any further into the depths of that "deep understanding," we could find ourselves merging ever deeper. So it seems that while sex is limited by the body, who really knows how deep two minds can go? (even with bodies attached). I imagine not many, since only the most fearless dare proceed to such depths. Such an understanding can only be a threat to the separate ego-self mind intent on maintaining separation and barely aware of an intimacy with itself.
Intimacy is a merging, or converging, of minds that ignores bodily limitations. Your body, sex or gender makes no difference to that joining and, in fact the more we detach from bodily preferences, the deeper our understanding may become. However, like Husserl's phenomenology, intimacy demands that we cease to project our bodily, or form-based concepts, onto the other in the desire to ‘intimately' SEE and understand the 'other.' In this way, the 'other' becomes free of what we desire or demand conform to our magical ideations of an "intimate relationship" based on past socio-cultural conditioning.
As the mind empties itself of concepts, the senses are no longer necessary for intimacy and, because of this, sensation is inadvertently heightened, but not overemphasized or incorrectly classified as the most important aspect of our intimate joining. The body is only an addition to the intimate or "deep understanding" that occurs solely between two minds with the belief that bodies are unnecessary and, in fact, may impede, that deeper "knowing."
What seems problematic is that we have sanctified and sacralized that for which nature holds no such profundity. We have determined that the intimacy of minds, in which bodies are unnecessary, is unattainable because it is so ineffably frightening. True intimacy is exposure; the revealing of interior selves with no thought of self-protection. Yet, to fully reveal oneself to another (or to the world for that matter) requires a leap of faith that not many self-protecting ego-centered minds would dare.
And because we do NOT dare, the copulation of bodies is interpreted to be true intimacy, when actually copulation only serves as an additive or embellishment to the process. Intimacy is a state of mind and can only be accessed, through the deepest understanding of other minds.
Sadly, it seems that sex has inadvertently become a substitution for intimacy and as such, it demands that intimacy, if it ever was realized by two individuals, must eventually be dissociated from and dissolve into nothingness. In my work with couples, I often ask the open-ended question, "so what about intimacy in your relationship?" Nine times out of ten, the answer I get always involves sexual activity, "Oh, well, we usually have sex one or two times a week." Then, when I respond, "no, I didn't ask about sex, I was inquiring into your level of intimacy." Alas, I am met with blank stares. Then there are the couples absent intimacy and who have even come to loathe each other beyond all repair, but still have sex, "one or two times a week."
Men will always be afraid of intimacy and women will fear men because of that. I sense that women do not fear the aggression of men, but women fear their fear of intimacy. This is because the socially indoctrinated, cultural conditioning of men emphasizes the survivalistic protective mechanisms that men must engage with to compete for their place in society. It seems gay men may have a better intuitive sense of intimacy, yet they may still find that overcoming the instilled cultural gender indoctrination (Boys play with trucks, girls play with dolls) may impede the deeper understanding that intimacy facilitates and that demands one go deeper only to go ever more deeper.
Make no mistake, the goal of finally realizing intimacy with another is to realize a "deeper understanding," since, as opposed to sex, intimacy is not a space-time destination, but a never-ending process of going inward TOGETHER. In the "deep understanding" of intimacy, aggression is naturally extinguished, because when I deeply understand you, I will have come to understand myself because both of our protective ego boundaries have been dissolved.
In fact, the ultimate intimacy is nature's relationship with us and we seem highly adept at bungling that relationship, so is it any wonder we struggle between ourselves to "deeply understand."
Intimacy with the world is intimacy with yourself, since there is NO division, except when sex is defined as the means of trying to intimately understand another. Without intimacy, the world remains a very threatening place and sex only adds to the threat of the ‘other.' Too many ‘others' out there that we just don't understand. Better to kill you (emotionally/psychologically) than know who you are. And since I have not come to deeply understand myself, it is doubtful I could ever understand YOU. If only I could realize that by understanding the depths of you, I meet myself.
This is not a discussion on abstinence or celibacy. Enjoy the body, since, in the wholeness of Being, none of the parts need be excluded, simply seen for what they are, rather than classified and thus magnified for what they are NOT and they are NOT the whole. In our institutionalized childhood indoctrinated obsession with sex, intimacy recedes to the background and becomes inaccessible to minds in dire need of a "deeper understanding," but redirected to bodily attachments as the way to "understand."
When the body is no longer worshiped and idolized as the greater or even most profound ‘part' of an intimate loving relationship (whatever form the relationship takes), the mind may take precedence above the body as the most profound communication available and, in this way, balance may finally be realized. This does not require the body be discarded, but simply given less attention. Sex is not the "be all to end all" and the ultimate signifier of intimacy or "deep understanding." Merely a part of the whole, but never the whole.
Unfortunately for now, we seem to be outside-in, requiring bodily attachments to facilitate intimate relating, rather than inside-out, realizing a deeper consciousness through the conscious joining of another.
It is not the mind that need be studied, but the merging of minds, in order to realize the whole. Only in that way can consciousness know itself through the deepest understanding of the other. I believe intimacy is clearly our final frontier and a territory, as of yet, uncharted
Enough blather. Now for your musical pleasure, the profound musical visionary, Peter Gabriel, defining intimacy in "Come Talk To Me."
The wretched desert takes its form, the jackal proud and tight
In search of you, I feel my way, though the slowest heaving night
Whatever fear invents, I swear it make no sense
I reach through the border fence
Come down, come talk to me
In the swirling, curling storm of desire unuttered words hold fast
With reptile tongue, the lightning lashes towers built to last
Darkness creeps in like a thief and offers no relief
Why are you shaking like a leaf
Come on, come talk to me
Ah please talk to me
Won't you please talk to me
We can unlock this misery
Come on, come talk to me
I did not come to steal
This all is so unreal
Can't you show me how you feel now
Come on, come talk to me
Come talk to me [x2]
The earthly power sucks shadowed milk from sleepy tears undone
From nippled skin as smooth as silk the bugles blown as one
You lie there with your eyes half closed like there's no-one there at all
There's a tension pulling on your face
Come on, come talk to me
Won't you please talk to me
If you'd just talk to me
Unblock this misery
If you'd only talk to me
Don't you ever change your mind
Now your future's so defined
And you act so deaf and blind
(And you act so deaf so blind)
Come on, come talk to me
Come talk to me [x2]
I can imagine the moment
Breaking out through the silence
All the things that we both might say
And the heart it will not be denied
'Til we're both on the same damn side
All the barriers blown away
I said please talk to me
Won't you please come talk to me
Just like it used to be
Come on, come talk to me
I did not come to steal
This all is so unreal
Can you show me how you feel now
Come on, come talk to me
Come talk to me
Artwork by Svetlana Zuizina.
No comments:
Post a Comment