Love vs Sex 158 (#18 on Tantric Sex)

Feelings that have an emotional content are another matter entirely, and confuse many people because they can seem to create heaven and hell. Argument and love get entangled again and again, and there seems to be no way through to the peaceful times. Our feelings and emotions keep disturbing the tranquility. It is this aspect of ourselves, this subtle and usually unconscious layer, that needs to be brought into the awareness. Awareness of the body and of the thoughts are the first two steps. This is relatively easy compared to the third step, awareness of our shifting moods, swings in temperament, and complex emotions.

Although the words “emotion” and “feeling” are used interchangeably, this is a common (…and potentially highly destabilizing and destructive… – Cribb interjection) mistake.

Feelings are an expression of what is happening now, consciously in the present moment, and emotions are an unconscious expression from the past, something that has already happened. Feelings are conscious while emotions operate on an unconscious level. Feelings are expressed freshly and innocently, while with emotion the expression is avoided, repressed, or delayed, and when finally expressed is often overwhelming, destructive, or unkind. Emotions like to blame and say “you always… it is your fault…while feelings take responsibility and say “I feel” or “I need”. Feelings strengthen the heart while emotions harden the ego. Feelings bring you closer to the one you love while emotions separate you. It is clear that feelings and emotions have very different qualities, and give us almost opposing experiences of reality. Through our feelings we expand our energy, we feel light and energized. We feel closer to the one we love and supported by life. Through emotions we are contracted and tense, experiencing heaviness, hopelessness, and pain. It is exhausting. We feel separated from the world and outcast by the one we love.

The Heart of Tantric Sex

Diana Richardson          2003

Love vs Sex 157 – Warrior Poet Mental Yoga 78 – Crossover

I sent this letter (originally posted in Love vs Sex 26) to a friend, because I knew it would mean something to her…it would mean as much to her as it means so little to most.

So I scratch this out and write you a letter, my darling, while I drink my coffee in Corso Vittorio Emanuele.

A letter to tell you that you really must be a strega* – otherwise why should I keep falling more and more in love with you? Why should I start being jealous of the people who loved you in the past? No, not jealous, really­ – rather sad because I wasn’t there, because I wasn’t ten other people loving you in ten other ways, at ten different times of your life and mine…being made one with you in tenderness and passion and sensuality and understanding. Well, I am not ten other people and I am here and now, not then and there. But here and now I love you very much and only wish I could love you more and better – could love you so that you would be well always, and strong and happy; so that there would never be that discrepancy between a tragic suffering face and the serenity of the nymph’s lovely body with its little breasts and the flat belly, the long legs… that I love so tenderly, so violently.

Well I must go to mail my letters and try on my suit and act the part of a respectable literary gentleman who doesn’t sit in cafés writing love letters, of all people! – to his wife.



A letter written by Aldous Huxley to Lara Huxley

Reprinted in This Timeless Moment

Lara Huxley     1968

My friend replied:

Why don’t people write or feel like Aldous Huxley anymore?

And I replied:

Great question…and related to everything we talk about. Without respectful love, people are destabilized and thus, much more easily controlled or negated. Negation moves you out of the way. Control always equals parasitism with an undue effort and application being implemented by the controller. Either for monetary gain, capture and detainment of a woman/man they are truly not worthy of, or for some other power play of life or labor. Destroying respectful love, destroys stability, destroys the family unit, destroys peace and contentment, destroys the individual. This allows weaker creatures to rule the world and rule it against proper natural order.

But don’t fret too much, you and I continue Huxley’s dream. We really do.

Cribb          2015

Warrior Poet Mental Yoga 77

A twenty-six-year-old American hostage, Nick Berg, was beheaded on a video by a man calling himself Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of Osama bin Laden’s lieutenants in Iraq. The men in the video said the decapitation was revenge for torture being carried out by Americans in the Abu Ghraib prison west of Baghdad. We might say a terrorist who kills someone because they feel their land is under occupation is acting for very different reasons from those of a psychopath. Can we judge the same act (murder) as arising from the same switching off of the empathy circuit?

Our inclination might be to condemn a suicide bomber who comes over the border from Gaza into Jerusalem and blows up a café full of innocent teenagers, but if we applied the same logic, we would have to condemn Nelson Mandela when he was leader of Umkhonto We Sizwe, the armed wing of the African National Congress. He coordinated the bombing of military and government buildings, hoping that no one would get hurt but all the while recognizing that innocent people might get caught up in the blast. Equally, we would have to condemn Menachem Begin when he was leader of Irgun, a militant offshoot of the Haganah, who blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on July 22, 1946, killing ninety-one people and injuring forty-six others, in an attempt to persuade the British to leave Palestine as part of the Zionist cause to create a Jewish homeland. Just as Mandela later became president of South Africa and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, so Begin later became prime minister of Israel and joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize with Egypt’s Anwar Sadat.

The target of the terrorist’s unempathic act is often selected because of the terrorist’s belief (e.g., a belief that freedom and identity are being threatened), so the act is not directly the result of an empathy deficit. The belief and/or the actual political context may drive the behavior. Nevertheless, at the moment of the act one has to recognize that the terrorist’s empathy is switched off. In flying a plane into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, an individual (driven by a belief) no longer cares about the welfare and feelings of his victims. Tony Blair famously said when he gave the order to invade Iraq that “history will forgive us,” but we cannot judge an act only by its distant outcomes while ignoring its immediate outcomes. The act itself may be unempathic irrespective of whether the ends justify the means.

The Science of Evil

Simon Baron-Cohen          2011

Love vs Sex 156

Try to understand. I know it’s hard for you, but pretend you are me. This whole thing had been a shock. Wouldn’t you feel somehow negated? Was it me she loved, or something about me that was all too familiar to her? Has she intuited it the first day of class when I was writing my name on the blackboard and the chalk broke in my hand and I knocked my books off  the lectern? She has picked up everything and smiled with understanding. Grown in this endless sun, amid these awful flowers, her parents, face it, freaks of nature, she’d been nurtured to the weird, the unnatural. It was what she knew, her normal social reality. So who would she find for herself, whom would she be morbidly attracted to, but someone as adorable as a freakishly depressive cognitive scientist klutz, whom she was soon enough comforting after the nihilistic despair of his lectures?

I hear self-loathing.

You do?

Another version of your unworthiness as the lover of this girl. First their was Andrew the anachronism on the football campus, and now the opposite, the all too appropriate freak fitting right in.

Andrew’s Brain

E.L. Doctorow          2014

Cribb Comment: I have noted a similar response, more than once, when a woman I have been dating or pursuing moved from an initial false perception of interaction directly into a second contradictory perception of interaction. The first, my proclaimed interest in her being somehow questionable, because of either her intellect (compared to mind) or my supposed fascination with other women or my inability to create and support a false and delusional relational bond prematurely without an appropriate foundation. The second, transforming into too much interest on my behalf. The primary expression for this second perception was “too much interest in physical affection or sex”, suggesting I was not really interested in their worth in any other respect. Too much contentment in “just being alone together, enjoying life, and not running around all the time like chickens with our heads cut off” also got turned into my being “controlling or boring or antisocial.”


Love vs Sex 155 – Warrior Poet Mental Yoga 76 – Crossover

Pretext Comment: The following conversation is occurring between two ghosts. They happen to be sitting on a yacht together and one of the ghost, the protagonist, is a young female, currently battling the forces of Satan and God in her present afterlife state. She tweets to the world of the living.

Gentle Tweeter,

“So why Jesus?” asks the luminous blue ghost of Mr. K. “Why did you fall for Jesus?” My thumbs twitching across the keys of my PDA, I shrug. At the time I was on the cusp of puberty. I was eleven years old with menarche barreling down on me like a speeding bloodmobile. Meaning: my first menstruation. Meaning: Menarche is not some Old Testament who’s-it. Any morning I expected to wake up with some huge burden of mammary glands attached to my chest. Thickets of hair would be sprouting in all of my secret places, and I’d be rendered a hormonal zombie. Time and time again, I’d seen it happen at my Swiss school. One day girls would be spunky, brainy flat-chested superheroes, and the next day they’d be simpering Miss Sexy Sexpots.

“So why Jesus?” asks Mr. Ketamine’s ghost. We’re two ghosts sitting in the main salon of the megayacht, keeping watch over my conked-out mom. The blue of Mr. K’s spirit matches exactly the blue that my tongues sees when I eat crushed ice. Not that I get to eat anything, not anymore. Not that I’m shedding pounds either.

Continuing to keyboard, I explain that my parents are little more than their physical appetites, their recreational drugs and sex. They’re just hungry carnal stomachs forever consuming. By dating Jesus, I wanted to sidestep all of the blood and spit and sperm that seemed to loom in my immediate future.


Chuck Palahniuk          2013

Love vs Sex 154 (#17 on Tantric Sex)

Warming up to lovemaking is essential so that our energies can awaken and slowly attune to each other. It gives time for a natural attraction to arise, and this makes all the difference. It is good for both men and women, but especially women. Since women represent the negative polarity (the vagina in sexual intercourse and penetration), they need and appreciate time prior to penetration to be fully available for love. And it must be a loving and gentle play, not a serious business with goals in mind as if following a mechanical manual.

In a fresh approach to love making, the most significant thing about foreplay is that it should not produce too much excitement. Don’t make your partner too excited, even though it may be tempting at times. This makes it difficult to move into a relaxing sexual experience. When desire or lust is provoked through sexual stimulation, the energy moves toward release. As a result, staying conscious in and aware of the present moment will be difficult. In the Tantric approach to foreplay, it is the attitude of the mind that is most important. How you do it, not what you do, is the point. If you wish to make your partner hot and horny this requires a particular attitude and approach, a certain intention. How and where you touch will make all the difference. However, a man who really takes his time to gently awaken the body of a woman through a slow, sensual approach will feel the inviting environment once penetration occurs.

The Heart of Tantric Sex

Diana Richardson          2003

Love vs Sex 153 (#16 on Tantric Sex)

Kissing is truly a wonderful and sensual art, and can become a language in itself, an important aspect of foreplay and lovemaking. It evokes the sexual response at a deep level. Kissing, being joined at the mouth, is the ultimate intimacy of face-to-face and eye-to-eye. It is an extremely intimate gesture and often a person will think once about making love, but twice about kissing them. It is as if we consider kissing more sacred than sex. If we are in love, as we make love, then there is usually the overwhelming wish to kiss each other. It is a profound sharing of energy, a drinking through the sensuality of the mouth, and through this the bodies connect in intimate circular fullness.

However, in kissing as in lovemaking, once again we do too much. Relaxation is the biggest aid to kissing. Relax the mouth and jaw and especially relax the lips, allowing them to be soft and receptive. Usually in kissing we purse the lips into a tight rosebud and then kiss the other person on their tightened lips very quickly. This is not really a genuine kiss, one where there is a sharing of energy through the mouth because the lips are too tense. Lips need to be relaxed and pliable, yielding and responsive. In kissing, bring the lips together very very slowly; let them join softly, be elastic, melt into each other. Maintain this juicy contact allowing them to answer each other in a succulent dance.

The Heart of Tantric Sex

Diana Richardson          2003

Cribb Comment: In disclosure, I prefer sloppy wet sensual kisses that undulate back and forth from the extremely soft and gentle to the more aggressive penetrations associated with tongue acrobatics. I will also throw in a little nibbling from time to time in what I believe to be in appropriate gentle measure and proper frequency. This all being said, to acknowledge that some may not prefer my form of kissing or they may find the grace of my kisses too aggressive or simply distasteful. Such differing preferences are completely understandable. But, I have noted in my experiences, much to my dissatisfaction and unease, a few tight lipped women, rigid and fairly aggressive in their proclaimed rules of kissing, who enforced only an absolute minimal, and dare I say dry, lip engagement. I have always believed this correlated more with their psyche than their actual preference of sensuality. And of further possible interest is also the seeming correlation of kissing compatibility equaling sexual compatibility. Those of uptight oral lips also seem to suffer from “uptight” genital lip syndrome too, if you know what I mean. I continue to find it very interesting that so many people must kill the softness, sensuality, and union potential that is obviously possible in the sexual experience. The melting and melding together have always seemed so natural to me. While most talk so much about porn, and “getting off” as much as possible, and their adulation for their own sex toys, and their own sex appeal towards the world, it is telling that the majority of these people can’t even bring themselves to truly kiss another human being. Such a fact would seem like a very important thing to acknowledge and address. That is, of course, unless you were hiding from that fact.