Did / Did Not Have

A recent conversation briefly turned to the 'non-raunchiness' of a certain 'rather attractive' non-dualist teacher. It was agreed by all present that that was to be expected. Sex is about a hunger to bond with the other, to merge, a desire for oneness, yet also a desire to have. It requires (the illusion of) separation. This is why long term couples can find it difficult to keep that part of a relationship going; they become too close. At least for a certain kind of sex this is true. The picture is of course more complex; human sexuality has many twists and turns (to match the complexity of our being in the world). And a sensual - sexual continuum ebbs and flows with the ongoing dance of relationship. Sex turns about oneness and separation.

Then today I read in the paper that civil servants have had some difficulty in defining consummation of a gay relationship. This it seems is required if we are to have gay marriage.  Ha; I laughed out loud! That old chestnut.  The business of 'really doing it'. It is of course tied with an other slightly more complex than often thought of area; virginity. In a society wrapped up in a heterocentric world view it's all very simple; penetration, penis in vagina. Or is it? In reality people have always known that there are many ways to merge in a sexual way and that it's the opening of two (or more) people to each other that is at the root of all this. Did any rapist ever take anyone's virginity? Can a couple who have been lost together in the journey to orgasm without penetration claim not to have had sex? The civil servants have decided to leave it to the judges to decide.

And I think it fair to say that there is a deeper level of something required to engage in anal intercourse with someone than is required for vaginal intercourse. Defining that something is not straightforward but it is approached in terms of trust, intimacy, meaning and connection; opening. Generally speaking it takes a bit more opening to get it to slip in. Which is not to say that it is in some way a deeper consummation than vaginal penetration. And on the other hand, it is. And of course, if you are less aware of the meaning of any act then it can be all too easy to engage in it at the physical level. At the emotional, mental and spiritual levels of course things are not necessarily following suit. It's not that any physical act can be said to enshrine consummation in the way the law might like. And I am sure there are plenty of male gay couples who have consummated their relationship without ever having penetrated each other physically. At this point the invisibility of lesbianism becomes all too apparent. Society has always be far less concerned, far less fearful of lesbianism than of male homosexuals. It has always been concerned that its males should not be penetrated. The business of consummation in the eyes of the law is probably more to do with power than oneness. Sexually knowing each other is not captured in a simple did / did not have sex with. Sex is complex because it is part of a journey to oneness. The sexual act penetrates us at emotional, mental and spiritual levels. It is about cracking us open. The monk Ikkyu must have seen a wonderful resolution of the Red Thread koan in his relationship with the blind singer Mori. Now that I write this post I recall the sheer complexity of all this... And the simplicity. I start to remember the types of desire to which the koan might point, the energetic aspects of sex, the unique opportunity that gay sex offers to see what we are, the vibrant aliveness of life and the stillness in which it is held. The word intimacy implies both separate and together.