THE GREAT SWINDLE

Sexual 'projection' is the aspect of the attraction between romantic "lovers" that, unfortunately, the vast majority of people don't have even a glimmering of an awareness of.

Yet, it is an aspect of the attraction between romantic "lovers" that looms far larger within us than biological sex, and is far more basic and fundamental in that attraction than is simple biological sex.

Each of us, regardless of our outer, physical sexual gender, has within us a mixture of both 'male' and 'female' qualities, both of which are striving to find expression, union and balance within our individual personality.

But, the very act of labeling these differences in qualities as 'male' and 'female', reveals the subtle underlying biases and prejudices of our particular cultural mind-set.

Because, these differences in qualities are not inherently tied in with any particular sexual gender. Whatever gender aspects are attached to them are there only because the culture in which we live has created those particular attachments.

What one culture considers to be 'male' and 'female' qualities can be quite different in another culture.

For example, there are cultures in which the epitome of 'manliness' is to be an attractive sex 'object' who spends his time preening and keeping himself 'pretty', gossiping, and being otherwise generally useless. And, 'womanliness' is to be the practical, hard working head of the household and...well, you get the picture.

As this demonstrates, no particular quality is genetically tied in with either gender. Whatever tie-ins we perceive are a result of culture - not nature.

What we are actually dealing with here are opposing, and yet complementary, polarities  within each human personality, which are present in every individual, man or woman.

We could just as easily [and far more accurately, actually] refer to these polar differences as Yin and Yang, up and down, north and south, right and left, or any other terms which refer to such polarities and carry no connotations of gender or value.

With these qualities, as with all polarities, as opposite as they might appear to be, neither is 'better' than the other, and both are necessary. They are complementary to one another, and neither can exist without the other.

So, as we refer to 'male' and 'female' in this discussion, remember that we are not really referring to gender so much as we are to these personality polarities.
[See: Fundamental Polarities (Complementary Opposites)]

Now, to specifics.

Every woman has within her make-up 'male' aspects as well as 'female' aspects, all of which are seeking release and expression within and through her, as an individual personality.

The same holds true for every man.

And, equally important, the starting point of the relative inner balance between these polar aspects, at conception and birth, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the outer, bodily manifestation of sexual gender.

In other words, the bodily, physical differences between the sexes represent nothing more than the fact that physical sexuality must exist to serve the purpose of reproduction, and, therefore, each of us must be one or the other.

So, the bodily manifestation of 'male' or 'female' is no true indicator of the inner relative 'male/female' balance within the individual.

Accepting this as a fundamental spiritual and psychic TRUTH about human beings goes a long way toward explaining many things about not only romantic "love", but about human sexuality in general, which things otherwise remain inexplicable.

Each of us, being unique individuals at certain levels of our being, start life off with differing inner mixtures. Some of us have much 'male' and relatively little 'female'; some start off with just the opposite mixture; some start off near the middle with a relatively equal mix; and still others begin anywhere and everywhere along the whole possible spectrum.

But each of us has an initial starting point mixture of these polar qualities, which qualities, as a matter of spiritual growth, are intended to find their own harmonious balance within us as an individual.

Yet, the outer manifestation of bodily sex may or may not be anywhere close to being a true representation of that initial inner mix. In a way, it might almost be viewed as a cosmic 'throw of the dice' as to whether the physical genitalia come anywhere close to representing the more dominant starting polarity in any individual.

One with much inner 'male' and little 'female' might as easily be born with female genitalia as with male genitalia, and vice versa. 

But, this FACT, in and of itself, need not be a problem for us, if it is fully and clearly understood and accepted.

The problem is, and it is indeed a big  problem, that this FACT isn't even close to being fully and clearly understood and accepted.

Cultural conditioning places upon each of us certain sexual roles and expectations which are intended to serve the needs of society, and have little concern, if any, with the need for inner spiritual growth into harmonious balance within the individual. Indeed, the need for inner sexual balance and growth is barely even recognized in most cultures, let alone provided with the focus it deserves in some socially acceptable manner.

Such role and expectation conditioning goes very deep, not only within our cultural fabric, but also in our personal attitudes and BELIEFS about ourselves .

Consequently, a woman must suppress her own inner 'maleness' according to this deeply rooted social conditioning, and will often, unbeknownst to herself on a conscious level, seek to find a means for expression and fulfillment of this suppressed part of herself vicariously, through another person; logically and usually someone of the male gender.

And in so doing, the deep drive and need of her own inner nature, which she is now trying to express and fulfill by way of another person, can easily result in such a powerful feeling of attraction to that other person that she will exhibit all of the symptoms we commonly associate with romantic "love".

And, of course, the same holds true with men seeking to find expression of their own suppressed inner 'femaleness' by way of another person of the female gender.

We are each meant to find, and are fully capable of finding, our own harmonious inner balance within ourselves, as individuals.

But, since our deeply rooted cultural conditioning seriously hinders us in doing this, we, instead, try to find expression of the socially unacceptable, and therefore suppressed, part of our inner nature through someone else. This creates a feeling of strong attraction; and we call this strong attraction "love".

When we think about it, we can see how this also explains many sexual oddities and so-called 'perversions' such as homosexuality, bisexuality, transvesticism, sex change operations, pedophilia, sado-masochism, prostitution, and various and sundry other unusual expressions of sexuality.

And, simply as a result of their social unacceptability and unusualness, in these situations the confusion and Swindle are even greater than in the more usual situation of heterosexual projection off.

When heterosexuals project their suppressed inner sexuality off onto a "lover", the projection involved is fairly direct and, thus, easily recognized. At least, it is so once we understand and accept that that is  what is happening.

Non-heterosexuality involves exactly the same type of projection off onto another person - or object. (Whether a person or not, the "loved" is an 'object' of the "love" in all  situations - including heterosexual).

But in these situations, the connecting thread of the projection off taking place is far more difficult to follow, not because they are 'perverse', but simply because the very cultural conditioning which prompts such projection off in the first place makes it just that much more difficult to see what is actually happening.

But the key point to take away from all this is that such projection off onto another does in FACT take place, and that we usually feel the attraction resulting from it as "love".

And, such "love" is not  LOVE.

And while we're on the subject of so-called 'perversions', this is a good place to touch on two behaviors which some consider to also be 'perverse' - masturbation and sex education.

At the end of her tenure as Surgeon General under President Clinton in the mid 1990s, Joycelyn Elders gave a talk in which she strongly encouraged sex education in the public schools, including myth eliminating education about masturbation. In short, she was encouraging a non-Swindlous approach as to the highly 'charged' subject of sexuality. (Indeed, it was this talk which brought her tenure to an end - such is the current power of the entrenched Swindle in our culture).

What is so horrible about de-mything and de-Swindlizing the subject of sex? Nothing, other than a significant portion of the population is so caught up in the long held Swindlous views of the subject as to be able to react to the attempt to de-Swindlize it only in an irrationally and seriously negative way.

If the subject of sex in general, and masturbation in particular, were to be de-mythed and de-Swindlized, much in terms of both personal and social benefits could result.

In particular, if one were to accept the REALITIES of sex as we have just discussed them, he could see to what extent his own TRUE motivation for desiring a sex partner is the projection off we have discussed, and thereby also see that rather than paying, and inflicting, the prices so often entailed in such relationships for such purposes, self-fantasizory masturbation might well resolve the urgency for him without any injury to anyone, and be just as satisfying.

So, there it is!

We have now fully described the highly charged state of being which exists between romantic "lovers".

That's what it is. Nothing more. And nothing less, either. But, nothing else.

It is not LOVE as we have agreed to define LOVE.

So, what shall we call it, since we can no longer call it "love"?

Well, why not just call it what it is - 'romantic attraction' and 'infatuation'.

And, having said this about the state of being between a man and a woman as "lovers", does that somehow make it wrong? Does recognizing the true nature of that state of being somehow make it less worthwhile or powerful?

Not necessarily.

Because, recognizing it for what it TRULY is removes the confusion and Swindle from the whole situation, and permits us, if we want, to help it become even better and more beautiful than it ever even began to be before.

What we have really done is clear away a major element of confusion which has prevented LOVE from existing between a man and a woman all along.

LOVE, genuine LOVE, as we have agreed to define it, can exist between a man and a woman just as surely as it can exist between any two people. So long as the feelings and state of being between them fall within our agreed upon definition, then, as between them, LOVE is .

Indeed, LOVE between a man and a woman is one of the highest and most beautiful states of being into which any of us are capable of entering, short of the state of communion with one's own higher level.

There is nothing that makes LOVE and romantic attraction inherently antagonistic to one another. There is nothing preventing the fundamental aspect of LOVE and the desirable aspect of 'infatuation' from being blended together, at the same time, and between the same two people, and without the painful and negative results we so often find today. There is nothing stopping these two elements from being blended together, with positive results for all concerned, and lasting for a lifetime.

Nothing, that is, other than our own confusion over just what these two aspects of our nature truly are, which confusion has been brought about by our own insistence on calling infatuation "love", and, having done that, taking the confusion one step further and insisting that this confused state of affairs is somehow of high and essential importance in our lives.

So, having said all this, how do we go about making these two aspects of our nature compatible in a particular relationship?

First off, so as to eliminate yet another element of confusion brought about by the imprecise use of terms, let's agree on one more definition.

Let's agree upon some term to apply to someone who looks upon another person with genuine LOVE.

Let's call someone who looks upon another person with LOVE, a FRIEND to that person (fully capitalized).

And, again, let's be as careful with our use of the term FRIEND [fully capitalized], as we are with the word LOVE [fully capitalized]. When we use the word FRIEND, let's agree that it shall apply only to someone who feels toward and looks upon another with genuine LOVE, and that it shall not be used to describe any other situation.

It does not mean just an acquaintanceship. It does not apply simply because two people work together. It does not necessarily apply to people who socialize together, even if they do so quite often. And, it may not even apply to a current spouse or other "lover" [and quite possibly it won't].

We shall call a FRIEND only as we have specifically defined it here, and in no other case. If any situation does not totally fit within our very careful definition, we may use the term 'friend' [all lower case], but not FRIEND.

In order for people to have both LOVE and infatuation at the same time, they must, first of all, clearly recognize the difference between the two.

LOVE is selfless . Totally selfless. To the extent one's feelings toward another aren't totally selfless, one's LOVE is not genuine - to that extent.

Infatuation is selfish . Totally selfish.

If I am in the state of emotional and sexual excitation which infatuation is, it is me  who is in this state. It is me  who is feeling the euphoria, and it is I  who am enjoying the pleasure of those feelings. I might try to convince myself [and you] that I am feeling this way for your sake, but that is hogwash. It is me  who is feeling euphoric, and I am feeling that way for my sake, not yours.

And if something goes amiss in our relationship, it is me  who feels the hurt and anger as a result.

Either way, you  are not  responsible for my feelings. Those feelings were mine  all the way. Good and bad.

And, the same thing holds true for you and your  feelings.

But this doesn't mean that two people can't LOVE one another and be infatuated with one another at the same time.

[1]. Recognize what genuine LOVE is, and what infatuation is [as we have discussed them here].

[2]. Recognize the difference between the selfless ness of LOVE and the selfish ness of infatuation.

[3]. Be totally honest  with themselves and with one another about which parts of their own feelings derive from LOVE and which parts derive from infatuation.

[4]. Commit to themselves and to one another to place LOVE above and before infatuation at any point where the two come into conflict.

It's just that simple   - and difficult!

The selfishness of infatuation doesn't necessarily make it wrong [ie., destructive]. It only becomes wrong when we either confuse it with LOVE, or permit it to take priority over the selflessness of LOVE. If we put the selfish feelings of infatuation ahead of our selfless feelings of LOVE, we will likely experience all the hurts, angers, jealousies and other negative qualities we so often find in romantic "love" situations.

But, if two people put LOVE ahead of infatuation, they can both help one another to liberate their good feelings of sexual attraction and euphoria, and do that in an unselfish way.

Selfless LOVE will please and gratify the other person's desires and needs, because that is what LOVE does. You will tell me how you would like to make use of me in order to gratify your desires and needs, and I will willingly  CHOOSE to let you make such use of me. Your use of me will therefore not really be selfish, because it is neither deceptive nor coerced. You will have told me how you wish to use me, and I will have willingly consented. That isn't selfish, and it isn't bad. It is good.

Of course, if I give you selfless LOVE and you either don't return it, or otherwise don't fulfill my own human desires and needs, I might feel tempted to start looking elsewhere to gratify those needs and desires.

But, if my LOVE for you is genuine , I will tell  you about the lack I am feeling before doing anything else about it.

I will tell  you, honestly, because I realize that failing to tell you is a form of dishonesty between us, and I also realize that dishonesty, in any form, is one of the most un FRIENDLY and un LOVING acts possible.

And, if the LOVE each of us has for the other is sufficiently developed, my telling you will begin the process by which the LOVE in each of us will resolve and eliminate the problem.

Genuine LOVE can solve any problem in any relationship.

In this way our LOVE will remain and even grow for the experience, and we will each remain a FRIEND to the other. And, most likely, our mutual infatuation will grow as well.

But even if infatuation ends, and we decide to go our separate ways in search of it [which isn't very likely if we have TRULY accomplished all four of the above steps], we will still part as FRIENDS, and inflict no hurt or injury on anyone in the process. LOVE will not permit either of us to inflict, or to suffer, any serious hurts to ourselves or anyone else.

So, if a man and a woman will both acknowledge the REALITIES of LOVE and infatuation, and be fully open and honest with themselves and one another about how those realities are operating within them, and place LOVE and FRIENDship ahead of infatuation in their relationship, they can each have both LOVE and infatuation between them, side by side, and without any painful or destructive side effects.

We recognize that the above four steps are far easier to put into words than to apply to one's self and live up to. Following them genuinely , requires a great deal of effort and time and the arduous process of honest  introspection and honest  communication. By far, it isn't the easiest thing a person could do with his life.

So, the question often comes down to, is the relationship worth  all this effort?

Well, how many marriages are held together for the sake of the children, or so as to avoid the financial and social dislocations that divorce so often entails?

When we consider that the well being of the children, and the financial and social stakes involved in marriage, are the  very factors taken into consideration in the traditional Oriental view [and our own earlier view] on the subject of marriage, are we wise in so easily assuming that these factors aren't important, and therefore not worth considerable effort on our part?

What causes us to even consider breaking up a marriage when the consequences are so clearly severe?

When looked at honestly, the only reason for even considering such a drastic measure is that the 'spark' has either gone out of the relationship, or, in the case of marriages of convenience or for reasons of financial or emotional security, there was no 'spark' in it in the first place.

And how many marriages have broken up because one partner thought he found that 'spark' elsewhere (only to see it go out in the next relationship as well, and the one after that)?

And, what is that 'spark' but the very infatuation we have been discussing here?

And what is the concern for the well being of the children and for the financial and social stability of the family unit, if not at least the budding of the genuine LOVE we have been talking about?

So, once again, is the effort involved in our four steps worth it?

When one considers that following them can do no harm, and avoid all the harm done by not following them, and, that the very process of pursuing these four steps, genuinely , can easily, and most likely will , in and of itself, result in the rekindling of a dead 'spark', or the creation of a 'spark' that had not existed before, does the answer not become quite clear?

The same four steps which can make FRIENDS out of "lovers", can also make FRIENDS out of people who are not romantically involved.

Indeed, it is easier to be FRIENDS when the vulnerabilities of infatuation and the potential competitiveness of sex are absent.

The focus of genuine LOVE and FRIENDship can then be placed on the open and honest sharing and acceptance of other inner spiritual and emotional realities within the people involved.

Of course, some such FRIENDships will be highly intimate and close, and others won't.

But the mutual support and nurturance available by way of the give and take of all genuine FRIENDships will be present in every instance, regardless of the degree of intimacy, so long as the genuineness and open honesty are present.

(This type of FRIENDship can also be a solid basis for the new extended families suggested in our earlier section on 'Us' vs 'Them', and as more fully discussed in New Extended Families).

One final point deserves attention in this whole discussion of LOVE and romantic "love".

As a result of the general confusion and misunderstanding about the nature of LOVE and infatuation, there is also some confusion and misunderstanding about relationships between people.

This is especially true with respect to relationships between men and women.

The term 'relationship' is sometimes applied to the interaction between a man and a woman, especially if they are "lovers" or potential "lovers", as though such a relationship is somehow an entirely different breed of animal from all other types of relationships.

'I like you as person, but I don't want a relationship with you.'

Such a use of the term 'relationship' is as fuzzy and inaccurate, and therefore as much of a Distractor, as is our misuse of the word "love".

A relationship is the interaction between two or more people. That's what it is. That's all it is. Always.

If two people are already interacting to the point that one is in a position to say what was quoted above (or to say anything at all, for that matter) they already have  a relationship.

Interaction, regardless of its depth or nature, is  a relationship.

To make this point so emphatically may seem to be belaboring the obvious. But it really isn't.

We may not realize it, but when we are so fuzzy with our use of the term relationship under such circumstances, we distort our own view of the REALITIES of relationships in general, and of the relationship being discussed in particular. Or, such misuse of the term may quite possibly bespeak a view we have of the "realities" of relationships which is already  distorted.

To speak of the interaction between a man and a woman, even of the most highly intimate type, as though it were basically different than other interactions on a less intimate level, runs a very real risk of actually seeing it that way.

And to see it that way, is to see it inaccurately.

Intimacy may change the quality of a relationship, and it usually does. But it doesn't change its basic nature of being a relationship.

To see an intimate relationship as being somehow fundamentally different than all other relationships causes the relationship to take on a life of its own, which may or may not have anything to do with the REALITIES of the two people involved.

It causes us to pre-determine what the two people 'should' be within the relationship, based upon our preconceptions about what such a relationship itself is 'supposed' to be.

In short, the two people end up having to re-arrange and adjust themselves, as the individuals they are, in order to fit themselves into the relationship, rather than the relationship simply being the result of the interaction between the two people as the people they are.

A relationship is the interaction between the people involved, as the people they are, no matter how intimate or distant it might be. To look at it any other way is to do a great disservice, even outright injury, to the REALITY of the two people, as the people they are, and turns the relationship into an inhibiting prison, rather than allowing it to be a vehicle for the growth and development of both people.