LIVING WITH WOMEN
 

GIANT OR PIGMY


    If I am correct in identifying a significant part of male fear in regard to our own sexuality with its unknown nature, with the facts that we project so early and never learn to identify with and become responsible for this aspect of ourselves, how can I see into this unknown? What are its parameters? What is the content of the dark space which we may "live on top of"?

I begin with size; for openers, we (I project and theorize) may not know the true size and hence power of our own sexuality. We know that we often feel sexual; this is hard to deny. But how sexual are we? What is the extent of our sexual potency? How strong/weak are these instincts which erect our penises but leave them without conscience?

Is this dark, pervasive inner force a Sleeping Giant or a Noisy Pigmy? Is "it" more like a time bomb waiting to go off, or a tiny firecracker with only a "pop"? A Roman Candle or a Sparkler? Is it "all blow" with "little show," or a concealed monster just waiting for an inopportune time to do us in? Sexually speaking, are we nearer to omnipotence or impotence?


This unknown is compounded by the fact (as I surmise) that we males often dis-identify our selves from our sexuality. In order to cope with these unknown powers we may learn early to split ourselves into "I" and "it"; "I" who "have (or often feel)" this force "within me"--but "it" is not the same as me.

We may thereafter see ourselves as, for example, "having" erections (wet dreams, attractions, urges, etc.) but not as being sexual. Erections then seem to "happen to us," or "come on us," but they are no longer perceived as us. Since they consequently seem to occur "in spite of ourselves," then "something" must be causing them--that is, the initiating power for uncontrollable erections (or desires) must logically be elsewhere, "out there," for example, in the girls who always seem to be around, or in our dreamIf I am correct in identifying a significant part of male fear in regard to our own sexuality with its unknown nature, with the facts that we project so early and never learn to identify with and become responsible for this aspect of ourselves, how can I see into this unknown? What are its parameters? What is the content of the dark space which we may "live on top of"?

I begin with size; for openers, we (I project and theorize) may not know the true size and hence power of our own sexuality. We know that we often feel sexual; this is hard to deny. But how sexual are we? What is the extent of our sexual potency? How strong/weak are these instincts which erect our penises but leave them without conscience?

Is this dark, pervasive inner force a Sleeping Giant or a Noisy Pigmy? Is "it" more like a time bomb waiting to go off, or a tiny firecracker with only a "pop"? A Roman Candle or a Sparkler? Is it "all blow" with "little show," or a concealed monster just waiting for an inopportune time to do us in? Sexually speaking, are we nearer to omnipotence or impotence?


This unknown is compounded by the fact (as I surmise) that we males often dis-identify our selves from our sexuality. In order to cope with these unknown powers we may learn early to split ourselves into "I" and "it"; "I" who "have (or often feel)" this force "within me"--but "it" is not the same as me.

We may thereafter see ourselves as, for example, "having" erections (wet dreams, attractions, urges, etc.) but not as being sexual. Erections then seem to "happen to us," or "come on us," but they are no longer perceived as us. Since they consequently seem to occur "in spite of ourselves," then "something" must be causing them--that is, the initiating power for uncontrollable erections (or desires) must logically be elsewhere, "out there," for example, in the girls who always seem to be around, or in our dreams, when these strange desires and sensations "arise." Or else, perhaps "the devil makes us do it (or want to)."

Though the psychic phenomenon called projection is only recognized in hindsight, it serves to further darken already clouded sexuality. Projection is, of course, pragmatic at the time; it helps us cope in difficult circumstances. But the utility of projecting does not diminish the darkness which inevitably accompanies it.

We may feel temporarily safer when the cause of these strange forces is imagined to be external, after we have concluded, for instance, that girls "turn us on," but the fact remains: we are thereafter even more separated and hence out of control of innate sexuality. The power is partially manageable "out there" (we can avoid girls, not look, or only touch them by choice, which, of course, they severely restrict), yet the darkness born of projection is only amplified thereby. Illusions of external control only cloak heightened degrees of internal loss of control.

The unknown extent of dis-associated-from-self sexuality is thus magnified by the very psychic procedure we commonly use to find safety and relief from "it." If we were "living on top" of a Casper-like ghost before, after the internal split and the external projection we are left with a dangerous ogre "down there" later.

And social circumstances which always threaten us with real and serious consequences for any breach of its powerful memes--rules of acceptable/polite/legal sexual behavior, are constantly present whenever we are around females or otherwise reveal our natural instincts. Just, for instance, the urge to look--to see female bodies, can, if not kept carefully secret, lead to social rejection if not legal consequences. Saying sexually implicit words is always impolite and usually obscene; and any "unwanted advances" can, as presidents and all other males know, be horrendously dangerous.

The point: internal dis-association of self from sexuality with inevitable projection of cause "out there," would be sufficient for a scary-enough unknown; but add the unknown dangers of extended social consequences for any breach of sexual etiquette (which boils down to almost complete denial) to a male's fear of any unknown, and the scope of this particular fear may begin to appear.

One further primal fear, which may actually be greater than these noted, is the possible resurrection of what I have surmised to be the oldest and deepest of all childhood terrors symbolized by the meme of Mother's Frown. In the earliest days of an infant's post-natal life, when ultimate powers of life/death and all measures of existence in between are posited in the Goddess who cares for us, then nothing in reality matters more than forces best recognized in Mother's Smile, or its potentially disastrous counterpart, Her Frown.

This universally real situation becomes relevant to a male's fear of the unknown extent of his own masculinity because of the way mothers commonly relate to a boy's emerging sexuality. A mother may unconsciously affirm a son's sexuality, since it is in fact her own best avenue to genetic-replication; but such deep affirmations, if they do exist, are more commonly shrouded with consistent messages of denial.

Any non-sexual "affectionate" behavior in a boy may bring Her Smile, but when a son becomes overtly sexual Her Frown is seldom far behind. What son has ever experienced conscious affirmation for this innate aspect of himself from the most powerful force in his earliest life? Mothers discernable "messages" about sons' sexuality must, I surmise in this scientifically dark space, be universally negative.

And when boys "grow up" without resolving this possibly most powerful of all memes, it always remains in the wings of every adult stage. No matter how far we move away, or how long we are removed, the "shadow of Her Smile"--or more often, of Her Frown, lurks menacingly around all later sexual experiences. Present unknowns, which are more than enough in themselves, may be immeasurably darkened by primal memories never quite forgotten.


*******