I Want Your (Archetypal) Sex


warrior-prideBy Joe Perez

When George Michael sang “I Want Your Sex,” the guardians of civilization made him clarify in his music video that he was talking about monogamy and definitely NOT casual sex. Nobody respectable ever sings about casual sex. According to the Wikipedia definition, “casual sex” means promiscuous sex, that is, a non-formalized sexual encounter outside of the predominant sexual norms of the culture.

Clint Seiter has written a fascinating essay called “Applying Buddhist Dharma to Casual Sex,” in the book Queer Dharma (Gay Sunshine Press, 1988). Seiter contrasts intimate sex with archetypal sex. Western Judeo-Christian culture extols the virtues of the former while condemning the latter, says Seiter. But intimacy is just one facet of sex; there’s sex “that operates on quite a different plane . . . draws strength primarily from fantasy.”

Archetypal sex engages the fantasy life to connect the partner to a bigger, ideal archetype of a mythological scale. The Ideal Male, The Beautiful Youth, The Daddy, The Rough Trade, The Androgyne, The Masculine Man, The Cowboy, and so forth. From the perspective of many Western psychologies, Seiter argues, sex based on these sorts of ideals is attacked as based on arrested sexual development. In terms of the Integral approach, Seiter argues against the view that adult gay men have had sexuality arrested on tribalistic and egocentric stages rather than the higher traditionalist stage.

Seiter praises the virtues of archetypal sex while simultaneously acknowledging that it can’t accommodate every human need for warmth and intimacy and love. As a Buddhist, he acknowledges that a steady diet of archetypal sex would lead to human suffering. However, our given culture is already imbalanced in favor of intimate sex, he says, and therefore there should be greater balance allowed to flow in the other direction—toward archetypal sex.

[Read more…]

In Defense Of Spiritual Smut

smutBy Joe Perez

Spirituality writing doesn’t have a very wide audience, at least not as wide as we think it should. On the Web and on Facebook, the prose in short form can easily become a redundant chorus of platitudes and in long form … well, simply left unread.

In continuity with the spirit of my writing, Gay Spirituality strives to rock a few boats and we’re willing to bear with the occasional flamer who doesn’t get it.

Our Web and Facebook page occasionally publish pics of hot men. There is a lot of this in gay culture and we have noticed that a little beefcake now and then makes our posts more interesting to the masses. In doing so, we strive to elevate the picture in some way, transcending its status as mere eye-candy, and presenting an opportunity to view it as source of wisdom.

It can even be funny to see the contrast, say, between a quote by Confucius about the nature of work next to a hot sweaty construction worker. The humor is intentional.

In doing so, we aren’t saying that gay culture is too fixated on eye-candy or that lookism isn’t a problem. But as sites like Philosophers’ Mail shows us, sometimes it takes a hook to get readers to pay attention to difficult or challenging material and to compete with the garbage sites offering fluff or empty calories.

We have seen other “serious” and “sophisticated” websites that refuse to post anything erotic because it would run afoul of political correctness. We choose to see the sexual and the spiritual as intertwined, and it would be hypocritical of us to sanitize our creative output to try to gain the approval of élites.

(By the way, we try to use pictures of models which show a variety of ages and body types. However, most male models tend to be above average looking guys. Also, we don’t subscribe to the view that looking at sexy, erotic pictures is a sin or anti-spiritual per se. In contrast, we have argued that Beauty is a force which raises the Eye of the Spirit upward in an embrace of the divine. Read “Looking at Lookism” to learn more.)

So if after reading this you are still offended or outraged that a spirituality page or site serves pics of hot men as part of its menu, then take what works for you and leave the rest. We hope at least this post explains better where we’re coming from.

Is It Legitimate To Ask: What Is The Meaning Of Sex?

meaning-of-sexToday on the Queering the Church blog, Terence Weldon discusses the claims by the religious right to have identified the one true and holy meaning and purpose of sexuality. He writes:

“On the Catholic and other Christian right, there’s been a great deal of half – baked nonsense about gay marriage, pontificating in apparently authoritative and absolute terms about the “meaning” and the “purpose” of sex and marriage, and resulting, for instance, in books with such pretentious but patently simplistic titles as ”On the Meaning of Sex“, by J. Budziszewski. I would generally ignore books so – titled, because it’s ridiculous to imagine that so complex and profound a part of human experience can reasonably be reduced to a single “meaning”, or that the meaning it has can be expressed in prose, or that the meaning can be found between the covers of a book, rather than in the realm of real – life experience….

And their we have it. He’s prepared to learn important lessons about theology from his own experience – but is not prepared to hear what others have have learned, from theirs. Neither Frank in this series of posts, nor Budziszewski in his book, are writing from a gay or lesbian perspective, but there’s an important lesson in here for us, none the less. It’s an important principle of orthodox theology and spirituality (and a cornerstone of Ignatian spirituality), that we can and even must reflect deeply in prayer on our experience, from which we can gain important insights – this is how in prayer, we can listen to God, as well as speaking to him.

[Read more…]

Gay Frot: A Second Sexual Revolution?

frot1By Joe Perez

“We didn’t have sex; we just rubbed our cocks together.” “I only have oral sex with my boyfriend, so does that mean we’ve never had real sex?” “He fucked my ass, but I didn’t get hard or cum. Does it count?”

It seems that nobody can agree on what real sex is.

Conservative religionists very often define real sex like so: it must involve one man and one woman and must be open to the possibility of procreation. This view has seeped into the mainstream cultural mindset, and today many people view penetrative, hetero sex as the gold standard.

The mainstream gay culture has a different view on real sex. By and large, the dominant ethos of pluralistic egocentrism is that everyone’s definition of sex is equal. Real sex is whatever somebody says it is. You should always avoid making judgments of others.

In practice, however, attitudes about sex are less relativistic. Gay men have generally adopted the hetero-like gold standard: straights have cock and pussy, and gays have cock and asshole. Gay men define their sexuality by their status as top, bottom, or versatile. For many of us, real sex must involve penetration.

Is there a way to come to greater agreement about real sex? I think there is. We must acknowledge that definitions of sex evolve from the lower levels (biology equals destiny) to a higher level (pluralistic relativism) to a still higher, more integrative view.

[Read more…]