SEX: Procreation, Recreation or Co-creation?

This article focuses on sexuality as a political issue in the world today. In the 1990s what happens in the bedroom can be read about on the front page of most newspapers: gays in the military; sexual abuse; abortion and reproductive rights; equal rights for gays and lesbians; men's and women's groups, AIDS, safe sex, gender relations, Madonna, and crotch-grabbing, sex-talking, censorship-flaunting rappers and rock stars. When we think about it, sex and sex-related topics are taking up a huge focus in the collective right now. What has been hidden away is coming out into the light of day; our most private parts are now part of the public process.

Strange Bedfellows: Sex and Fundamentalism

As we study the different issues of sexuality confronting us today, we notice recurrent themes in the heated debate surrounding sexual freedom. It seems that regardless of the issue, there are two central political views. One view looks to democracy to support individual freedom and to protect diversity. The other view understands democracy as a protector of moral, religious or ethical codes, and as the upholder of traditional social values.

But this is a simplified sketch of a complex situation. At the heart of political issues concerning sexuality is the age-old battle between fundamentalism

and liberalism. We define fundamentalism as the strict adherence to a conservative body of laws that regulate human behavior, such as the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, and other religious texts. But fundamentalism is also the strict adherence to any ideology, whether scientific or political. For instance, strict adherence to a scientific belief, despite evidence that may alter the underlying hypothesis, is fundamentalism.

In addition, fundamentalism, as a regulator of human behavior, can also be seen in the "political correctness" movement of some social action groups today. On many college campuses a battle is raging between enforcing speech codes which ban any term deemed insensitive to a minority group, versus those who feel that this infringes on their basic freedom of speech. Fundamentalism is, therefore, not restricted to religious groups, but is found on both sides of every issue. It is the conviction of rightness, whether from the Bible or from "political correctness" manifestos.

Liberalism, on the other hand, promotes individual freedoms and the right of the people to challenge their government. Traditionally, liberalism has also been associated with free enterprise, and, in its extreme form, represents the right of individual progress at all costs. Therefore, it holds hands with

SEX: Procreation, Recreation or Co-creation?

capitalism and competitive, laissez-faire economics, as well as with human rights and individual freedom. Sexuality is not causing this battle of philosophies, but is being used as a battleground for these two principles to clash, just as they clash over other issues: teaching evolution versus creationism in the schools, relaxed versus formal dress codes in church and school, environmental preservation versus economic development, censorship versus absolute freedom of expression, etc.

As we examine each of these political philosophies, it becomes clear to us that both are one-sided, extreme and unsustainable. It's untenable to have speech codes on campus, but it's also untenable to allow verbal denigration of minority groups to go unopposed. It's untenable to have minority quotas when they lead to violent backlash and revenge, but it's also untenable not to create structures that facilitate the empowerment of minorities. It's impossible to think that one side will win for all time. History reflects the endless cycle between moods of fundamentalism and moods of liberalism. We believe, therefore, that it is only through actually processing the interaction between people and positions that transformation will occur. Rules, regulations and policies alone do not transform beliefs and behavior. Thus, our meta-position is not to be on one side alone, but to further transformation through sustainable means.

However, as women and as members of a sexual minority in the midst of a political battle, we find ourselves more on the side of liberalism than of fundamentalism. We are unapologetically pro-choice and pro-sexual diversity. In our area of the world, the topic of sexuality, particularly homosexuality, is fraught with hostility, tension, fear and hatred. We want to help defuse this social time bomb by contributing to the study of sexuality. In December 1992 we were fortunate to facilitate a seminar on sexuality, gender and relationship with a group of ninety people. Our experiences at that seminar showed us a glimpse of a possible world where individual sexuality and human spirit could be celebrated, loved and supported. The group also showed us how important

it is to process individual experiences of pain, abuse and oppression around the topic of sexuality.

In Worldwork seminars1 the topic of sexuality often arises via group conflicts between gays and heterosexuals, or when the topic of sexual abuse comes up. This article is an attempt to increase awareness and decrease pain by pro-actively raising the topic of sexuality as a political issue, instead of waiting for it to force itself upon us through painful conflicts. By exploring the topic of sexuality, we are trying to give sexuality its own political status, as an issue to be explored in its own right, and not only as a point of contention and conflict between groups.

By focusing explicitly on sexuality in groups we are merely making the covert overt. Don't we constantly, albeit secretly, focus on sex anyway? Aren't we all interested in who's sleeping with whom, whom we find attractive, who may be a possible partner, who's gay and who's straight, how long couples have been together, how often they have sex? Sexuality, gender and relationships are often an exciting subtext to many groups and collective gatherings.

The Role of Process Work in Sexuality

We feel that Process Work has a special task in the area of sexuality. As mentioned above, sexuality is a political topic, one which we would like to see worked with in large group settings. In our opinion, Process Work is well suited to working with sexuality. While some religions, psychotherapies or philosophies see sexuality as primarily a relationship process or as a body experience, Process Work sees it as both and neither. Sexuality is a dynamic experience that moves through different modes of experience and expressions of being, or what are known as channels in Process Work. One moment it may be experienced primarily as movement and feeling; the next moment it may be a spiritual experience, and still the next, it may manifest as a relationship process. The multi-channeled perspective of Process Work allows sexuality to be fluid, individual and dynamic.

For instance, in working with a man on his sexual problems during a seminar on body symptoms, Amy

We attended the Worldwork and Conflict Resolution seminars in 1991 and 1992. For a discussion of Worldwork and the theme of these seminars, see "The Worldwork Seminars: a personal learning overview" by Leslie Heizer in this issue of the Journal. Arnold Mindell will be referred to as "Amy" throughout this text. For a discussion of the usage of the term "Amy,"

asked him how he experienced his sexual feelings. The man first noticed his sexuality that moment as minute sensations, like a small contraction in his abdomen. As Amy amplified and followed the experience, it turned into larger thrusting movements which became a vigorous, thrusting dance. As the man was doing it, he suddenly remembered a painful relationship interaction, and Amy helped him to bring this new vigorous energy into his relationship. The process finally came to a temporary conclusion as the man celebrated his male sexuality with a group of men who danced together ecstatically. Was this man's sexuality a physical experience, a relationship or a group experience? It was all of the above, an irreducible, multi-channeled experience.

Process Work is also helpful in dealing with issues of gender and sexual identity. A process orientation views identity as a fluid, shifting dynamic. Relationships, sexual attraction, emotional closeness, sexual life-styles are viewed as processes, not states. Identities and relationships are momentary constellations, governed by a complex set of factors, which include personal psychology, social circumstances, the momentary make up of the larger collective, and something unknown and numinous, a dreaming process.

In the seminar on gender, sexuality and relationship, we helped participants focus on their individual experiences of being a man or a woman. We were aware, however, that when we think of our individual experiences as women or men, we often unconsciously fall back on internalized cultural definitions and prejudices.

Thus, knowing that it was impossible to experience gender divorced from social influences, we asked people to first identify what they were directly or indirectly encouraged to be as a young boy or girl. We then asked them to focus on and explore the ways in which they failed to conform to these expectations. We call this experience the tao of gender, our unique ways of being male and female. In this exercise, gender is a combination of many factors: parental expectations and role models, social forces, inner drives and impulses, cultural and ethnic forces, individual psychology.

For example, one woman said that as a girl, she was expected to be quiet, nice, cooperative and generous. She felt that she had failed this expectation by being selfish, opinionated and by putting her own interests first. She even recalled her mother telling her that she should be a nurse in order to learn how to think about others. We helped her to discover the part that failed to conform and what emerged was a deep desire to live life boldly, to leave her mark on the world, and to devote her time and energy to her worldly interests, including social activism. Her individual tao of womanhood was to be an active part of the political process. Paradoxically, her "selfishness" turned into a generous spirit of community.

On the one hand the exercise acknowledged the social level of gender formation as identified by family and social pressures. At the same time it supports the idea that every individual is unique in who they are as a man or a woman. Process thinking is reflected in this exercise by including the political reality of socialization, while also including unique, individual myths. In this way, Process Work has something to offer other psychological schools which posit archetypal, universal experiences of masculine and feminine without addressing socialization.

These are just some ideas of how Process Work contributes to the exploration of sexuality. Sexuality is an enormous topic, and deserves much more focus than this short article can provide. We are choosing to limit ourselves to a discussion of the implications of sexuality for Worldwork.

The Quest for Queerness: Contributions of Sexual Minorities

For the first time in history, we are witnessing gays, lesbians and bisexuals becoming a political entity. Initially, in the era following the Stonewall riots gays and lesbians were unified in their liberation struggle. With the advent of the feminist movement in the 1970s, lesbianism became more identified with feminism, and a rift developed between gay men and lesbians. Many lesbians felt that the issue of sexism and oppression by men superseded the bond between themselves and their gay brothers. It was the AIDS crisis in the early 1980s

>lease see Leslie Heizer's article.

The Stonewall riots in New York City were the first time

beginning of the gay liberation movement in 1969.

gays fought back against police brutality. They mark the

SEX: Procreation, Recreation or Co-creation?

which finally brought these two groups together again in the struggle against AIDS.

Both the experience of separatism and the more recent experience of cooperation have contributed to a greater sense of awareness and activism in both groups. We are now witnessing a time of increased tolerance and inclusiveness. Even the bisexual community, which had been previously disavowed from both homosexual and heterosexual groups, is now seen as an important part of a larger political movement, which sometimes refers to itself as queer nation.

Queer nation is the umbrella term for a social movement promoting sexual diversity, liberation and tolerance. The term "queer," which was a derogatory name for homosexuals, has been reclaimed by this group as a positive concept: nonconformity and personal freedom. Therefore, queerness has relevance for all groups, heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual groups alike. For instance, many stigmatized sexual minorities feel included in the queer paradigm: drag queens, the transgendered, people into sadomasochism, etc.

In Process Work, the concept of queerness can be understood as bringing a process orientation to the topics of sexuality, relationship, gender, and identity. Queerness connotes openness to sexual experience and tolerance for process and change in one's sexuality. Too often, sexuality is seen as a static identity. The behaviors we like, with whom we sleep and to whom we are attracted, reflect a single identity to which we must adhere. Thus, we hear people say things like, "I'm really gay," or "I always have been straight." Of course, there are important reasons to claim a sexual identity. Some people need to band together for protection and lobbying power. Also, claiming a disavowed identity is an important step for both the disavowed individual and also the collective in which she lives.

But the queer nation movement, while lobbying for rights for sexual minorities, goes beyond single issue and single identity claims. It acknowledges that what really increases tolerance for sexuality is not rigid identity formation, but awareness of ourselves as sexual creatures whose needs change and grow. Static sexual identities, while temporarily useful in

our current social context, can also possibly hinder our own sexual growth, and will just disavow other parts of our sexual selves. We don't want to flip from identity to identity, hating and disavowing our former selves. We want to give credence to the mystery of our sexual selves, to the shifting, changing nature of ourselves as our parts unfold.

The ground-breaking reports on human sexuality by Alfred Kinsey4 in 1940s and 1950s were the first to talk about human sexuality in terms of a continuum. Kinsey developed a scale in which one end was exclusively heterosexual, and the other, homosexual. He located people somewhere along that continuum. But even this more liberal understanding of sexuality still assigned a static sexual identity to individuals. From a process oriented point of view, we cannot be placed on a continuum; we are a continuum.

The days of the single-issue movements are over. Similar to many political action groups which came out of the sixties, seventies and eighties, the gay, lesbian and bisexual movement is also going through a post-Newtonian revolution in which rigid and politically-correct positions are trying to give way to processing diversity and supporting human rights in general.

by Kir sty O'Connor

What has Sadomasochism done for you Lately?

One of the biggest contributors to the current discourse on sex has been from the sadomasochism movement, otherwise known as SM. This movement is about much more than the old stereotype of giving or receiving pain as a sexual stimulus. It encompasses

Alfred Kinsey, Wandell Pomeroy and Clyde Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male . (Philadelphia: WB Sanders Co. 1948).

exploration of power roles and their conscious use in sexual activity. Naturally this brings us right to the issue of abuse. Power, when misused, is abusive. Many people have been and continue to be hurt by the unconscious use of force and power, and by the lack of resources and support to defend themselves. SM uses the idea of power roles as a starting point for sexual pleasure. Ground rules and consensus help separate SM from abuse.

The SM movement has also helped bring sex toys and sex aids to the mainstream. In one sense, sex toys are doing for sex what the pill did for sex in the sixties, removing it from the procreative process and freeing people from the constraints of pure biology. Sex is evolving from a procreational to a recreational activity. From the SM movement comes the slogan, "gender is a sex toy," which we interpret to mean that sex and gender are dreaming processes and not just biological ones.

What does sex and gender as a dreaming process mean? It means that our sexuality and gender are not just biological; they are also created out of our dreams, fantasies and desires. Many people use props such as vibrators, music, oils and lotions, leather, dildos, costumes, body-piercing, fantasies and scenarios, lingerie, film and videos, etc., to explore the multiple and changing dimensions of their sexuality and gender. Madonna has popularized sexual motifs from the SM and gay worlds to the delight of millions!

Sex toys and SM may seem unusual to many, and just the perverse province of a deviant minority. However, these practices are widespread and becoming more so. One conclusion we draw from this is that people are attempting to move beyond the constraints of their biology, gender, sexual identity and life-style, and to experience parts of themselves that have been previously forbidden.

One of the biggest cultural edges to sex toys is that they permit us experiences outside of our gender and biology. For instance, a woman who uses a dildo is considered by some to no longer be a woman. Some react with disgust and say, "It's not the real thing." Similar reactions occur to men who dress in lingerie, or to men and women who like pornography, lubrication cream, or other extra-biological aids. They are

sometimes accused of using props which are unnatural.

But sex toys don't have sex; people do. Why shouldn't people use whatever they want to experience whatever is inside of them? Why have one single gender identity? Why not two? We argued above for a process orientation to sexual identity, and here, we are saying the same thing for gender. Why not let ourselves follow the experiences and impulses within us, regardless of cultural and societal norms concerning gender, and regardless of biological constraints?

Going beyond one's gender does not imply that there are no gender differences. On the contrary; there are differences, but why should we be restricted in accessing different dimensions of human experience? What the differences are between men and women is a matter of ongoing debate, a debate which we will not be entering into during this article. Suffice it to say that when we speak of going beyond gender, we are not minimizing gender but rather supporting the idea that we need to be free to access parts of ourselves which traditionally have been the exclusive province of the "opposite sex."

Behind the labeling of sexuality as gay/straight, male/female, normal/perverse, au naturel/mih props, is an underlying fundamentalism, a need to keep roles rigidly in place. We feel it is important for psychology to support individual experiences of sexuality, to discover the diverse, paradoxical, multiple, conflicting sexual desires, fantasies and experiences within us, especially today, given the volatile political climate, and the battle over defining acceptable sexuality

Everyone is Dreaming of the Parts They Don't Have

Everyone feels constrained in some way by biology and gender, whether a man is concerned that his penis is too small, or a woman worries that her breasts are not big enough. This is a mainstream issue, not the domain of a deviant subgroup. Look at the emphasis on plastic surgery, on breast implants, liposuction, lip enlargement, body building, steroid use, hair removal or hair implants, not to mention countless perfumes, sprays, colognes to enhance our sexual

A few brave souls, such as Shere Hite and Nancy Friday, have attempted to reveal to the public just how common "forbidden" fantasies are among both men and women, gays and straights.

SEX: Procreation, Recreation or Co-creation?

appeal. The supermarkets and doctors' offices are really the largest suppliers of sex toys and sex aids.

Regardless of who we choose as sexual partners, we are all dreaming of who or what is not there. We get deeply rattled by this dreaming process. We question our partner choice, we question our sexual identity, we may even question our sanity! We think, "What's wrong with me? Why can't I commit?" "I'm too picky," or, "I'm promiscuous, unethical, deviant, disturbed." "I'm betraying my partner." "Why can't I ever be satisfied with what I've got?"

For example, during the seminar on gender, sexuality and relationship, we worked with a man whose secret fantasy and activity was dressing up in his girlfriend's lingerie. As the process unfolded, the man revealed how sensual and beautiful he felt in soft, silky, lingerie. He said it helped him feel beautiful and whole in his body. Yet he felt tormented by his behavior, and while telling us, stated over and over that he was heterosexual. His behavior stood outside of his sexual identity and because of this he experienced himself in a crisis. In going more deeply into the experience, he spoke of his pain over the lack of adornment permitted to him as a white, heterosexual male. This process was picked up by other men in the group who also spoke of their feelings of oppression and constraint about adorning themselves. The next day, several men came to the seminar wearing brightly colored silk clothing, high boots, scarves, jewelry, earrings, and other forms of adornment.

In working with this man, we had no ideas or programs, other than valuing and unfolding his fantasy. We did not discuss his sexual identity, but instead just believed in his dreaming process, the magical experience he had dressing in lingerie. With support he was able to contact a sense of beauty in himself and also a desire to show his beauty to the world, in the way that he saw women doing it. His process prompted other men to share their experiences and feelings about male dress codes. What first appeared as an individual's process was in fact a powerful collective process.

Here again we come upon the benefits of using Process Work with sexuality. While some forms of psychotherapy might have helped the man get in touch with his soft, feminine nature, in order to stop

the behavior, our approach addressed the social level which made such behaviors unacceptable. Why can't he wear lingerie? Why can't men adorn themselves in the ways that women do? We did, of course, work in the moment with the man to support his disavowed softer, silky nature. But at the same time we never assumed that the actual behavior should change. Following the dreaming process of an individ-*,ual's sexuality leads us to conclude that there is no "normal" sexuality. We all have a dreaming process which shows itself in our sexual fantasies, our nighttime dreams, symptoms or physical experiences; it shows up during sex, in the pornography that we watch or read, in our attractions to people, clothes, nature, etc.

Sex and the Psychotherapist

Traditional, mainstream psychology has not been free of value or judgment towards sexuality. It has forced some of us to internalize and analyze our sexual fantasies, to see them as developmental blocks, as mother and father problems, or as relationship issues. There have been psychologically sanctioned "normal" sexual practices and fantasies and abnormal ones. This pathological bias has forced us to narrow our actual choices and identities, creating fringe and disavowed experiences.

Psychology can, however, play an important role in helping to unfold sexual experience. For instance the concept of a "dreaming process" is itself a psychological concept. Process Work has done an enormous amount to help unfold sexuality, to liberate it from rigid identities, to bring awareness to inner as well as outer diversity, and to help us see sexuality as a "blank access," as a dynamic, passionate process that can be lived everywhere, especially and particularly outside the bedroom.

If the field of psychology is to be helpful in this endeavor, then it must question its own developmental goal and concepts of normal development. Why view sexuality in terms of a linear development, whether in terms of Reich's orgastic potency, Lowen's genital personality, Freud's mature hetero-sexuality with the vaginal orgasm, Jung's integrated anima and animus, or as something that must be lived out within a monogamous sexual relationship? Why

6„

Blank access" is a term analagous to the ink blot test. It refers to any term or experience which one could project his or her fantasies and thoughts upon.

not view sexual development in the same way we view emotional, interpersonal, spiritual and intellectual development, as part of our totality that shifts and changes, that is structured by a background myth, and which lives independent of a given sexual partner?

A process oriented view of sexual development sees sexuality as more than physical sex or sexual relationships. Sexuality is a life force, a dynamic energy which enlarges who we are, and which demands to be lived in the world and in many channels, not just in the bedroom. Pop culture provides many striking examples of sexuality as an art form as seen for instance in rap music and fashion.

Fear and Fundamentalism

In one of our workshops we worked with a woman who had been recently diagnosed with lupus, an auto-immune system disorder in which the immune system begins to attack other systems within the body.

When asked how she experienced her disease, she showed us with her hands how the immune system attacked her. She made clawing movements with both hands and simultaneously made a grimacing face. When encouraged to go on with her movements, she began to become an attacker, attacking with such energy and force that she scared herself. She backed away and began to cry. We asked her what was so terrible with this energy and she told us that it reminded her of just that part of herself which her partner had the most trouble with: her sexual jealousy. She felt that she was too grabby, grasping and possessive. She was trying to be calm and loose, easy

going and open towards her partner's other relationships.

When we supported her to express her jealousy, to allow herself a range of emotions, a story emerged about the community in which she lived. She lived in a politically progressive community which favored open, non-possessive, non-monogamous relationships, and frowned upon jealousy, monogamy and ownership of people.

She was a woman struggling against far more than her personal symptom, but also against an ideology. Everyone in the group was pulled into her process, offering their own stories of jealousy as models for her to use in her quest for freedom of expression. We and the group encouraged her not to attack herself for her jealousy, but to go ahead and be a wild, jealous, passionate woman.

We find many times when working with jealousy that expressing the energies within it often takes the process far beyond what's experienced as conventional sexual jealousy, into realms of passion, romance, power, challenge, decisiveness, boldness.

The woman was quite delighted with the newfound permission to be expressive, and she had a lot of support from group members. She came up to us afterwards and asked us whether we could ever come and do work in her community. We realized that she will need a lot of help in integrating this piece of work into her community because the ideology is so strong, rigid and dogmatic. We were troubled at the fundamental nature of her community's ideology.

In fact the spirit of this article stems from that experience. We felt pulled to speak out about the dilemma of personal freedom and fundamentalism, whether from the religious right or the politically correct left.

As we have shown, including sexuality as a Worldwork topic forces us to understand fundamentalism. To many, fundamentalism is just tyranny, a spirit against democracy and diversity. However, we are all fundamentalist about something in life, whether it is over the survival of the rainforests or the banning of condom dispensing machines. There is a place in all of us where we will not compromise and where we feel our lives depend upon the survival of

The term "jealous" stems from the same root as "zealous," indicating passion, desire and enthiusiasm. Likewise, in

German, the word for jealousy is "Eifersuecht," from the root "Eifer" or zeal. Literally "Eifersuecht" can be translated

as "addicted to zeal."

SEX: Procreation, Recreation or Co-creation?

important values and beliefs. Fundamentalism is fear-based. Its existence is a constant reminder to us that there is no real democracy; humanity has not yet developed a practice to go along with the ideas of democracy. We cannot yet coexist without rigid codes of behavior. Fundamentalist rules, whether of the right or left, are a response to the reality that despite our lofty ideas of democracy and human rights, we are still frightfully abusive and dangerous to each , other.

There is no quick resolution to the struggle between fundamentalism and individual freedom. Our strategy for working on sexual freedom has two directions, both of which must be pursued simultaneously, as one without the other is unsustainable. Our first strategy is to study fundamentalism, around us and within us. We feel that fundamentalism cannot be combatted by virulent rhetoric alone; the fear which drives it must be addressed.

Finally, we believe that individual freedom has not yet happened on the planet; it is a dream trying to happen and needs our support. Therefore, our second strategy is to explore sexuality and gender with openness and a beginner's mind. Our forbidden fantasies and secret desires may confuse and disturb us, yet, when supported and encouraged, can reveal dreams of transformation for the planet.

Julie Diamond, Ph.D.t teaches and works with individuals and groups. Her current focus is on com-munity development, and helping support learning communities in Portland, other cities in North America, Zurich and, most recently, Australia. She's currently studying and writing about the interface of politics and personal lives.

Gemma Summers, PhD. cand., lives in Portland, Oregon, where she works with individuals and groups. She is interested in issues of diversity and in the cross-fertilization of politics and psychology. She is currently writing her dissertation on conflict resolution. Her current hobbies include swimming and photography.

Bibliography

1. References
2. Bright, Susie. Susie Bright's Sexual Reality: A Virtual Sex World Reader. San Francisco: Cleis Press, 1992.
3. .Susie Sexpert's Lesbian Sex World. San Francisco:
4. Cleis Press, 1990.
5. Hutchins, L. and L. Kaahumanu, eds. Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out. Boston: Alyson Publications, Inc., 1991.
6. Hutton, Julia. Good Sex: Real Stories from Real People. San Francisco: Cleis Press, 1992.
7. Kensey, Alfred, Wandell Pomeroy and Clyde Martin, Sexual Behavoir in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1948.
8. Paglia, Camille. Sex, Art and American Culture. New York: Viking Press, 1992.
9. Paglia, Camille. Sexual Personae. New York: Penguin Books, 1990.
10. Weise, E.R. ed. Closer to Home: Bisexuality & Feminism. Seattle: The Seal Press, 1992.