The Sex Blog [Relationship Challenges]

¡Hola! Everybody,
Change is hard! LOL But it’s the only constant -- even the surest things change. Gotta love this ride we call “life”!

* * *

-=[ The Challenge of Relationships ]=-

I am playing the game I suppose,
out of habits
learned long ago,
but I have been in these waters
far longer than
even my tired eyes could tell you.

Okay, so I’m going to start out by copping to the fact that I’m not all that great in the relationship arena. I don’t even have a pet… Therefore, take the rest with a grain of salt.

Something happens when I realize I’m feeling deeply for a woman and how painfully clear it is that considering a relationship is a lot like standing at the abyss and jumping. In other words, along with feelings, there comes the realization that I am also becoming vulnerable to that person I have feelings for. And that’s not a great revelation for me because, I have to admit, it’s scary.

There, I said it: relationships scare me.

It’s not a fear of commitment, that’s not it. I have and can commit to living with another person. The part that’s fearful is the part of being vulnerable. Believe me, there are plenty of people who are in committed relationships who choose not to be vulnerable. It’s not that hard. You can be in a long-term, committed relationship and not really share deep intimacy. I see it all the time. But because of the kind of person I am, when I open and give, it’s about going…

All.

The.

Way.

That’s why I’ve previously admitted that beginnings are extremely difficult at times with yours truly. If I’m seeing you and we both know there’s a surrender looming in the near future -- we’re both feeling these feelings and we know it’s headed somewhere -- then I’m not holding much of anything back. I’m not saying that I’m blabbing everything out by the third date, or that I immediately go overboard. LOL! That’s closer to codependency, not love. I am saying that I work at being transparent. I don’t play hide and seek. If I’m feeling something, I will look you in the eyes and let you know, “Sweetie, I don’t know how or why, but I’m starting to have these feelings… ” I won’t play The Game. The one thing you can always count on with me, is that you will always know where I stand (sometimes this is not such a good thing).

Sometimes I think that I’m too transparent or honest for my own good, but that’s how I roll: I put my cards on the table and lay it out as I see and feel it. I believe there are many people out there who see my stance as too idealistic. That people really can’t be totally open to one another. Worse, there are others who will use that. Those who would manipulate my transparency don’t last, because, shit, I’ve been veteran of the Love Wars for longer than even my tired eyes could tell you. I’m not going to let you use me that way. I’d rather go home, curl up in a fetal position, and ride that hurt -- that energy -- until I’m done with it.

Still, there’s a lot of anxiety around opening up to another in that way. Sometimes what helps me are basic reassurances. I’m like a kid in more ways than one. Something simple such as a “hello” or a passing show of affection goes a long way with me. It’s ironic because those things can be easily faked to some degree, but if I’m getting the attention and shows of affection, I’m not as anxious. Some women don’t like men like that, but it’s who I am. A kiss, a note, a surprise fuck, even just an unbidden and tender smile soothes me and lets me know that, though there aren’t any guarantees in life, you’re there and you’re somehow saying that we’re moving forward -- that you’re there with me, feeling me.

In other words, I need tons of affection! LOL!

You see, I’m really not all that complicated. If we were together, all it would take is that you throw some food at me, pay lots of attention and some sex here and there, and I’m straight.

I’m kidding. I guess what I’m saying is that relationships aren’t easy and when I resolve to engage in a relationship, I don’t take that lightly. Dearest, relationships, despite what you have been told, aren’t games. I’m also saying that a couple needs to reassure one another, especially in the beginning, when things are not so clear. Sometimes what makes the difference between having Mr./ Ms. Right as opposed to Mr./ Ms. Right (now), is how you open up to that person.

I’m just sayin’

Love,

Eddie

Fathers, Sons & Daughters

¡Hola! Everybody...
My fathers were good, if flawed, human beings, but they gave much.

Happy Fathers Day, everybody...

* * *

-=[ Fathers, Sons & Daughters ]=-

What have you done with the garden that was entrusted to you?
-- Antonio Machado

I had two fathers and possibly more. I had uncles, older cousins as well as elders from the community who were to me as fathers in some respects. But the two that were most influential was my biological father, Edwin, and my stepfather, Vincent. Both were polar opposites of one another.

My father was almost all yang: penetrating intelligence, extroverted, creative, charismatic -- he was everything a little boy wanted as a father. I adored him -- worshipped the very ground he walked and I wanted to be just like him. My father passed on to me the gift of the thirst for knowledge and I could never repay him for that. My father’s example taught me that there was a higher purpose in life and he taught me love for knowledge, beauty, and truth.

My stepfather, Vincent, was almost all yin -- he was easy-going, definitely not cerebral, loved doing things with his hands, and loved music. As a child, he would take me to his various jobs and brag to his friends and co-workers that I was a genius. Then he would say something like, “Go ahead, ask him anything,” and his co-workers would and I would almost always get the answer right. He used to get a big kick out of that. Vincent, instead of resenting my intelligence, supported it. Any other man would’ve felt insecure, but not Vincent, because he was easy going almost to a fault. Not that he was a pushover, he wasn’t, he had the hands of a carpenter, large and rough, and I ad seen him knockout a man much bigger than him with one punch. He was just less confrontational than my father. Vincent’s example taught me dependability, consistency, “showing up” as he used to put it.

These days it’s popular for talking heads and politicians of all stripes to go on at length about fathers and fatherhood. On one side, there’s the myopic notion that almost all social ills can be placed firmly on the shoulders of fathers -- or “absent” fathers. Of course, this is just a form of scapegoating. Sure, fathers are important in the development of young minds, but a father being more “present” doesn’t automatically translate to a better, more just society.

I once created a leadership development workshop that utilized relationship-building skills. Leadership is about being able to connect to people, not forcefully leading them by the nose. Whenever I would ask the participants to list what they perceived as leadership qualities, nurturance -- the core skill for relationship -- was almost never mentioned. When our culture emphasizes breadwinning and individual success for men at the expense of caregiving, the welfare of children is at risk. A father’s absence influences the son and daughter’s development of social skills, self-esteem, and attitudes towards achievement. But more importantly, our culturally warped understanding of masculinity contributes to various forms of maladjustment, such as lack of impulse control, incompetence, dependence, and irresponsibility. The son of a psychologically absent father experiences a weakened identification with what it means to be a man, and the daughter experiences a weakened relationship to the masculine principle.

Yet, in the name of family financial and psychological welfare, our legal system emphasizes the importance of the father’s job, and therefore his absence, and award child custody to the mother nine times out of ten. When societal attitudes are unsupportive of the father’s active involvement in the family, then we see the fragmentation of family relationships so common today.

Don’t misunderstand my point: I am not advocating for some vague notion of “men’s rights.” I am saying that we -- all of us -- need to redefine what it means to be a man.

In the end, we are all flawed creatures. We all make mistakes. As for myself, I would say that if you were to ask my son, he would give at best a mixed review. More likely, I don’t think he would characterize me as a “good” father. And he has good reasons for his view. I guess I too am human. I guess what is important is not to get too stuck in who’s “wrong” and who’s “right,” but to do the right thing at the right time because it is the right thing to do at that moment.

And yet my own experience leaves with the feeling that a good father requires more than getting the task done right. Perhaps fatherhood is more about being who you are and revealing that vulnerability to those you love. When I reflect on the relationships between fathers, sons, and daughters, I am reminded of the words of the poet Rumi: “Out beyond rightdoing and wrongdoing, there is a field. I’ll meet you there.” My son will one day be a father and if he can take even a little of what my own teachers gave me, then he will be a man, for ultimately, it’s only men that can initiate boys into manhood.

Love,

Eddie

Relationship Thursdays (The Girlfriend Experience)

¡Hola! Everybody...
Well, well, well... I already like Judge Sonia Sotomayor! Apparently she’s a bigot/ racist just like yours truly! Yaaaay! In today’s political climate any mention of racism or privilege, or even having the fortitude to point out that the post-racial Emperor has no clothes, makes one a racist. Well, if that’s the case, then I am a flaming racist and proud of it!

* * *

-=[ The Girlfriend Experience ]=-

The Commodification of Intimacy in the Post-Capitalist Era

As reported by the Village Voice, for $60 an hour, a NYC agency arranges for a smart young woman to accompany you, laugh at your jokes, and make you feel interesting and special. It may sound like just another escort service -- complete with a negotiable “happy ending” sex service -- but it’s not. In fact, the young women who set up the agency spell it out on their website: “If there are any attempts at sexual activity, the girl has the right to end the date immediately.”

A colleague of mine has employed the same nanny for the past seven years. When he speaks of her, it’s almost as if he’s speaking a dear aunt or close family friend. His two sons adore her and have known her all their lives. They too see her as more than a nanny.

A few years ago, I joined a gym and, realizing that I needed more than a little motivation and guidance, I opted for a few sessions with a personal trainer. The trainer was very attractive in an athletic sense -- streamlined slinkiness expressed with cat-like grace in a body hinting at barely contained sex. At first, our relationship was purely business, but eventually I was able to convince her to go out on a date with me -- against her hard and fast rule about “dating customers.” Sometimes I can be persuasive. LOL

What all the above scenarios share is that they are paid situations that can easily lead to the blurring of professional relationships in ways that leach out into relationships that simulate or give the illusion of intimacy. We see this all the time in all areas of our hectic lives. For example, with an increased workload accompanied by decreasing wages, many people are using their places of employment as dating pools. It seems that one consequence of neoliberal uber-capitalism is that everything has become a commodity -- including intimacy or its simulation.

In the new Steven Soderbergh film, The Girlfriend Experience, the main character (more psychological study than lead actress) Chelsea (played by porn star Sasha Grey), is not only a consumer of top-of-the line merchandise, she is also a commodity: a prostitute whose specialty is implied in the title of the movie. She offers her wealthy clients more than sex with a pretty young woman. In fact, sometimes there is no sex at all. What she sells instead is a simulation of intimacy.

The first scenes are of Chelsea in the company of a handsome, well-mannered man. For all we know, these two attractive people leisurely chatting over dinner, then kissing on the couch before making their way to bed, are intimate lovers. Only when cash changes hands the following morning is the audience made aware of transactional nature of the affair.

Working out of a stylish Manhattan loft she shares with her boyfriend Chris, Chelsea charges $2,000 an hour. For something like $25,000, a “date” with this slim, pretty, perfectly-carnately fashioned 20-year-old can really be like a date. Chris (real life trainer Chris Santos), works as a personal trainer, tending to the bodies of some of the same kinds of guys who hire Chelsea for her services. The similarities between them are thought provoking. Both Chris and Chelsea belong to a segment of the economy that depends on the blurring of certain distinctions, between service and friendship, profit and warmth. As I noted previously, exercise instructors, nannies, life coaches, bartenders -- when you think about it, they are all paid for something that can easily be mistaken for love.

Up to now, Ms. Grey’s screen performances have been almost entirely in hard-core pornography (she calls it performance art) and along with her character’s profession, this adds another dimension to the movie. Is Soderbergh also commodifying Ms. Grey?

However, the film’s main interest is in money rather than sex, which is shown to be a far more powerful and dangerous cause of obsession and confusion. The movie takes place during the first glimpses of our current economic collapse, October 2008, lending the piece an anxiety riding just underneath the surface of a film that is all about surfaces. Occasionally, this palpable anxiety bubbles to the top.

The movie follows Chelsea from one encounter to the next, and with some clients, Chelsea plays the shrink, low-key and attentive; with others, she’s simply a source of physical pleasure. With most, however, she’s the ideal girlfriend which is more or less the role that Sasha Grey, music composer and winner of the 2008 AVN Award for Best Oral Sex Scene, plays in real life.

Grey is the only professional actor in the movie, playing a character who is always acting. Some of the most interesting insights come during the scenes where Chelsea is being pursued by a journalist (played by real-life journalist Mark Jacobson), who wants to write a profile and seems genuinely eager to discuss her “inner you.” At one point, repeatedly frustrated by his attempts to delve into her psyche, he mentions that by necessity, Chelsea has had to create an impenetrable psychological armor. Soderbergh’s camera lingers on Chelsea’s facial reaction to this insight and her spare approach to acting lends this scene power.

The Girlfriend Experience is a mosaic of short, largely a-chronological scenes. Flashbacks are impossible to differentiate from flash-forwards; the emphasis is on Chelsea’s behavior is in the here and now. Soderbergh’s camera placement reinforces the feeling of intimacy that is the escort’s product. This economic imperative rules nearly every interaction: Chelsea’s capital is her body and her persona.

Soderbergh also explores the two-way street/ nature of selling intimacy when he locks into Chelsea’s falling for a client. This could have been a weak point in the movie, but the minimalist approach to acting utilized by Ms. Grey combined with Soderbergh's almost clinical, apathetic distance, stops this from becoming too melodramatic. Grey's hard-won defenses keep the camera (and the audience) at arm’s length -- even when prying underneath the beautiful yet hard exterior of her character. Perhaps part of the price Chelsea and all of us pay is to be forever locked inside the character armor we erect to protect ourvelves from the very thing we desire -- intimacy?

I fear many people will not enjoy The Girlfriend Experience. Its subject hits too close to home and it’s not a movie in the traditional sense. It’s more character study and it poses more questions than it answers. In fact, I don’t know if the film answers any questions at all. However, it is exactly the questions that intrigued me the most.

Love,

Eddie

Relationship Thursdays (The Experiment)

¡Hola! Everybody...
The weather here lately has been fantastic! Now, the weather is apart from our estimation of the day, right.

Right?

Today: more jacked up shit about relationships from someone who isn’t in one! LOL

* * *

-=[ The Joyful Experiment ]=-

The Seven Factors of Awakening are mindfulness, investigation of phenomena, diligence, joy, ease, concentration, and letting go.

-- Thich Nhat Hanh

People think I’m kidding when I tell them that if they come to my workshop they may very likely leave their relationships.

It never fails. I have yet to hold a workshop where someone doesn’t tell me they left a relationship as a result of what they experienced in my workshop... this is true.

My workshops have nothing to do with relationships per se, but I used to think that part of the reason was that if you hold yourself to certain standards, you begin to hold others to the same standards and those that refuse or cannot be accountable, naturally fall by the wayside. I now realize that’s only part of the reason.

The other part is love. This is where it gets tricky, however. I hear people all the time say, “Today I love myself,” implying a past in which that wasn’t true. That’s cool, I can dig that. However, what I often find with such individuals is that they’re in love with their egos -- especially the dysfunctional parts of their ego. This is not cool. Let me put it this way: if what you love is the dysfunction, then how does that change anything for the better? I see a lot of angry people walking around these days, irreversibly in love with their anger. LOL!

Actually, loving in that way is not really love, it’s a form of clinging, something many of us (myself included) mistake for love. Loving yourself is important, but the real skill lies in exploring what you consider your self to be. For me (and this is part of my theoretical orientation <-- smart-sounding phrase), coming back to love meant that my sense of self changed as I let go of limiting beliefs about my self. How I perceive that mess of entanglements, coincidences, and floating pieces of conditioned debris I call “my self” today is very different from how I saw that nineteen years ago. For one thing, it includes more of my world: there’s me, my loved ones, my community, my state, my nation -- the world! I am not separate from all that.

Therefore, part of genuinely loving yourself is letting go of those parts that bring you unnecessary pain. When you love, there’s no clinging, there’s only freedom -- pure consciouness. We don’t see love in that way. We love somebody only if they agree to love us back. Or if we have someone that loves us, we guard that love as if it were a rare commodity. The upshot being that we sometimes live in fear of losing that love. For me, that’s not love, that’s a form of psychosis. If your relationship is based on mutual need, eventually that relationship will fail. any relationship not based on love is on shaky ground to begin with.

I’m sure by now someone reading this will be shaking his or head and thinking that I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about and they may be right. However, how has it worked for you otherwise? I am aware of the internet phenomenon in which people who respond are sometimes perfect beings, were raised without hang-ups, are in perfect relationships, or used to be in “bad” relationships, but no longer are, and are well-adjusted, highly realized human beings. If you’re one of these individuals, then you shouldn’t read my blog, this is for the rest of us deeply fragmented, clueless, and mistake-prone mere mortals.

Life, for me, is an experiment; joy its intended result.

You can approach life as an artist/ scientist. Scientists take action and then observe the results. If that action does not bring the desired effect, they keep changing the actions until they find one that brings the results that are wanted. With an approach like this, you can observe the results of your actions and in that way move toward the desired result.

Let’s assume the desired result is joy. If you are experiencing pain, you can change what you do. You can also note which actions result in joy and expand on that expression.

As an artist, you can paint the picture of your life. If there are some elements, colors, or textures that do not fit your artistic vision of life, then it’s probably not working for you. Artists take risks and experiment in order to get in touch with their inner expression. Take the artistic risk and get in touch inside.

How?

Well, what ways have you tried in the past? How has going from one marriage to another, one relationship to another, worked for you? If your approach is to place the power of your vision externally (blaming others, God, etc.), the results -- joy -- will be limited by those outside factors. If your mood is dependent on whether it rains or not, for example, then it is safe to say that you’re going to be a crabby biatche a significant amount of the time.

Let's take loneliness. Oftentimes, we look for and stay in otherwise unrewarding relationships because we ant to avoid feeling lonely. Many people have confided in me that being with someone beats being lonely even if the relationship brings a lot of pain. My question then is: is that really true? How many times have you held someone in your arms and still feel a profound loneliness? Take a moment and look at everything you do and ask the question, “Does this bring me joy?” That is the only criteria to use, as you look at your life as an artistic scientist.

Love,

Eddie

Ego, Spirit & Relationships

¡Hola! Everybody...
As promised -- a continuation of “crazy wisdom” as applied to relationships... LOL

* * *

-=[ Ego & Essence in Relationships ]=-

“People say, ‘I want love.’ Take away ego (I), and desire, (want) and what are you left with?”

Yesterday I received two communiqués from friends on the frontline of love. Why they try me, when I don’t even own a cat is beyond me. Maybe it’s because they think I’m smart, or because of my background in psychology, I dunno. In any case, both were in pain.

It’s funny because I was reading some interesting material that I feel bears on this whole relationship thingee. As some of you know, stages of moral reasoning hold a deep interest for me and it dovetails well with relationships. If we can picture love as a light, then as that light passes through us, it’s filtered according to what level of moral reasoning you’ve attained. At one end of the spectrum, there’s relating from an ego-centered perspective, at the other there’s a spiritual or essence-centered perspective. Both have huge implications of how and who and why we love. Perhaps you can think about this the next time you’re out on the front lines bleeding out...

First, ever notice how people often say, “I am angry,” or, “I am sad,” but almost never say “I am love”?

::arches eyebrow::

Ego-centered Relating

The major characteristic of ego is a sense of being separate and “unique.” To relate from an ego-centered perspective to experience love as a want -- something to fill that hole you feel at the core of being. Loving in this sense is grasping, clinging.

Relating from an ego-centered perspective is like making the commitment to turn your lover into an emblem of your sense of unworthiness, and to use that individual as a justification to forget who you really are. It’s a determination to make someone else your Higher Power -- to see them as the source of your happiness, security, sense of well-being.

In that way, it is almost certain you will blame them for the feelings of unworthiness, insecurity, lack of fulfillment, anger and discontentment that you feel. It’s always him who makes you unhappy. If only she could be the way you want her to be, you would feel better.

Egoic love is like taking a vow to use the relationship to practice and perfect your ability to judge and project. Self-centered relating is giving to get, and solidifying your perception of yourself as a powerless victim. Relating from an ego-centered, lower-stage moral standpoint is valuing the form of your relationship over its content, and to focus your energy on whether or not the other is living up to your needs as you have defined them. In this way, as long as your lover fulfills the desires and demands of your ego, you will love her and be nice to her. When they don’t, you will feel justified in criticizing and attacking him, manipulating him and trying to change and control him. You will use the relationship to practice your belief that safety lies in separation, in keeping secrets, in being defensive and attacking or withdrawing when you feel scared.

In this way, you assure that you will emerge from the relationship more angry, despairing, cynical, defensive, hopeless and convinced of your guilt (and his/ hers) than when you entered it.

Spiritually-centered Relating

Spirit, or Essence, for me is about the original self -- a higher self -- before all the garbage created in order to perfect the walls of our egos. Ego-centered relating is based on fear; essence-centered relating is grounded in love. It’s another way at pointing at our spiritual nature. We experience our essence in those moments when we become translucent enough to allow the light of love shine through us with the barest of distortion. From a moral reasoning development perspective, essence is relating from a worldcentric perspective, where the sense of separateness that marks ego-centered relating is absent.

Essence demands you deepen your acceptance of your own true nature as Love itself and using that as the ground from which you engage in love with your lover. It is committing to see your lover as a reflection of The Sacred, and think of her as a beloved companion here to help you wake up to the sanctity of existence. From this perspective, it is committing to join with your lover in healing whatever defenses come up in order to experience love.

In cultivating your capacity for unconditional acceptance, forgiveness, kindness, compassion and trust, you surrender your judgments and pave the way to see him as innocent and entirely lovable. In this way you may come to know yourself as the same. Essence leads you to focus on nurturing the content of the relationship, honoring her by doing your best to relate from a place of honesty and kindness. Where you see something lacking, you look to what you could give, instead of looking for what could be.

Resisting the temptation to control in order to avoid facing your own pain, essence will direct you to commit to stopping when confronted your own wounds and instead explore the true nature of your hurt. This can be scary because in sharing your process with another, you’re asking for support in opening your heart and in that way, surrender living under the thrall of your inner fears.

This sounds like a tall order, but it is infinitely more rewarding and healthier than anything you may have tried in the past. Relating from Essence is like returning home into the heart of Love together. It’s coming to the realization that through our relationships we may become our truest Self: free, whole, at ease, and capable of loving without condition.

Whew! LOL

Eddie