I think it's funny that Turq has adopted this "let's make fun of prudes" theme and continues to present himself as the White Knight of Sexual Freedom.
I mean: who here is a prude? Why's Turq banging the drum so hard and so often? All I can think is that he's feeling massively guilty about something sexual in his personality and working it out here at FFL. No one posting here has been on a crusade for, say, using sex only for procreation. Some here can describe techniques for using sex to advance one's spirituality. Some here can write endlessly about the delights of sex without getting much flack about it. Even those who are celibate (er, who would that be?) are not the types who would think badly of others for their sexuality; merely would they explain that they feel that the energy is better used via other mental processes. So who here is Turq railing against? Not me. NOT FUCKING ME! Cuz, I'm all for sex as much as you want. Sex until your yoni or ligum bleeds. Sex in odd places. Sex in backseats and under the stars. Sex using any body part. Sex using toys. Sex using fantasy. Sex using porn. Sex sex sex. And, more sex. Any of the above can be healthy, evolving, spiritual -- if the practitioner has clarity. So fuck all you want out there, folks. I do. But, if you come to me and say that sex with a much younger woman is very low risk and an almost certain win/win, I'll tell you that you're a predator with massive denial. THAT'S what Turq is railing about -- there's his pain, there's him being yucked out by an image in a mirror. Hey, Turq, you eat roadkill. See? You won't get any storm of obsessing with Turq again and again denying that he eats roadkill. He knows that he doesn't eat roadkill, so he doesn't have to defend himself from foundationless accusations. But prod him with an accusation about being a predator, and whammo, out come the nukes. Turq, Turq, Turq, what will become of thee? Edg --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > Think about it. The TM movement at this point > is dying, composed of primarily the last remnants > of the "Beatles wave" and the "Merv wave" of > initiations. The first group are now approaching > 60 or past it, and the second wave are now in > their 50s at least. > > But there is a significant difference between > the two "generations" in my opinion. Many of us > "Beatles wave" folks (the original Star Trek > cast) found our way to TM and its dogma *after* > having experienced the late 60s and its refresh- > ing blast of freedom from prudery and sexual > repression. The "Merv wave" folks (Star Trek, > The Next Generation) appeared on the scene as > young and impressionable as the original Star > Trek cast, but in the days when the 60s sense > of freedom and lack of prudery had already > passed, and had been replaced with nouveau > cynicism. > > Many of this latter wave *were* young and very > impressionable, and bought in to the TM prudery. > They came to believe wholeheartedly in stuff > like "celibacy as a Good Thing," sex outside > of marriage as a Bad Thing, lust as a *very* > Bad Thing, and having sex with more than one > person as *such* a Bad Thing that it was right > up there with mass murder. > > I may only be speaking for myself, but I never > bought into any of this bullshit. I am an unre- > pentent child of the 60s, an ex-hippie who had > time to form my own sexual and social identity > *before* I ever got inducted into the Star Trek > crew. As a result, even though a TMer, I got to > enjoy the sexually-liberated but shallow 70s, > and boink my way through them happily. I never > for a moment bought into the "Thou shalt not > have a girlfriend...that's beneath the stature > of a knower of reality" dogma that was being > sold at TM teacher training courses. I got more > nookie on TM residence courses and ATR courses > than most people on this forum have gotten in > their entire lives. > > And I do not feel the *least* bit sorry about it. > Say what you will, characterizes me as *what* > you will, I am myself and comfortable with that. > I've had long-term relationships and been married > once and I've had one-night stands. *None* of > these relationships are "better" in my mind than > any other. And there is nothing any of you can > say to "make" them better, or me "worse" because > I can't see the theoretical difference that you > see. Go peddle your TM prudery elsewhere. > > And I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way. > When I run into people from my generation, I find > that many of them somehow avoided this silly TM > prudery and live according to their *own* rules > of conduct and according to their own feelings > about what is an acceptable lifestyle. So I'm > wondering what the difference is between us Star > Trekkers and the Next Generation. > > And I think that the bottom line may very well be > that the Next Generation missed the late 60s. They > grew up in a later, more cynical era in which the > brief sense of freedom and hope that we all exper- > ienced in the late 60s had faded and been replaced > with standard American hopelessness. So they were > better "fodder" for the prudish propaganda and > repressive lifestyles peddled by the TM movement. > > That's my theory and I'm stickin' to it. > > But I'm humble enough to admit that it could > be wrong. The difference between the folks in > the original Beatles wavers and the later Merv > wavers could simply be that we were smarter. :-) >
