Radical Relationship: Pushing the Boundaries of Power, Gender and Sex

Power. Gender. Sex. The words evoke a range of reactions from intrigue to embarrassment, from pain and terror to ecstasy and bliss. They are deeply private concerns and intensely controversial, political topics. Early feminists declared "the personal is political!" and the last twenty years have seen the emergence of personal topics into public view.

This article addresses and challenges a mainstream trance called consensus reality which strictly defines power dynamics, gender roles and sexuality in relationship. It questions collective definitions and pathological frameworks and encourages the radicalization of relationship. Radical relationships provide opportunities to work on, explore, challenge and reinvent social values and cultural norms. I'd like to politicize intimate relationship while retaining and celebrating its mystery, ambiguity and potential for erotic pleasure.

I will touch upon several ideas: Power issues are central in relationship. Noticing background power dynamics and bringing them to awareness is an alternative form of relationship which increases subjective experiences of trust and intimacy. Popular and psychological gender theories are hurtful to men, women and others. Gender, in a radical relationship, is a fluid process rather than a state assigned by physiology. Sexuality is an area where personal issues and political topics collide. Relationship radicals recognize that systemic abuses such as racism, homophobia and sexism can inhibit and damage sexuality and that sexual stereotyping perpetuates systemic abuses.

What follows is a tiny slice of a larger research project which has captivated my attention for some time. It is meant as a taste; an introduction to a vast and rich field. Much of the mainstream literature on sexuality, power and gender identity is male-defined and I am attempting to develop a more process-oriented view. Some of this article's content was originally presented as a lecture at the Process Work Center of Portland in November 1994. A forthcoming lecture series in the spring of 1996 on the theme of sexuality offers continuing research on the topic.

Personal history and coming out

Issues involving gender, sexuality, power, relationship and loving have intrigued and preoccupied me since childhood. As a young girl I shocked my relatives and embarrassed my parents by unabashedly asserting my desire to become a playboy model. My liberal, educated father claimed to "love the articles'' and my brother and his friends spent endless hours perusing back issues in the garage. Those fleshy, curvaceous women appeared flawless to my adolescent eyes and seemed to possess a magnetism which attracted the undivided attention of important males in my life. Combined with my natural tendency towards exhibitionism, I thought I had found my calling.

As a young woman, I quickly learned to be ashamed of my interest in sex, bodies and the mysteries of loving. Playing doctor was taboo and exposing myself in the neighborhood was forbidden and punished. Although my brother's interest in pornography was overlooked, my preoccupa-

tion with sex was banished to the privacy of my fantasies and under-cover investigations. Academic achievement was valued by my culture and family; however, my intellectual powers were often eclipsed by my more academically inclined, high-achieving older brother. I was the artist in the family—the sensitive and difficult younger girl.

My mentors, the Playboy "bunnies," unwittingly taught me how to use my sexuality and my body to create opportunities, love and appreciation for myself in the world. Coming of age in the United States in the 1960s and 70s, what is now called "sexual harassment" was my bread and butter. Dressing provocatively, flirting and being sexually available to men in power positions went a long way in allowing me to feel confident and powerful as a young woman in the world. Prior to my exposure to feminist thought, these early experiences informed my gender-identity as well as my feelings about power and sexuality.

My private life and erotic interests have always deviated from the mainstream. Having spent most of my adult years in so-called "straight" relationships, I have been able to keep my deviant and unconventional sexual history to myself. This privilege is deeply ingrained. It is a gift from a bigoted culture. I benefit from it daily, but I am only recently waking up to it. The other day I was sitting in a coffee shop, reading the Personals in the local alternative paper. A student at our Institute came over to say hello. I quickly shut the newspaper, which was turned to a page advertising women seeking partners for sado-masochistic sex play. I feared I'd lose her respect and my credibility as a teacher had I revealed my unorthodox interests. This may be close to the feeling which gays and lesbians have to live with every day of their lives. Culture has taught me to hide aspects of myself that don't fit in. I have learned too well.

In Oregon today, conservative groups aggressively attempt to take away the civil rights of gays and lesbians.1 My choosing to hide my "queer-ness" perpetuates the marginalization of sexual minorities. I am disturbed by my cowardice and am called from inside to take some risks and expose myself. Writing about radical relationship is a small step in my coming out.2 My teachers

Numerous lesbian friends, students and colleagues have been my greatest teachers around topics of power, gender and sexuality. I have been

influenced by many female authors such as June Jordan, Bell Hooks, Camille Paglia, Susie Bright, Pat Califia, Sally Tisdale and Kate Bornstein, and I have learned much from the many conflicts within the so-called women's movement today {The Atlantic, October 1993). My 15 year Process Work training and mentorship with Amy Mind-ell has influenced all aspects of my thinking and relating. And I have learned more than I could have imagined from Robert King, my partner and fellow relationship radical, during our eleven year friendship and 3 year love affair. The practical application of Process Work tools and philosophy to deal with, unfold and enrich communication has sustained and enhanced my belief in relationship. I am convinced that the possibility for deep and radical relationship is one of the rewards of awareness training in Process Work.

Process-oriented thinking has contributed a great deal to the broad field of relationship work (Mindell, 1987; 1992; 1993; 1995). It chooses not to put forward a developmental theory around intimacy and relationship or an idea or model of mature or healthy relating.3 Love, intimacy, power, sex and gender are seen as subjective experiences, "in potentia," to be unfolded. When people refer to these abstractions, the process worker assumes nothing. She asks for an exact, subjective, sensory-grounded description of the individual's experience. Thus, for one person sexuality describes a body energy, while for another it refers to a painful memory. For some gender has to do with anatomy, while for others it is a momentary or lingering feeling sense. Power may be connected to a sadistic fantasy or financial security. These initial formulations provide an entrance into the wisdom of the unknown.

Power and difference

Power, gender and sexuality are but a few of the monumental forces which influence our relationships and love lives. Personal and cultural history, sociology and politics play a part as well. When we choose or are called to be in an intimate partnership, we are challenged to learn to get along with difference. We are men or women, of different races, religions, ethnic groups, ages, economic classes or nationalities; we are dominant or submissive, emotional or intellectual, dreamy or practical. We grew up happy or troubled, in a peaceful or warring neighborhood, with kind or violent parents, in the north or in the

south. Some of us are lauded by the mainstream, others marginalized. Some differences are inherent, others arise through our contact with one another. A few we identify with and talk about, others lurk like ghosts, clouding our communication until we make them explicit.

Our ability to process the difficult tensions and conflicts that arise through our differences can make or break our belief in relationship and our feelings about life as a whole. Mindell says that although relationships are often built on "love, chemistry and common interests... they are also created out of political and global necessity. The world needs us to be different and to resolve diversity issues at home" (1995: 60).

Insidious and intractable relationship issues constellate around differences in power. In his work with individuals and groups from all over the world, Mindell (1995, especially Chapters 3 & 4) has identified various types of power and their associated privileges. He discusses earned or inherited social powers, powers ascribed by a local community or organization, psychological powers and spiritual powers.4

According to Mindell (1995), a prime source of conflict in relationships and groups is an imbalance of power. It is virtually impossible to create trust where there is unconsciousness around power. When power issues are below the surface and the individual or group with more power is unconscious, it is a formula for a cycle of abuse and revenge. For the party with less power, revenge may be the only means to attempt to right an injustice. One need only study any social revolution or divorce court proceeding to witness this reality.

Social powers play a huge role in relationship. They include: gender, sexual orientation, class, age, education, race and religion. In much of the world, whites have more social power and privileges than do people of color, as do men, heterosexuals, Christians, the educated, the wealthy, and able-bodied people. Members of same sex relationships must face inherent power differences between partners. In addition, they must endure the indignity of being put down, pathologized and vilified by the mainstream culture.

Heterosexual relationships and power: sleeping with the enemy

Fd like to address an area in which I have direct experience. Let's take a brief look at how the

institution of sexism comes to play in heterosexual relationships.

The dynamics of sexism and male privilege provide a backdrop to every attempt at heterosexual loving. Polly Young-Eisendrath (1993), feminist and Jungian analyst, says that intimate love between men and women is highly unnatural because of power differences. Her theory purports that intimacy comes with trust, which does not occur naturally between people of unequal power. Some feminists believe that we are at a unique time in history. "Heterosexual love... was undermined by women's economic dependence on men. Love freely given between equals is the child of the women's movement and a very recent historical possibility...." (Wolf in Young-Eisendrath 1993:174). Although feminism has opened up many possibilities for women, unfortunately the economic independence being alluded to is still unduly more accessible to white, middle-class and younger women.

Heterosexual relationships occur in the following milieu: One in four girls is a victim of incest. One woman in three is raped. One in four heterosexual couples experience violence in their relationship. In ninety-five percent of the cases it is the women who get hurt (Young-Eisendrath 1993:187). According to an article in The New York Times, "Each year an estimated six million women are beaten by the men they live with, and 30 percent of the women who become homicide victims die at the hands of men with whom they have a family relationship" (in Young-Eisendrath 1993: 375). It should come as no surprise that there is talk of a "war between the sexes."

Women who live with men have daily, intimate connection with their oppressor or enemy— at the dinner table, in the bedroom and while balancing the checkbook.5 It is a radical experiment to attempt real relating between men and women—for a woman to risk being honest and vulnerable or openly angry and critical with her oppressor. Sometimes the partner with less social status develops psychological and spiritual powers which relativize the power hierarchies. Illusive powers such as fluidity, self-awareness and a connection with the divine can play a great role in balancing the power between men and women. It is a monumental challenge to become conscious of and process these power differences as they come up in moment to moment interaction. Intimate heterosexual relationships can become the

site for processing dominance and oppression—a place to begin a cease-fire in the current "gender war."

In my practice, I have seen many heterosexual couples who come to therapy with variations on a disturbing and familiar pattern. The woman appears depressed at first, but with a bit of support quickly reveals that she feels furious at her husband for any number of reasons. She reports having felt this way for as long as she can remember. She hates herself for being so angry (hence the depression) and can't understand why she can't get over it. She believes it has to do with her relationship with her father and fears she is ruining her marriage. The husband agrees that the wife's anger is blocking their intimacy, along with the fact that she has such low self-esteem. He also thinks her father was an ogre and prods her to work more on herself. He can't understand why his wife won't relax and open up to him sexually, why she seems to become so angry about his minor transgressions. The fact that the husband is mostly either absent or demanding is mentioned and quickly overlooked.

Observing the interaction from the outside, it is easy to see how the husband, despite his sweet smile, placating tone of voice and encouraging words, is behaving like the tyrannical father by blaming the woman for all of their relationship problems while acting above it and cooled out. Because the wife is also putting herself down, she can't see the dynamic; she doesn't believe her anger is legitimate. The whole system colludes against her. The mainstream does not like angry or cold women.

This simplified example is far too commonplace. A therapist who misses or neglects the dynamics of sexism may choose to recommend an anti-depressant and focus on the woman's father complex; social issues fall to the wayside and unconscious power dynamics remain locked firmly in place. A more politicized therapist might criticize the husband's unconscious sexism, lose his trust and never see the client again. I attempt to encourage awareness and recognize that both parties are deprived of their wholeness in the interaction. In a sexist society, men must open up to women's anger and discover how they unconsciously participate in keeping women down. I try to remember how difficult this is for men who have been hurt or abused themselves and never supported to experience or express

their needs, anger or pain. Often, if a man can listen and understand a woman's rage, without defending himself or attacking her, then later the woman will be able to open up to the man's pain and anger. A more sustainable communication style can be created.

When social dynamics are frozen, power is abused and hopelessness abides, rules and regulations become attractive in relationship. Sexual harassment policies, anti-discrimination laws, pre-nuptial agreements and child-support requirements are huge advances in assuring more equitable relationships. But they are bland substitutes for the thrill of learning to process power as it arises from moment to moment, of learning to notice a subtle put-down in a voice tone, posture or movement. It is a privilege to negotiate and conflict at home, rather than paying lawyers high fees to conflict for us in court. In a radical relationship we create an even playing field through awareness and dialogue. Inherent power inequities, while traumatic and painful, provide an avenue for deeper, more awesome and real relating.

The gender imperative

Most mainstream gender theories have been unduly influenced by institutionalized power inequities and the dynamics of sexism.6 They can be hurtful and repressive to both men and women. Many of us suffer from rigid inner and outer expectations around gender and roles. Today, gender is a hot issue in both academic and popular circles. Those of us who choose not to adhere to consensus ideas about what it means to be male or female must search our subjective experiences for information and guidance. The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered movement is very helpful in teaching and modeling alternatives.

Freud, the patriarch of western psychology, insisted anatomy was destiny. In 1933 he informed the world that

the discovery that she is castrated is a turning point in the girl's growth.... The girl's penis envy persists as a feeling of inferiority and a predisposition to jealousy; her perpetual desire for a penis or superior endowment is, in the mature woman, converted to the desire for a child, particularly for a son, who brings the longed for penis with him. (in Frager and Fadiman, 1984:18)

Not only did the girl's envy doom her to feelings of inferiority, she was understood to be inferior in terms of her sense of justice, intellectual curiosity and capacity to implement her ideas. Freud was anxious to keep the gender imperative and its twin, sexism, in place. "... We must not allow ourselves to be deflected from such conclusions by the denials of the feminists, who are anxious to force us to regard the two sexes equal in position and worth" (in Frager and Fadiman, 1984: 18).

Jung was overtly sexist in his thinking, as well. In 1948, he claimed that

In men, Eros, the function of relationship, is usually less developed than Logos. In women on the other hand, Eros is an expression of their true nature, while their Logos is often only a regrettable accident, (in Frager and Fadiman, 1984: 70).

Jung insulted both men and women in his theory and insisted on clear differences between the sexes.

These mainstream theories have influenced some feminist thinking. Carol Gilligan (1982) purports essential differences between men and women in both their relational abilities and their moral qualities. Like Jung, she and other "different-voice" feminists believe that women are inherently nurturing and talented caregivers, while men have trouble with feelings and relationships. Some feminists see this as a backlash movement and insist that such fundamentalist, Victorian thinking supports sexist stereotyping (Faludi, 1991; Paglia, 1994). This isn't my ideal for feminist thought—it simply belittles men rather than women and reinforces gender based stereotypes. However, the theory has developed in a misogy-nistic context and can be appreciated as an attempt, albeit shortsighted, to elevate women and give long overdue credit to their accomplishments in the home and in relationship.

Adler made the radical suggestion that psychological differences between the sexes are entirely the result of cultural attitudes effecting a person's development from birth. He condemned society's conception of women as inferior and said this view was meant to perpetuate male domination and privilege.

A girl comes into the world with a prejudice sounding in her ears which is designed only to rob her of her belief in her own value, to shatter her self confi-

dence, and destroy her hope of ever doing anything worthwhile... The obvious advantages of being a man in our society have caused severe disturbances in the psychic development of women, (in Frager and Fadiman, 1984:103)

Were he alive today, we might guess that Adler would question the validity of the gender system itself.

Questioning gender

Kate Bornstein, author of Gender Outlaw (1994), is a transsexual lesbian performance artist with a radical view of gender politics. Like Adler, Bornstein asserts that gender and power are intrinsically connected. The current two-class gender system is kept in place to support male privilege and institutionalize sexism.

This oppressive class system is made all the more dangerous by the belief that it is an entirely natural state of affairs. In this sense, gender is no different a form of class oppression than the caste stem in India or apartheid in South Africa. Those systems have long held to be "natural"... based as they are on the concept of the possibility of pure identity. (105)

Bornstein's is a fluid and process-oriented view of gender. She suggests that "instead of imagining gender as opposite poles of a two-dimensional line, it would be interesting to twirl that line in space, and then spin it through several more dimensions. In this way, many more possibilities of gender may be explored" (116). She encourages each of us to investigate our personal experiences of gender and to notice how our feelings and identifications change over time.

There are still some cultures which do not insist on a binary gender system. The Hijras in India call themselves neither men nor women and are given a special role in Indian culture.

Whereas westerners feel uncomfortable with the ambiguities and contradictions inherent in such in-between categories as transvestism, homosexuality, hermaphroditism and transgenderism, and make strenuous attempts to resolve them, Hinduism not only accommodates such ambiguities, but also views them as meaningful and even powerful. (Nanda in Bornstein 1994:131)

Likewise, many Native American cultures recognize those with fluid gender identities as BerdacheSy individuals with spiritual powers who brought great good luck to their tribes (Bornstein, 1994).

In European culture we are assigned a gender at birth, according to our genitalia. If our infant genitalia is ambiguous, the doctor decides. We must spend the rest of our lives learning, then adhering to, the rules and behavioral expectations of our gender. Failing that, we are outcasts. An individual who lacks a rigid gender identity or who chooses to live in between the worlds, for example by cross-dressing, is given a psychiatric label. He or she is said to have a "gender identity disorder" and is sent to therapy to work it out (DSMIV 1994: 532). In such a rigid system, genital conversion surgery, which gives the individual the genitalia of the gender which he or she feels closest to, may be the only valid option for participating congruently in mainstream culture. In some Indian or Native American cultures, the nongendered person would be regarded as a spiritual leader and valued member of the community.

Mindell recognizes that "concepts such as male and female are more political than psychological" (1995: 60). Culture, the family and the consensus reality that we live and breathe, teaches us to be "men" or "women" and puts pressure on us to conform to the expectations of our gender. Both men and women are oppressed by the mandates of our culturally determined gender imperative.

The way therapists deal with clients who are exploring gender identity can either reinforce or challenge hurtful stereotypes. I remember getting stuck once, working in a European city, with a woman who complained she wasn't "enough of a woman." She suffered terribly from loneliness and wanted to be more nurturing to her friends and her son, in order to create closer relationships. As I noticed her angular body, plain dress and direct manner, I forgot my process work training and fell into a consensus trance. I thought she had disavowed her "soft" side. Disregarding the blatant secondary signals apparent in her clothes and voice, I followed her content and encouraged her to experiment with softness, which she insisted was her lost femininity. We circled around, getting nowhere but deeper into our cultural trance.

Finally, in a moment of clarity, I asked her to amplify her clothing style and angularity. Relieved, she began walking in a very direct manner. Suddenly she reported feeling like a man. She beamed, and the most loving, kind and nurturing human being emerged, expressing herself freely to those she cared for. For this woman, the freedom to be a man meant being a nurturer. For me, the experience was a wake-up call—imploring me to learn more about my own stereotypes. I consider it my professional and ethical responsibility not to be so easily hypnotized next time.

Process Work views gender as an ever-changing and fluid process. In one moment we may feel like a nurturer, in the next a hunter or warrior, in one moment a man, the next a woman. Later we may forget the meaning of both. A vagina may become a penis in the middle of lovemaking. An anus becomes vagina as our lover's penis offers mama's milk. Why not? Haven't you made love with the sunset? Don't you sometimes feel human, beast, extra-terrestrial? We can learn to follow the mysteries of our process as we travel through different states of consciousness, moods, interests and desires. Those of us who allow ourselves extreme and numinous experiences may learn not be so quick to judge and castigate others.

The gay, lesbian and bisexual movements can teach the mainstream a lot about gender experiences. Both men and women can be free to be everything. Fantasy and imagination needn't remain within the bounds of our gender identities. Nature brings us our anatomy, but there's no reason to be limited by it. The sado-masochist (SM) movement offers the slogan "gender is a sex toy." Gender can be a dreaming process and not just a biological one (Diamond and Summers, 1994: 35-42).

While Process Work encourages the development of fluidity with regard to gender as well as all other identities, it also recognizes the importance of adhering like glue to certain identities in given moments, especially when the identity in question is a marginalized one. I don't always feel "female." But when women are under attack, I'm drawn to join my sisters in the struggle. It has been important for me to detach from my ethnic and religious background in developing my wholeness. However when anti-semitism is in the air, I find myself fighting beside "my people."

Process Work teaches us to identify with our race, our jobs, our economic classes, our sexual orientations, our geography, and then also to be free of them and identify with everyone and everything. This is the beginning of eldership, the quality that allows us to feel that all the world's people are our children and that everything in the world is a part of ourselves. Politics or sex: why must we choose?

In addition to setting strict standards on our gender identities, mainstream culture attempts to regulate our physical and sexual experiences. Choice of partners, freedom of expression and ways of lovemaking are legislated through laws or moral codes. People whose erotic practices deviate from the straight and narrow are marginalized if they choose not to hide. Heterosexuals have the privilege of keeping their deviance in the bedroom and enjoying the comfort of belonging: "passing" in the outside world. Gay men, lesbians and bisexuals may not have this choice. It is often non-mainstream folks who awaken the rest of the population about freedom and diversity.

There is a connection between white mainstream culture's repression and fear of eros and its puritanical morality around sexuality and the prevalence of homophobia and racism. Much of the mainstream projects its sexuality onto African Americans, Latinos, gay men and lesbians. This splitting off creates stereotypes which contribute to racism and perpetuate homophobia. The dynamic is poison. It devastates and marginalizes specific groups while robbing everyone of their wholeness.

Sexism, racism, heterosexism and homophobia also interfere with our sense of sexuality and our sexual experiences. We are taught to think in terms of right and wrong about sexuality. How can we develop ourselves as erotic beings when strict standards are set about how and who we should and shouldn't love?

Abuse and incest have wreaked havoc on sexuality as well (Bass and Davis, 1988). More than ever, women are speaking about their experiences of incest and sexual abuse, trying to pull their sexuality out of the ashes. In my work with women who have experienced sexual abuse, I have learned many ways that abuse effects sexuality. It influences one's ability to experience lust and desire and to initiate sexual contact. It creates issues of fear and trust, as one learns to differentiate a current lover from a past abuser. It requires a

huge awareness to notice abuse as it is happening in the moment, as in one's own tendency to push or criticize oneself, or a lover's tendency to do the same. The prevalence of abuse may be another toxic result of the splitting off of sexuality in mainstream culture.

The women's movement has been instrumental in supporting women to talk about abuse. Concurrently, it has encouraged women to learn more about their sexual needs and desires. It has been interesting for me to notice that many female heterosexual clients in their 30s and 40s come to therapy frustrated and unhappy with their male sexual partners' lack of eroticism and creativity around sex. Contrary to literature which says that men desire sex more than women do (Hite, 1976; Kinsey Institute, 1990), these women are horny. Since feminism, sex has become somewhat more problematic for heterosexual men. Many women no longer feel they must be sexual servants to men; they want to be pleased, as well—and what a complex, subtle or explosive pleasure that can be. Multiple orgasms, wanting lots of touch, exploring gender and roles and using sex toys have all become fair play for heterosexuals. Men who are willing to courageously engage with their female partners in this challenging adventure can be doubly enriched: they gain intimate connection and increased erotic pleasures.

The mainstream male orientation towards power, ambition, independence and success has not left much room for men to actively explore their individual styles, desires and preferences. Regrettably, some fundamental aspects of feminism have dampened men's sexuality, as well, by insisting they feel guilty about their power. Guilt is no solution. New age politically correct men, apologizing for their penis privileges, can't possibly feel sexy or allow themselves their eroticism. If the beauty of men's natural eroticism and power is put down, it gets split off, creating a fertile field for rage, abuse, projection and revenge.7

Although feminism has been useful in its analysis of power, gender issues, politics and abuse, it has been less helpful in its discussion of eroticism and sexuality. Anti-pornography activists such as Andrea Dworkin (1979) and Katharine MacKinnon (1979) equate penetration with violence against women. They explain that women's rape or domination fantasies are caused by sexism and

the eroticizing of socialized subordination. This quite reactionary analysis must be seen in context—it is born of great pain and suffering. But we cannot reduce sexuality to dynamics of power and politics. Sexual experience defies rigid categories of oppressor and victim. What feels oppressive as a pattern for relating in the workplace may feel great in the bedroom. Safe and consensual sadomasochism can be a powerful way of exploring power issues, gender roles and spirituality as well as an avenue for pure; sensual pleasure (Born-stein: 120). Sexuality is a mystery that includes but must not be limited to politics. Relationship radicals

Anyone who dares to walk a forbidden or marginalized relationship path or who celebrates those who do is a relationship radical, part of a growing counter-culture which challenges rigid rules around power, gender and sexuality. We are outlaws and rebels each time we question conventions or break the rules. We become culture changers when, in addition to being deviant at home, we are openly defiant. We notice differences and address them in public, breaking the consensus trance. We appreciate various viewpoints and encourage dialogue, negotiation and conflict. Relationship radicals work for systemic change and hope to create a culture which fosters freedom for all people.

Whether we are gay, lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual, celibate or promiscuous, male or female or neither, whether we have our birth gender or we are transgendered, whether we have acquired our critical, "outsider's" perspective on issues of gender, power and sexuality through fate, personal choice, friendship, intelligence or our dreaming process, we have a calling. Pat Cali-fia, radical lesbian SM sex-activist and author, asks us to question "the way our society assigns privilege based on its adherence to its moral codes, and in fact makes every sexual choice a matter of morality" (1994:11). She believes these inequities can be addressed only through extreme social change.

Some of us choose to work outwardly, creating changes in culture. Others of us work on ourselves, confronting the internalized mainstream values which give us permission to use morality, spirituality and god as reasons to protect ourselves and hurt others. Through our inner work, we recognize how our narrowmind-edness contributes to the creation of huge and icy

margins where courageous warriors do more than their share to fight for the freedom of all people. The city, the stars, the sea belong to everyone and no one. Basic civil rights, respect, dignity and the freedom of radical relationship should be birthrights in a democratic society.

Those of us with social privileges are being called to step out of our comfort zones, risk our personal safety and put our reputations on the line. If we work as therapists, teachers, doctors, social workers, if we are parents or grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends or employers, all of us in positions of power, have a responsibility. It is time for us to work on our stereotypes and biases, to stop splitting off aspects of ourselves and projecting them onto non-mainstream groups and to put an end to our strict and stingy definitions of normalcy.

We may discover that on the margins of our own personalities rich and unconventional experiences abound. We might become more permissive as we appreciate the weirdness, beauty and eccentric individuality available to each of us. We could become enriched. In seeing more of who we really are, we will be less likely to think that it is the others who are Veer." Notes

In 1992 and 1994 the Oregon Citizens Alliance (OCA) attempted to pass ballot measures which would restrict basic civil rights and protection of gays and lesbians. The ballot measures were narrowly defeated and the OCA and other fundamentalist groups are still very strong in the Northwest of the United States.

Shortly before I presented my original lecture I had the following dream: It seemed like the whole city was present at my lecture. Marcus (a friend and Process Work teacher who died last year of AIDS) is there sleeping. I begin the lecture by saying how much I have learned from my gay and lesbian friends. Marcus wakes up. He is appreciative of my saying this and he is crying. He and I are sobbing together about the pain that gays have to suffer in this culture. Somebody asks me a question about Process Work and I say that the wisdom of gay men is disappearing with AIDS. This is like the disappearance of an indigenous culture and we can't let it happen.

See Freud (1933) for his theory of psychosexual development. See Margaret Mahler (1975) for her separation-individuation theory and Sullivan (1953) for his sociocultural interpersonal theory of development. Fromm (1956) offers a concept of mature love relationships as do authors from the co-dependence field such as Wilson-Schaef (1990).

This article discusses social powers in relationship.

However, individuals possess powers and abilities that are not connected to a social or global ranking system. We gain psychological power by surviving hardship and coming out the better for it. Often those who have had difficult lives have more self-esteem than people who had easier lives. Psychological rank may also refer to an inner fluidity that comes with one's ability to risk going over edges, growing beyond a known identity and entering altered states of consciousness. Many people develop a relationship with the divine which gives them strength and centeredness. Some people are detached, feel they have little to lose and are able to risk everything. These spiritual and psychological powers can also be used well or misused in relationship.

This can be true as well in inter-racial and same-sex relationships where one partner has most of the economic or social privileges.

Mainstream gender theories come from one psycho-dynamic assumption: women are primary caregivers. Female children can develop in identity with their caregivers. Therefore, girls are able to maintain fluid boundaries and are interested in relating. Boys, who must develop in opposition to their caregivers, create rigid boundaries and overidentify with the penis.

The men's movement and Robert Bly's encouraging of the "wild man" can be seen as a backlash spawned in reaction to feminism and the "soft men" of the seventies (Faludi, 1991: 304-312). Despite its Euro-centrism, Bly's work is a beginning—it attempts to support men in their feeling life and in recovering lost aspects of their so-called masculinity.

Jan Dworkin, Ph.D., is a certified Process Worker and co-founder of the Process Work Center of Portland and the Global Process Institute. She is an artist, teacher, psychotherapist and group facilitator who is interested in love, learning, sexuality, chaos and the creation of sustainable culture.

Bibliography

1. References
2. Bass, Ellen and Davis, Laura. The Courage to Heal. New York: Harper and Row, 1988.
3. Bornstein, Kate. Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us. New York: Routledge, 1994.
4. Bright, Susie. Susie Sexpert's Lesbian Sex World. San Francisco: Cleis Press, 1990.
5. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV. American Psychiatric Association. Washington, DC, 1994.
6. Diamond, Julie and Summers, Gemma. "Sex: Pro-creation, Recreation or Co-creation." The journal of Process Oriented Psychology, Vol.4, No.l (1993): 35-42.
7. Dworkin, Andrea. Pornography: Men Possessing Women. New York: Perigee Books, 1979.
8. Faludi, Susan. Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. New York: Crown, 1981.
9. Fadiman, James and Frager, Robert. Personality and Personal Growth. New York: HarperCollins, 1984.
10. Freud, Sigmund. New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. Standard Edition (Vol. 22). London: Hogarth Press, original publication 1933.
11. Fromm, Erich. The Art of Loving. New York: Harper and Row, 1956.
12. Gilligan, C. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.
13. Hite, Shere. The Hite Report New York: Macmillan, 1976.
14. Hooks, Bell. Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black. Boston: South End Press, 1989.
15. Jordan, June. Technical Difficulties. New York: Vintage Books, 1992.
16. Kaminer, Wendy. "Feminism's Identity Crisis." The Atlantic. October 1993: 51-68.
17. Kinsey Institute. The Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex. New York: St. Martins Press, 1990.
18. Mackinnon, Katharine. Sexual Harassment of Working Women. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979.
19. Mahler, Margaret, Pine, F., and Bergman, A. The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant: Symbiosis and Individuation. New York: Basic Books, 1975
20. Mindell, Arnold. TheDreambody in Relationships. New York and London: Viking-Penguin-Arkana, 1987.
21. Mindell, Arnold. The Leader as Martial Artist San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992.
22. Mindell, Arnold. The Shaman's Body. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993.
23. Mindell, Arnold. Sitting in the Fire. Portland, OR: LaoTse Press, 1995.
24. Paglia, Camille. Vamps and Tramps. New York: Vintage Books, 1994.
25. Sullivan, Harry-Stack. The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York: Norton, original publication 1954.
26. Tisdale, Sally. Talk Dirty to Me: An Intimate Philosophy of Sex. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
27. Wilson-Schaef. Escape from Intimacy. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1990.
28. Young-Eisendrath, Polly. You're Not What I Expected: Learning to Love the Opposite Sex. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1993.