One evolutionary mystery which has been largely ignored until quite recently is the unique role of sex in the higher primates. Virtually all mammals have an oestrus cycle, which is the specific period in which the female is receptive and both she and the male become sexually aroused prior to breeding.

However, with old-world monkeys, apes and human beings an extraordinary evolutionary jump occurred. This was the development of a menstrual cycle. In oestrus the female comes on heat, giving powerful mating signals as the ovaries ready themselves for impregnation.

But in the human menstrual cycle this period becomes the monthly shedding of the wall of the womb and it is the one time in which fertilization will not happen. Now, we might ask, what possible evolutionary advantage can this state of affairs give to the species? What benefit to survival? We may even conclude that it is there just for fun!

One explanation could be that it is evolutions way of creating a shared experience of unusual intimacy and intensity for any pair of individual animals. Whatever the reason, Homo sapiens, as a species, is fascinated by sex on a twenty-four hour basis. What is a single, shared function in most of the animal kingdom splits in two: ovulation and reproduction on the one side and menstruation and sexual drive on the other.

Strangely we find these two principles clearly differentiated in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. One half as Lilith, the lusty and wild first companion of Adam, and the other as Eve, the mother of his children. In the New Testament the distinction is even more pronounced. As Penelope Shuttle points out in The Wise Wound, Mary Magdalene is the prostitute who had sex but no children and Mary, who, as the Virgin, has a child but no sex.

What this unique function of sex without reproduction actually does is create a dominant factor in the forming of societies. The powerful, non-stop sexual urge stimulates a constant flow of hormones to and from the brain, accompanied by a greatly enhanced electrical activity. This in turn stimulates a whole sense of inquiry, curiosity and alertness. Pair formations which lead to lasting relationships, groups and social structures, are also more likely to occur.

The non-stop erotic behavior is evolutions stroke of genius to create conditions for curiosity, excitation, stable groups and co-operation. What evolution perhaps did not foresee, however, was Homo sapiens unique logical behavior which manages to distort many a good thing into many a worse thing. It could not have predicted that the female initiator of the sexual revolution should suddenly find herself an inferior species and that the ingathering of energy of the monthly cycle would become a curse. This was another of evolutions gifts which confers upon the woman a natural entry into a receptive, and insightful space. She actually has no choice as Nature renews her connections with the creative rhythms of birth and death. Yet we find that over 30 million prescriptions are issued in the United Kingdom each year for tranquilizers and anti-depressants of which more than half are to relieve premenstrual tension and distress. Even the hormonal activity which is responsible for the real physical distress can be laid on the doorstep of psychological stress.

How is it possible for women to have become so estranged from themselves as to feel so much pain and anguish and in many cases a sense of inferiority?

It is easy to forget that it is only in the last two decades that the revolution of the Pill and other birth control devices have at last freed women from her historic role in the family.

Overnight there has been an avalanche of re-appraisals of natural female processes. The social acceptance of breast-feeding, sexual freedom, the understanding that women can and do have multiple orgasms, childbirth without pain and a menstrual cycle without any distress, have created a revolution which only now is being felt by men and society as a whole. Women may always have known this secretly, but now men have been made aware of just what a rich and fertile sexual landscape a woman lives in. She is capable of an abundance of powerful insights into the lunar and Earth cycles, organic creativity and feelings of motherhood which have no comparable experience in man. It is small wonder that man has both worshipped the Mother Goddess and at the same time has feared, and been profoundly jealous of, those potent female powers.

What else could prompt Tertullian to describe the mouth of the womb as the Gate of the Devil or Sigmund Freud to insist that in menstruation a woman obviously felt the castration of the highly prized male genitals? Freuds attempt to relegate the mystic power of the vagina to the second class status of an inferior organ tells us far more about Freud and the male attitude than about the female experience.

---From Unknown Man by Yatri

-- Debra (thesearefightin@words.com), May 10, 2000

Answers

Strangely we find these two principles clearly differentiated in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. One half as Lilith, the lusty and wild first companion of Adam, and the other as Eve, the mother of his children.

Lilith? The first companion of Adam? The only "Lilith" I've ever heard of was Frazier's wife on Cheers. Did I miss something?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.

Lilith is most well-known as the Demoness/Goddess who was the first woman, created by God at the same time as Adam, unlike Eve who was created from Adam's rib. Lilith refused to submit to Adam's will and left the Garden of Eden and was subsequently cursed by God. According to popular opinion, this tale is "evidence" that she was originally a Goddess or at the very least an aspect of... According to Talmudic legend, Lilith was Adams first wife before Eve. She was a cruel, sensuous, and beautiful woman. It is said that Lilith was Caine's mother.

Lilith

-- Debra (...@....), May 10, 2000.

You missed the memo, CD? Lilith was pretty much left on the cutting room floor when the final Bible was formed.

One must go back to the early Hebrew writings to find her.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.

I'm ignorant when it comes to the Bible. And grateful for it, I tell ya. This Lillith/Lillake character makes me curious. I'm just to ascared to look at that dreaded book. Anyone care to do some research?

Can't wait for al-d's analysis of this one. The anticipation alone makes your post a valued one. Thanks Debra.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 10, 2000.

Thanks Debra and Anita. ..."pretty much left on the cutting room floor when the final Bible was formed" LOL!

"Can't wait for al-d's analysis of this one.

LOL Bingo! I actually had that very same thought as I typed out the question.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.

Interesting stuff, Debra. I would disagree with the author on one point, however. "In oestrus the female comes on heat, giving powerful mating signals as the ovaries ready themselves for impregnation." The author equates estrous in the human female to menstruation. This isn't at all true. The human male doesn't have the advanced olfactory nerves of other mammals, so estrous and menstruation coinciding would serve no purpose. However, estrous DOES provide an increased desire for sexual pleasure in the female, and may even include the release of pheromones. The pheromones are released in more the neck region, so as to be closer to the undeveloped olfactory nerves of the male.

This specie difference explains why the only male going "Fe Fi Fo Fum" during your menstrual cycle is the family dog.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.

Fascinating post, Debra. Thanks.

"The powerful, non-stop sexual urge stimulates a constant flow of hormones to and from the brain, accompanied by a greatly enhanced electrical activity. This in turn stimulates a whole sense of inquiry, curiosity and alertness."

Well, I've never held back that I have a strong sense of inquiry and curiosity. And most of the time I'm alert. But, alas... now y'all know where it comes from...:)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 10, 2000.

Anita, when you playin' Vegas? You missed your calling, sweetheart. My underdeveloped olfactories are telling me Shecky Greene couldn't hold your jockstrap. Specially whilst dem pheromones be excretin'.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 10, 2000.

Anita -

There is something about your post that I can't put my finger on but I believe your mis-reading what the author is saying.

You said:

"The human male doesn't have the advanced olfactory nerves of other mammals, so estrous and menstruation coinciding would serve no purpose."

I think the author is saying that estrous and menstruation coinciding DOESN'T serve the purpose of leading to impregnation. But that the sexual drive associated with menstruation serves the purpose of evolution.

That sexual drive is felt and initiated by women so men would have no need of advanced olfactory nerves?

Have to run back to work. Would you re-read and see if you read it differently this time? My mind won't focus right now.

-- Debra (??@??.com), May 10, 2000.

Debra:

I read it again twice. I'm not sure where we differ, but are you suggesting that the sexual drive is stronger in a human female DURING menstruation than during estrous?

Many years ago, we were visiting an old buddy of my husband's. He was married and had several kids. At one point during our visit, his wife snuggled up to him or something and he kindof threw her off saying, "What's the matter with you? Are you RIPE?" I was pretty startled by his response, but I think he may have put 2 and 2 together on those kids.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.

Anita -

The author states:

"What is a single, shared function in most of the animal kingdom splits in two (in the human female): ovulation and reproduction on the one side and menstruation and sexual drive on the other."

I think he/she is saying that oestrus occurs at both ends of the cycle in humans as compared to only one end in animals. In other words, sexual drive with ovulation is a GIVEN (would have to be, no?) for humans and animals, but sexual drive with menstruation is unique to humans.

He/she does go on to say:

"Whatever the reason, Homo sapiens, as a species, is fascinated by sex on a twenty-four hour basis."

So ... I don't believe he/she meant to equate oestrus ONLY with menstruation.

-- Debra (...@....), May 11, 2000.

Debra:

"I think he/she is saying that oestrus occurs at both ends of the cycle in humans as compared to only one end in animals. In other words, sexual drive with ovulation is a GIVEN (would have to be, no?) for humans and animals, but sexual drive with menstruation is unique to humans."

Oestrus [or more commonly known today as Estrous] refers to ovulation. The oestrus cycle begins with follicle development, continues with the fully developed egg dropping [ovulation] and terminates the the unfertilized egg being shed from the uterus along with the protective material formed to protect the egg. Ovulation typically occurs in human females about 14 days before menstruation.

This is not at all unlike the cycle in baboons, although their cycle is longer. Unlike baboons, however, humans do not have the associated visual and olfactory stimuli associated with oestris. Now there ARE instances when additional eggs continue to form and drop during the oestrous cycle, making fertilization possible during menstruation, but this is an aberration possible in any specie.

10/188/96: _Papio papio_ - the baboon Student Lecturers: Dan Berkey and Jill Ridley There are several species of baboon, with some differences (of course) between them. These large powerful monkeys live in troops ranging in size between 30 - 100 or individuals, across most of Africa. They are Savanah dwellers, but their home range of 4-6 sq. miles is limited by the availabilty of tree to climb for protection at night, and from lions. The sexes are dimorphic, with the females about 40 lbs and the males about 80 lbs. The females seem to be more important for the constancy of the troop, as the males sometimes leave and join a new troop, after puberty. The males form a dominance hierarchy, although DeVore reports the formation of a 'central hierarchy' of 3 males who support each other in fights, and can dominate all, although individually they would lose the fight. The females have a combined estrus/menstrual cycle of about 33-35 days, with the first 18 or 19 day follicular phase called 'tumescence' since their genitalia and rump swell and become bright red. This is followed by a period of 15-16 days called detumescence, when the swelling subsides. It appears that ovulation is at the end of the tumescence or turgescence, and menstruation is at the end of detumescence or deturgescence. Newborn young are highly attractive to the troop members, and the object of great curiosity. Females with newborns are allowed to stay in the highly protected center of the troop, flanked by pregnant females and juveniles who, in turn are flanked by adult males. This gives great protection to the mother and young, as the males will stand-off most predators with the exception of lions (then, all climb trees). For about a week before peak tumescence and (presumably) ovulation, the female will mate with lower ranking males. About the time of ovulation, she ofter forms a consort pair, with a ranking male, for a few days during which they stay together and copulate often. High- ranking males are not bothered by other males while in consort, but low ranking males often find themselves threatened or attacked during the consort pairing. Copulation consists of a several mounts and intromissions. It is not certain just when ejaculation occurs. The female will assist the male in achieving intromission."

It's well documented that female mammals release more pheromones during ovulation, and it's thought to be due to increased levels of estrogen at this time. At the onset of menstruation, there is an increase in estrogen, but substantially lower than at the time of ovulation. Once progesterone is released, the release of pheromones subsides.

So, we're NOT talking about ovulation occurring at both ends of the human cycle versus other mammals. In addition, we're not necessarily talking about humans being the only mammals to engage in sex during menstruation, as some mammals have no obvious shedding [perhaps due to more constant fertilization rates] and other mammals have a shedding REGARDLESS of fertilization.

The entire process in mammals seems more controlled by hormones than the oestrus cycle itself. If estrogen is elevated, the female is receptive and downright assertive in attempts to encourage mating behavior in the male.

a look at hormones and their use in mating

Notice the charts on estrogen levels and the effects on males when there's no stimulation of olfactory nerves in "lower" mammals. I would certainly agree with the author that humans are more inclined to have an interest in sex at any time, but I would not agree with menstruation having anything to do with this phenomenon.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 11, 2000.

Anita -

Sorry but I'm lost. You said:

"...but I would not agree with menstruation having anything to do with this phenomenon."

??? LOL ... Maybe were confusing this more than it needs to be? I think the main point is that humans are interested in sex throughout the entire cycle.

Now Lilith is an interesting topic...

-- Debra (...@....), May 11, 2000.

I wonder why this thread didn't get more of a diverse exchange?

Hawk?

How about Brian?

-- ownership (----@--.com), May 12, 2000.

How about, F.S.

al-d

Unk D

Ken

Y2whatever Pro

Anyone with balls??

-- ownership (----@--.com), May 12, 2000.

If men are wise, they do not comment about such matters.

Been married for over 18 years. Learned long ago to make few if any comments about menstrus, oestrus, or PMS, and to apologize immediately for whatever I said that happened to upset Herself during such times. This has allowed me to remain married for that many years (and for many more, I hope.)

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), May 12, 2000.

"Learned long ago to make few if any comments about menstrus, oestrus, or PMS, and to apologize immediately for whatever I said that happened to upset Herself during such times." ----DeeEmBee

I don't know of any woman who would be upset by POSITIVE comments about menstrus, oestrus or PMS. What on earth did you say? :)

Can you come up with one positive comment about these things? I don't mean to put you on the spot but you are the only male brave enough so far to stick your toe in these here waters.

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 12, 2000.

you haven't talked about the need for females to do the drudge work about the house, look after the kids, do a crap job down the supermart, or be secretaries etc

-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), May 12, 2000.

No, I haven't richard but I will talk about the following ...

-- Debra (...@....), May 12, 2000.

I am going to cut and paste some from Anitas link.

I apologize for the length of this post but the silence on this topic speaks volumes! Not just on this thread but from the beginning 

Lets think of the Lilith/menstruation part of the cycle as compared to the Eve/ovulation part of the cycle. Lets see if we can grasp an idea from which the Pain of menstruation may come. How, by invalidating the female experience, both men and women may be kept from self-realization.

Concentrating here on Lilith and leaving Eve for another time. Caps are mine.

It is in Rabbinic commentary (presumably relying on earlier legends) that we find the full delineation of Lilith.

The Rabbis began with the Biblical reference to man's first creation AS A BISEXUAL BEING  MALE AND FEMALE. Some of the Rabbis found in this image something similar to what Aristophanes proposed in the Symposium: a DUAL BODIED BEING later divided into two WHO MUST THEREAFTER SEEK EACH OTHER OUT.

Others tried to take into account the later creation of Eve. If Eve was created FROM Adam, after his initial creation, THEN WHAT HAPPENED to the female created at first WITH Adam? The answer, according to the commentary, was that she was Lilith who REFUSED TO COMPLY with Adam's demand that she SUBMIT herself to him, and in the end fled from him by using the Ineffable Name.

As may be surmised, the Rabbinic sources do not present Lilith in a favorable light (although Adam does not come off too well either); they were content to see her as filling out the Biblical picture, and as the archetype of the bad woman.

Modern feminists, especially Jewish feminists, have tried to show her as une femme ideal, drawing particularly on her spurning of Adam's attempted dominance, and tried to establish her presence among the planets.

As Adam's other half (literally), the WHOLE ADAM MUST INCLUDE HER. The androgynous/hermaphroditic Adam-Lilith in union was the ORIGINAL FORM OF HUMANITY.

The legend does not say whether this dual human being was joined side by side or back-to-back. If back to back, then Lilith automatically becomes ADAMS SHADOW, and just as automatically something which Adam HAD TO DEAL WITH, even though he could never actually see her, always there and always out of sight, and always to be cooperated with. (The same is of course true of Adam as viewed from Lilith's perspective.) Side by side, the same applies, although not in such a pictorially dramatic and literal form. Such a conjunction is not conducive to procreation (the unitive emotional side of sex would be rendered in this instance moot), and THUS THE TWO HALVES WERE DIVIDED. Adam could see Lilith not only front to front but also in the round (and she him); but now HE MUST MAKE AN EFFORT TO UNITE WITH HER. And here he blundered; instead of accepting her as an EQUAL, he attempted to DOMINATE. (One form of the legend puts this in openly sexual terms: he insisted on utilizing only the classic man-on-top/woman-on-bottom posture. Other forms of the legend depict the error as mutual: she tried to dominate as much as he.) In psychological terms, he identified with his own EGO, and not with his FULL SELF; confronted with his SHADOW/DEEPER SELF, he REJECTED it, or at least tried to subject it to the demands of his ego. Lilith's response was to fly away: she literally rose above Adam (now shrunk to the confines of his own ego, not his FULL, LILITH INCLUSIVE self) with the power of the Name. The Ineffable Name IS THE CORE OF BEING, and the GENERATIVE POWER of the Cosmos: this indicates HOW STRONG THE ENERGY MUST BE which ALLOWS THE LIBERATION of the Deeper Self from the ego, and how potentially catastrophic. (Adam, after all, lost one half of his own Self.)

Into the picture now comes the gift of Eve, the mother of all living. And, because of the previous history, she must be given on the sly, with Adam IN A DEEP SLEEP, so he does not CONSCIOUSLY realize that EVE IS LILITH.

Then comes the business of the Tree of Knowledge, in which Adam's first patriarchal effort proves disastrous. (Note the Biblical text: Adam extends the original prohibition, and in doing so leaves Eve believing that the extension is also divine in origin.) The Midrash picks up on this; the snake shows Eve that the extension (not to touch the Tree) can be flouted with impunity, which leaves her to believe that the entire prohibition will not be enforced. And the rest is history. For our purposes, it is necessary only to note that Eve, the second Lilith, is the one that leads Adam into attaining the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He is thus made into a spiritually aware human being, BECAUSE OF his Deeper SelfONLY NOW, HE DOES NOT REALIZE THAT EVE IS HIMSELF, and the consequences are a cosmic catastrophe, at least on one level.

Now, my questions are:

1) Does the pain associated with the female cycle have anything to do with women being invalidated for the sexual/non-reproductive aspect of ourselves? The "Lilith" part of ourselves? 2) Do men contribute to this invalidation because of fear of the true power of womens sexuality and thus their fear of their own shadow? Or simply because of the need to tell "Lilith" what to do? 3) Do women reflect the divison in men, the division that keeps them from their wholeness? And  as long as were seen only as a reflection of their shadow are we kept from our wholeness? 4) If sexual energy is the evolutionary energy of man, would that explain why as Anita said; Lilith was pretty much left on the cutting room floor when the final Bible was formed. Esoteric knowledge is left out for one of two reasons: First, to maintain power over the herd or second, to protect the herd because most people cannot handle power responsibly. 5) If Lilith/Eve represents the anima in men, does Adam represent the animus in women? If so, do women have a double whammy? In other words, in order to achieve our wholeness do we first have to understand our Adam/animus and then understand HIS Lilith/Eve/anima? Or do we, by natural law, have a short-cut? 6) Arent men and women truly in this together? We could learn from one another, but if The Female Experience is not validated we may never fully understand ourselves. Is it possible to realize Lilith/Eve as one? To make whole the feminine principle so that the masculine/feminine, the yin/yang may complete it's circle? 7) And finally, is there another reality going on right now where it is Lilith who remained and Adam was the one who fled from her by using the ineffable Name? We are in a masculine world searching for the feminine principle. Somewhere there may be a feminine world searching for the masculine principle. I wonder how they're doing.

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 12, 2000.

Debra, Anita and all,

I'm following with rapt attention...

For an elaboration on the psychological aspect, I just thought I'd add something interesting I found I found on the web (let me kmow if you're interested in the site):

ANIMA/ANIMUS: the archetype of contrasexuality

It is in this sense that we use the terms "masculine" and "feminine" throughout the book, not as personal sex-linked characteristics, but as symbolic expressions. . . . The symbolism of "masculine" and "feminine" is archetypal and therefore transpersonal; in the various cultures concerned, it is erroneously projected upon persons as though they carried its qualities. In reality every individual is a psychological hybrid. . . . . [I]t is one of the complications of individual psychology that in all cultures the integrity of the personality is violated when it is identified with either the masculine or the feminine side of the symbolic principle of opposites.

The Anima is the personification of all feminine psychological tendencies within a man, the archetypal feminine symbolism within a man's unconscious. The Animus is the personification of all masculine psychological tendencies within a woman, the archetypal masculine symbolism within a woman's unconscious.

The anima and animus draw their power especially from the collective unconscious, but they are also conditioned by a person's individual experiences. They therefore have three components:

1) An innate, unconscious "predisposition for imaging contrasexually" (Wehr 64)the feminine/masculine archetypes 2) Images and symbols of femininity/masculinity culturally transmitted through mythology, art, fairy tales, religions, etc. (themselves heavily influenced by the archetypes) 3) Personal experiences of the opposite sex Symbolism in Dreams and Narratives: a peer figure of the opposite sex to the ego-bearer to whom he/she has a strong and compelling tie or bond (often a lover, brother/sister, soul-mate). Jung said that the animus is more likely to be personified by multiple male figures, while the anima is frequently a single female.

Anima Projection: The unindividuated man identifies with those personal qualities that are symbolically masculine; he develops these potentialities and to some extent integrates their unconcious influences into his conscious personality. However, he does not recognize qualities that are symbolically feminine as part of his own personality but rather projects them onto women. He will project his animathose particular characteristics and potentialities that are significant components of his personal unconscious and therefore carry a special emotional chargeonto a few women for whom he will then feel a strong and compelling emotion (usually positive but occasionally negative). Infatuation (an instant, powerful attraction for a woman about whom he knows little) is one of the signs of anima projection, as is a compulsive possessiveness.

Animus Projection: The unindividuated woman identifies with those personal qualities that are symbolically feminine; she develops these potentialities and to some extent integrates their unconcious influences into her conscious personality. However, she does not recognize qualities that are symbolically masculine as part of her own personality but rather projects them onto men. She will project her animusthose particular characteristics and potentialities that are significant components of her personal unconscious and therefore carry a special emotional chargeonto a few men for whom she will then feel a strong and compelling emotion (usually positive but occasionally negative). Infatuation (an instant, powerful attraction for a man about whom she knows little) is one of the signs of animus projection, as is a compulsive possessiveness.

Anima Possession: Since the unindividuated man has not consciously developed any of his symbolically feminine qualities (e.g. emotion, need for relatedness), his personality is apt to be taken over or "possessed" by these qualities at times, so that his emotional behavior and relationships may be acted out in childish and immature ways that are apparent to others but not to him.

Animus Possession: Since the unindividuated woman has not consciously developed any of her symbolically masculine qualities (e.g. logic, leadership, need for independence), her personality is apt to be taken over or "possessed" by these qualities at times, so that she appears opinionated, argumentative, or domineering to others, though she will not think of herself that way. In the words of Jung, "[J]ust as the anima of a man consists of inferior relatedness, full of affect, so the animus of woman consists of inferior judgments, or better, opinions." Alchemical Studies: The Secret of the Golden Flower (CW 13, par.60). Click here for this and other quotes from Jung about the animus, and here for quotes on the anima.

Anima/Animus Integration: We can avoid anima/animus possession and withdraw projections by integrating the contrasexual archetype into consciousness, realizing we are cutting off our human potential by recognizing and developing only those symbolic qualities that match the sex of our bodies. In the words of Demaris Wehr, the anima leads a man "into unexplored depths of feeling, relationship, and sensitivity. . . . the integrated animus leads a woman into the world of the spirit, erudition, and the power of the word" (66-67). Integration of the Anima/Animus is often termed Androgyny. It is symbolized in narratives through achievement of a special bond (frequently sexual union/marriage) between the ego-bearer and the anima/animus figure.

February, 1999 Barbara F. McManus; (1st paragraph is from Erich Neumann, "The Origins and History of Consciousness" (Princeton University Press, 1954) xxii n. 7)

Now, before I submit this, I carefully checked to make sure the paragraphs were separated. If it comes through all run together, know that I tried...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

I guess it came out ok, except that the three components near the beginning are supposed to end with "personal experiences of the opposite sex," after which there starts a new paragraph.

I haven't checked it all, though, and there could be other similar problems, but at first pass, the rest seems like it copied ok.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

Debra -

Actually, my comment was in reference to "anything I said... that upset her". It is prudent for men to learn that their partner's emotions are at best unpredictable during menstrus and that comments which might otherwise be taken well may cause anger or tears during "that time of moon" (to quote Twelfth Night). Just part of the learning and growing process for guys.

We have a couple of catchphrases around our house: "Testosterone can make you stupid" and "Estrogen can make you crazy". Got two teens, one of each gender. 'Nuff said.

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), May 12, 2000.

Eve:

Ya done good in the differentiation of paragraphs, although the read reminded me of horoscopic readings. This is not to suggest that the read wasn't interesting, but to suggest that the Jungian influences were obvious.

Debra:

I don't suspect you'll get much interest from the males on the forum in this topic, despite the original interest of CD and Bingo. Human sexuality is still not considered a topic of discussion in a Puritan- based society, as reflected by Fact Finder's response to the thread he started on underwear. Indeed the topics of estrous lead some to associations of physical/psychological aberrations, such as PMS. I never suffered from PMS, and I bore three children minus drugs with no pain. I've always felt we get what we expect, and I EXPECT no more male responses in this thread. Who said that...Lilith or Eve?

I attribute the

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

I've got to start concentrating more on what I post instead of revising my thoughts to the point where I leave sentence fragments hanging at the end. Sorry AGAIN, Debra. [Lilith made me do it.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

Anita,

I hear ya. You know, there are many things Jungian that I disagree with, including the animus/anima issue. Still, the possibility of a "maleness" as a part of us and a "femaleness" in males has always intrigued me. So, it's interesting to read and think about.

Reminds me of a girlfriend who once told me she liked to imagine herself in the male sexual role while she was pumping gas! :)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

Eve:

Your girlfriend hasn't departed from the thoughts of many others. SO and I shared many a discussion about who enjoyed sex more....the male or the female? My analogies were: "If your ear itches, and you put your finger in your ear and move it all around, which feels better.....your finger or your ear?" On the other hand, if your FINGER itches, what do you do?

I think MOST of us would enjoy a period of experience in the shoes of the opposite gender.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

Hey, pretty cool analogies Anita! :)

I do know that if science was at the absurdly impossible level of allowing us to somehow smoothly change genders (I mean inside and out) with no complications -- temporarily, of course -- I'd love to find out firsthand what the male experience was really all about. But you know, as many males as there are out there, I think very few would openly admit wanting to be female for a while -- even though, deep down, I bet most of them probably would be quite interested.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

Anita and Eve -

Although totally female this time around, whenever I imagine what "prior lives" I may have lived, I have a sense they were male. This female thing feels like an impossibly "hard fit" most of the time. I'm here to learn something from it whether the men around me want to help or not.

You know, I was thinking. Why was Mary Magdalene left in the bible when so many other things pertaining to sexuality and women were removed? Was Mary Magdalene to Jesus what Lilith was to Adam? And why did Mary M. not "flee"? Is it that Jesus incorporated his shadow? Is it intentional that the Mother and the Whore had the same name? Does it mean that these two principles were truly one? That Jesus recognized it and owned it?

Eve -

I don't disagree at all with the animus/anima issue. I've learned to take it as a given. Outwardly I am female but just as certainly I contain the male principle. Humans who are male outwardly, contain the female principle. We are dual bodied beings divided into two WHO MUST THEREAFTER SEEK EACH OTHER OUT.

Males and females use each other for their projections. I believe that when we reach a certain level of consciousness we pull back our projections and own them. It is at this point that we are ready for the "Scared Marriage", when we become one, whole within ourselves.

I've been married two times and "fled" both of them. Never had a name for it but now I do. As Anita said above: LILITH MADE ME DO IT! (That is going to be my new mantra.) And you know, that is not so far from the truth. I'm going to get to know and honor Lilith. And if I can't do that in this world then I'm going to find that world where LILITH LIVES!!! LOL!

Anita -

One more thing. You said:

"I've always felt we get what we expect, and I EXPECT no more male responses in this thread. Who said that...Lilith or Eve?"

That's hard to say. I have a sinking feeling that both Lilith and Eve said that. They've grown weary waiting for a male response.

Getting back to the original post:

"The non-stop erotic behavior is evolutions stroke of genius to create conditions for curiosity, excitation, stable groups and co- operation. What evolution perhaps did not foresee, however, was Homo sapiens unique logical behavior which manages to distort many a good thing into many a worse thing. It could not have predicted that the female initiator of the sexual revolution should suddenly find herself an inferior species and that the ingathering of energy of the monthly cycle would become a curse. This was another of evolutions gifts which confers upon the woman a natural entry into a receptive, and insightful space. She actually has no choice as Nature renews her connections with the creative rhythms of birth and death. Yet we find that over 30 million prescriptions are issued in the United Kingdom each year for tranquilizers and anti-depressants of which more than half are to relieve premenstrual tension and distress. Even the hormonal activity which is responsible for the real physical distress can be laid on the doorstep of psychological stress."

I'm going to cut and paste a post I made in the submarine thread. I think it will help define "The Female Experience" and the psychological stress of it.

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 12, 2000.

We already know that medical science is inclined to collect and interpret its results so as to favor the particular conditions of masculine physiology and psychology. I believe that the result is a picture and an atmosphere that is manipulative of women, and prejudicial to their self-realization.

To get a three-dimensional look at the problem, one must look at it in three ways - then join them up. The result is like a howl back circuit!

First, there is how the woman feels in herself at the time of the menstruation end of her cycle. Second, there is the effect that her changes may have upon other people. Third, there is the way society may pay her back for these real or imagined disturbances. Finally, does this sequence bite its tail, so to speak, and does the social attitude to menstruation actually affect the way the woman feels in herself? The way to break the circle is to change the attitude. Researchers are beginning to find that the most enduring improvement for PMS can only be achieved by introducing new insights so that the woman begins to modify her own self-image.

How she feels in herself ... Am I simply a hormone-robot to be corrected in my disorder by some technologically complex but clinically simplistic pill? Or am I a webwork of psychological energies of which disease is a last-resort language, or a slave- language of riot after repression? Is this devaluing attitude to our femininity, this encouragement to self-disgust, this eternal and inherent invalidism we are offered - is this derogation itself a cause of the trouble?

How she influences people around her ... There is no evidence that men have cycles of their own, but there is plenty of evidence that as adults they are influenced by the menstrual cycles of their women, and, when children, of their mothers. It would be very surprising if they were not so influenced, but unfortunately, for the main part the effect is made unconscious, since the subject of menstruation is simply swept under the carpet, and given no significance. It is a most unwelcome idea to many men, that in this sense they are really "one flesh" with women. Slang terms for the period reflect social usage and individual experience. Impoverishment of common words for the period impoverishes our thinking about it and keeps men and women separate.

How society rewards her ... the woman is treated as a scientist treats a dangerous piece of radioactive material. Radioactive elements are never touched, since their power would burn. Protective clothing is needed, lead-sheathed rooms, sealed laboratories fitted with remote-controlled tongs. Similarly with the woman at her period. We know also of radioactivity that it is the basic, archaic power of the universe. It is terribly destructive if incorrectly handled. Nevertheless, hydrogen fusion in the solar system created the planets, and the radiation from our star, which comes from processes which are utilized in the hydrogen bomb, created life on our planet, and feeds us all day by day in the food-chain beginning with photosynthesis. I'd like to suggest that the analogy is worth following through, since an acknowledgement of paradoxical benefit and danger is also the characteristic of menstrual taboos.

The particular rise of instinct at menstruation is powerful; it is the opposite experience to the maternal feelings at ovulation. Women are the mediators between life and death. One does not bother to tie up a puppy with a steel cable unless they sensed this to be true.

The lifting of the "curse" ... The principle technique required, by both sexes, is a change of attitude. Joseph Campbell in his great mythographical history speaks of the Odyssey of "the long return ... to the realm of those powers and knowledges which ... has been waiting unattended, undeveloped, even unknown, in that "other mind" which is woman.

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 12, 2000.

Debra, you quoted an author as saying "Whatever the reason, Homo sapiens, as a species, is fascinated by sex on a twenty-four hour basis."

I take this as a bird's eye view of homo sapiens, as it certainly could appear that way to an observer from another species.

But as a female, I'd like to give another perspective with the following comments.

I can honestly say here that I am definitely not preocupied with sex daily. That is, I do not have sexual urges every day of the month, and for days or even weeks, if I went without sex I wouldn't miss it. On the other hand, when I DO get sexual urges, which does coincide with ovulation and menstruation that I have noticed over the years, then I AM preocupied by it, as much as my male SO is.

Men produce sperm daily, but women ovulate once a month. There's definitely a stricking difference here to be discussed. That the men feel an urge to "relieve" themselves daily is understandable to me, but that a women be said that she "should" feel the SAME sexual urges daily is not logical to me. A women's need to feel physical closeness in bed (hugging, touching and talking) should not be misunderstood by men as a need for sexual gratification, i.e., copulation and coitus. Just as other female mammals who aren't sexually receptive during certain days of the month, so are women. Although female humans with their higher intelligence have the ability to "give" sex to male partners, whether they really feel like it or not, for bonds in the relationship, and also at times to manipulate it.

Perhaps I'll dig up some research backing my statements later on, but first I'd like to hear your comments on them.

-- (y@x.x), May 12, 2000.

Y:

I THINK [although I'm not sure] that you're addressing the differences in sexual peaks between males and females, whether short- term or long.

It's a well-known fact that humans of the male specie reach their sexual peak at around the age of 17, while females of the same specie reach their sexual peak at around the age of 40. I don't think Debra intended to state that both the male and female had rampant desires 24/7. [Then again, I don't think I even UNDERSTOOD her statement until you brought this up.]

Now that you've brought me up to speed, I'd concur with a bit more of the author than I did before, although still disagree that menstruation plays a role. If reproduction of the specie were the driving force for copulation in humans, why is it that the sex drives of the male and female don't coincide? I suppose I could take a shot at explaining that myself. The 17-year old male has a preoccupation with sex. The 17-year old female has none, inherently. She IS, however, interested in the experience, and depending on the experience, she may even be looking forward to the NEXT experience. Unfortunately, the 17-year old male rarely offers an experience that throws the 17-year old female into the "anticipation" stage.

The longevity of the human specie may play a role here in the disparity between the two genders. The young male essentially GETS the ball rolling, and the female ensures that the ball continues to roll throughout the reproductive years and beyond. Since human offspring require many more years of nurturing than other species of mammals, maintaining the parental bond via mating practices may be a function of ensuring that the offspring have a responsive unit of protectors/caretakers.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

"It's a well-known fact that humans of the male specie reach their sexual peak at around the age of 17."

Bullshit! A well-known fallacy is all.

-- You've just (been@thewrong.sack), May 12, 2000.

wrong-sack:

Please don't confuse perfection of performance with peak of interest/physical DRIVE. Certainly, men AND women begin their sexual lives inexperienced. The DRIVE peaks at about 17 for men and about 40 for women. Despite the peaks in drive, I've heard from women who had no interest in sex beyond a certain year. How could this be? Their DRIVE should have kicked in, yet their experiences lead them to believe that this drive is a false signal because they haven't experienced partners of satisfaction. OTOH, many men of years have spent those years learning. They're LONG past their PEAK in the DRIVE sense, but much like the male mice in the link I provided, they respond to to the twitching ears and tail wagging of the females. [grin]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

Anita,

"but much like the male mice in the link I provided, they respond to to the twitching ears and tail wagging of the females. [grin]"

You've got that right. We're always horny. Even when the flesh is weak, the spirit is always willing!

-- Bachelor (Bachelor@loveya.ladies), May 12, 2000.

Y -

I don't really know what to say. Keep in mind we're talking about the energy of "Lilith" here. An energy that women have been estranged from. We have been made unsympathetic to her.

I'm not sure why I had the thought to post the following here but I'm going to. Something in your post I guess...

"To be alone with no one to love is a waste of the body. To be NOT alone with no one to love is a waste of the soul."

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 12, 2000.

The question is, why would you care to read talmudic filth?

-- No talmud (Wisdom@Bible.God), May 12, 2000.

Bachelor:

"Even when the flesh is weak, the spirit is always willing."

Where have I heard this before? [My own home comes to mind.] I'd suggest that this was what I had in mind when I stated the information about the peaks. I wouldn't say, however, that this coincides with "horny." Horny...or is it Horney? refers to the flesh. At 17, a human male is controlled by the desires of the flesh. At 40, a human male is controlled by the mind's memory of the pleasurable experience ASSOCIATED with the flesh.

There ARE rare instances of human males being as "horny" in middle- age as they were at 17. Is it Jack Nicholson who could copulate repeatedly for hours on end through middle-age? I remember SOME actor being slated as a sex-addict by his then divorcing wife. The more normal situation for men his age is copulation followed by a period of rest, wherein the body regenerates.

Debra:

I've heard that, and agree totally. Had I not divorced my husband and moved on, I'd be in the same position. Fortunately, I have a mate now who is most satisfying in both the physical and emotional arenas.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

Cool! keep it "up"!

-- ownership (----@--.com), May 13, 2000.

There are two threads right now on this board started by Hawk. Both titles contain the words "Gold-digging Whores".

Some of the responses made by women include:

Since the beginning of time... A guy who sleeps around is considered merely being a guy. But a woman who sleeps around is considered a slut and a whore. Why is that? 

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), May 11, 2000.

Danny and Hawk make good mates. They both hate women and like to use demeaning words like "whore" and "bitch" to describe them. Their sexist and demeaning language is offensive to the women who read this board.

-- A Woman (not@home.com), May 10, 2000.

Uh, Danny2, would you like an opportunity to revise this little gem?

"Let's face it. Because women control access to sex in this country and in Europe, at least, most men are horny all the time (assuming they have a reasonably high testosterone level). When women run around showing enticing cleavage and with short skirts that often amount to very little, what do they expect? They know exactly what they are doing."

Let me see if I understand what you're implying here. It's a woman's fault if men are attracted to her. It's a woman's fault if men can't keep it in their pants. It's a woman's fault if men are horny all the time. Did I miss something? Please tell me you're not serious.....please. 

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), May 10, 2000.

I think women are asking the right questions. We just need to become fully conscious of WHY were asking them.

"They" call us bitches, "they" call us whores, "they" tell us were weak. "They" invalidate us at every turn. ("They" may or may not include individual men.) Yet, "they" continue to "tie us up with steel cables." Why?

It is revealing to compare our male dominated view of the world with that of the supposedly uncivilized aboriginals of Arnhem Land in Australia...

"We have been stealing what belongs to the woman. Men have nothing to do but copulate."

In their creation myth two Wawilak sisters initiate the whole cycle. One gives birth while the other menstruates.

"All that belongs to the Wawilak, the baby, the blood (which falls in a pool and gives rise to a serpent), the yelling, the dancing, all that concerns the women - we have to trick them ... In the beginning we had nothing."

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 13, 2000.

Don't women suffer "Eve's curse" because they caused the downfall of humankind (particularly mankind) by seducing Adam to eat the Apple?

-- Observer (lots@to.observe), May 13, 2000.

This IS getting comical.

"Don't women suffer "Eve's curse" because they caused the downfall of humankind (particularly mankind) by seducing Adam to eat the Apple?"

Isn't this just another case of one man who couldn't admit he did something wrong without putting the blame on someone else? "She MADE me do it.", he says. Did Snow White blame the wicked witch when SHE ate the poisoned apple? Geez. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 13, 2000.

Observer -

I think we suffer "Eve's curse" because we are cut off from half of ourselves. (symbolicly speaking, that would be Lilith)

Why is Lilith/Eve subjected to having to live a "fragmented" life?

And ... I don't think "Eve/Lilith" caused the downfall of mankind by seducing Adam to eat the apple. I believe it was "Eve/Lilith" who led him into attaining the Knowledge of Good and Evil, making him into a spiritually aware human being.

I would go further and suggest that when "Adam" accepts "Lilith/Eve" as an equal then "the curse" will end.

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 13, 2000.

Anita -

Speaking of men putting the blame on someone else ...

Five Hundred years ago the Christian Church published The Hammer of Witches, Malleus Maleficatorum, an infamous manual of an inquisition, which was responsible for the systemic slaughter of hundreds of thousands of women and girls in a dark and gruesome Europe. This most terrible of documents, written in 1484 by two Dominicans, singled out women, as a category of evil to be persecuted. It defined what witches were, what they were supposed to do, how to try and how to execute them.

And what was the reason behind the burning? The church of the time needed a scapegoat to divert attention from the scourges of famine and plague, which the priests were seemingly powerless to prevent or control. Who better fitted than women to be the cause of the sin which warranted such wrath from the Almighty?

The church had long identified women with sin, the terrible worm in the heart of men. Sin was often equated with sexuality and Eve was its originator in offering the apple to the innocent Adam.

The Malleus supposed that women were more credulous and susceptible to witchcraft, impressionable, had slippery tongues and were of feebler mind and body, which allowed the devil to make them the advance guard of hell. But above all, witchcraft came from carnal lust, which is in women insatiable! Any woman with a natural sexual potency could immediately be suspect of witchcraft. It is quite possible that many of the so-called witches in the past were not witches at all but confused and terrified women.

The female style of consciousness seems profoundly attuned to the subtle movements of the Earth and her lifetides. Her sense of time is periodic, waxing and waning in a mysterious tidal communion with the moon. Events flow within the female awareness like birth and death and rebirth. Male time can be seen more like a series of sequential, uniform and equally divided moments.

Such natural differences in these modes of experience have, so far, been unbalanced and when we speak of humankind it must be remembered that in many parts of the world it almost means the division of two species  man and woman.

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 13, 2000.

Anita,

Did Adam seduce Eve into eating the forbidden Apple?

-- Observer (lots@to.observe), May 13, 2000.

"I've got to start concentrating more on what I post instead of revising my thoughts to the point where I leave sentence fragments hanging at the end. Sorry AGAIN, Debra. [Lilith made me do it.] " -- Anita

Anita -

LOL! I've left "paragraph fragments" hanging at the end! (Lilith made me do it too)

-- Debra (!!!!@!!!!.com), May 13, 2000.

"Anita, Did Adam seduce Eve into eating the forbidden Apple?"

What are you asking here, Observer? Are you asking if Adam was a man of weak will? Are you asking if Adam looked at apples but [knowing the rule] didn't eat one UNTIL "manipulated" by Eve? You tell ME: How does one exactly SEDUCE one into eating an apple that one knows is forbidden? [Remember...this part is supposed to come BEFORE Adam could be lured by sensualism.] Was Eve like the local drug pusher? "Try it...you'll LIKE it." Can't exactly say "Everyone's doing it", right? Didn't his father basically say, "Just say NO"?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 13, 2000.

Debra,

If you're going to quote someone's incorrect analysis about a statement attributed to me, how about also including my response which indicates that her interpretation is incorrect, especially since they both come from another thread?

"Uh, Danny2, would you like an opportunity to revise this little gem?

Let's face it. Because women control access to sex in this country and in Europe, at least, most men are horny all the time (assuming they have a reasonably high testosterone level). When women run around showing enticing cleavage and with short skirts that often amount to very little, what do they expect? They know exactly what they are doing.

Let me see if I understand what you're implying here. It's a woman's fault if men are attracted to her. It's a woman's fault if men can't keep it in their pants. It's a woman's fault if men are horny all the time.

Did I miss something? Please tell me you're not serious.....please.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), May 10, 2000."

"Patricia,

You did miss something. I never said that all women do this. Only that some of them do it some of the time, like when they are trying to get their hooks into someone like Jagger. My exact words were "When women run around showing enticing cleavage and with short skirts that often amount to very little, what do they expect? They know exactly what they are doing." This is not a blanket statement about all women or about all of the time. The man is also supposed to have enough brains to figure this out and not bite, but a few too many beers sometimes does cloud judgement."

"Best...

-- Danny2 (getting@deeper.and.deeper), May 10, 2000."

-- Danny2 (not@happy.being.misrepresented), May 13, 2000.

Observer -

Another way to ask you're question may be:

Did Adam lead Eve into attaining the Knowledge of Good and Evil, making her into a spiritually aware human being?

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 13, 2000.

Danny2 -

I'm sorry but I don't see where Patricia's interpretation is incorrect. But that is beside the point.

Her question is pretty universal:

"Let me see if I understand what you're implying here. It's a woman's fault if men are attracted to her. It's a woman's fault if men can't keep it in their pants. It's a woman's fault if men are horny all the time. DID I MISS SOMETHING? Please tell me you're not serious.....please."

Why is it that men can go around with no shirts and not have the accusation thrown at them that "they know what they're doing?" but women who wear short skirts are not given the same curtesy?

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 13, 2000.

Debra,

I notice that you ignored my previously posted request which was:

"If you're going to quote someone's incorrect analysis about a statement attributed to me, how about also including my response which indicates that her interpretation is incorrect, especially since they both come from another thread?"

I forwarded this thread to a several male friends, and their reactions, plus your last set of comments, make it clear to me that men and women are going to continue to have a lot of trouble understanding each other and communicating in the forseeable future.

Let's hope the next "Eve" that Adam runs into is more suited to mother a harmonious human race than the first two.

-- Danny2 (I@give.up), May 13, 2000.

Hello Danny2,

You said,

"...The man is also supposed to have enough brains to figure this out and not bite, but a few too many beers sometimes does cloud judgement."

Is this supposed to make him somehow less responsible if he then forces himself on a woman?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 13, 2000.

I've been in silent awe since this thread first began.

I haven't jumped in until now because I'm not yet able to grasp it all. This is a dense thread, informationally speaking. And, I'm embarrassed to admit, a subject I haven't touched upon internally in many years.

I read Andrew Weil's book, "The Marraige of the Sun & the Moon" back about 20 years ago. It is one of those books you lend to anyone who'll take it. Alas, it never made it back into my hands. I really need to get a copy of it again.

Anyway the predominant theme addressed how we might achieve unity of consciousness. Weil examined various cultures, their drugs of choice...and that's about all I remember. (check Unk's music thread for the probable cause).

I do know it impacted me greatly. I realized that I didn't have to 'act like a man' if the particular action went against my intuition, my conscience. Instead, I could listen to that silent voice within, cultivate it, and hence grow as a spiritual being.

Thanks again for the remarkable discussion.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 13, 2000.

I thought that a quote would be helpful, 'round about now...

Genesis 3:6 (KJV):

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

So apparently, neither Adam nor Eve seduced the other; in fact, it all seemed rather innocent and carefree.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 13, 2000.

Eve,

A man is not supposed to force himself on anyone. If he does, then he is responsible for his actions. However, a female who delibrately arouses a man and then tries to shut him off bears some degree of responsibility, too.

-- Danny2 (is@it.hopeless?), May 13, 2000.

And who determines what "delibrate arousal" is?

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 13, 2000.

Is "delibrate" a word?

-- Debra (??@??.com), May 13, 2000.

Define deliberate. Define arousal.

-- Bill Clinton (shyster@whitehouse.con), May 13, 2000.

Fascinating (up til about 5 or 6 posts ago).

INteresting discussion, though I will confess not having read each word of each post.

Have y'all discussed the difference in arousal times between males and females?? that the typical male arouses in under 4 minutes and the typ femal takes quite a bit more than 15?? (i fergit the actual time frames but those are in the ball park, so to speak).

-- nah (jest_a_lurker@the.zoo), May 14, 2000.

Anita:

I have to correct you on your reasoning as to why more men were not giving input to this thread. You said something about a "puritan Culture".

This is a rather simlistic attempt at an explanation. This is an interesting thread, but I have not posted because, ya know, ya cannot post to every thread-I find that if I do not start early in a thread it is hard to join in down th road.

You have made some excellant points-the one about puritanism. however, has to go.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 14, 2000.

Adam took his own fig leaf off and has been looking to blame anyone else ever since.

F.S., Excuses? You currently stand as the third most "prolific" poster here.

-- ownership (----@--.com), May 14, 2000.

Danny2 -

I'm sorry. You are right. I should not have included the quote from you in the above post. It was Patricia's questions that contributed to the point. Not your quote.

You've put forth your response to Patricia (above) so I hope all is well now. : )

However ... you also made the following statement:

"Let's hope the next "Eve" that Adam runs into is more suited to mother a harmonious human race than the first two."

Sorry, Adam gets only one and her name is Lilith/Eve. He cannot REJECT her. He has to DEAL WITH HER.

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 14, 2000.

Debra,

"Deal with it" is what this thread is all about!

Thank you!!!

-- ownership (----@--.com), May 14, 2000.

Back to evolution taking into consideration The Female Experience 

Modern culture positions itself in opposition to nature. Western Culture  at least since the Pythagorean table of opposites was formalized in the sixth century B.C.E.  associates the male with admirable normative principles and the female with the vague and indeterminate, the unbounded and formless, the irregular and disorderly. Patriarchal culture demeans and denies the elemental power of the female body. Not surprisingly, then, modern Western patriarchal culture renders the moon tides of womens bodies, the very blood that feeds the continuation of the human species, invisible and irrelevant if properly hidden, or shameful and unclean if not. This response is generally considered natural and inevitable.

Judy Grahns Blood, Bread, and Roses turns that vast cultural construction inside out. Her boldly original interpretation of cultural history challenges the assumption that because menstruation is largely hidden and inconsequential in modern society it must, therefore, have always been so. Across the great divide from such embarrassingly messy and uncontrollable seepage as menstrual blood, it is understood, the triumphal march of progress  conceptual thought, language, mathematics, and technology  gradually led humans from primate consciousness to the fully evolved status of Homo Faber, Homo oeconomicus, Homo aestheticus. Grahn demonstrates, however, that if one refuses to ignore the elemental presence and processes of the female body, the cultural history of our species looks quite different.

In Blood, Bread, and Roses Grahn focuses on the meanings of separation in cross-cultural responses to menstruation. She first considers the origin myths of many cultures and notes that a high proportion of them begin with an undifferentiated space/time, an era of chaos and indeterminate form, from which creation occurs via separation: the separation of land from water, of earth from sky, of rivers from oceans, of mountains from plains. Grahn speculates that the foundation of so many origin stories  a time of undifferentiation  may be an extremely resilient reference to early humans crossing of the great abyss from primate consciousness to the eventual development of conceptualizing, abstracting human consciousness. For this to occur, consciousness had to become externalized, that is, linked with events outside the human in ways that led to apprehension of patterns and concepts. Grahn believes that this pivotal development must have occurred in relation to females dawning awareness that their 29.5-day menstrual cycle of bleeding was in rhythm with  and hence related to  an external object, the white moon in the sky. The resultant consciousness, which she calls The Menstrual Mind, became externalized and displayed, particularly because of the necessity for females to teach their discovery to members of the group who did not menstruate. Males learned the METAFORMS, Grahns term for various expressions of menstrual logic, such as principles of separation, synchronic relationship, and cyclical time. Eventually the males extended the metaforms, rearranged them, and mirrored them back to the females, creating what Grahn sees as an ongoing dance of mind between the genders.

Grahn then considers ways in which the central concept of separation has been expressed in a wide variety of menstrual seclusion rituals. The three most common aspects of taboo (a Polynesian word for menstruation) for a secluded menstruant were that she must be strictly separated from water, light, and the earth; she was also prohibited from being touched and from touching her own body. If she were to go to the river, for instance, and drink a handful of water, her own moon-blood waters might well mix with the other waters, causing all separation to unravel, plunging the world back into the undifferentiated, chaotic state. Cross-culturally, ethnographers of native cultures have often been told that womens rites hold the world in balance.

Other cultural historians have noted that the Upper Paleolithic bone calendars (bones with notches in groups of numbers that usually add up to 29.5 or 30) establish the link between lunar/menstrual observations and counting. Hence from the menstrual mind came the beginnings of measurement, arithmetic, geometry, and all mathematics. Grahn, however, goes much further, tracing the results of menstrual logic as its practices and paraphernalia migrated from the site of menstrual seclusion (usually a menstrual hut) into society.

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 14, 2000.

Since the menstruant was to mark the end of her dark-of-the-moon days by emerging at dawn into the light, the door of the menstrual hut faced east, an orientation that was replicated in ceremonial buildings and dwellings and has been maintained for millennia in diverse native cultures. Since the menstruants successful observation of the separation rites carried cosmological significance, her emergence was met with celebration and feasting, for which ceremonial food, elaborate dress, and bodily decoration were devised. (Until recent times, women probably had comparatively few menstrual cycles in their lifetime because of frequent pregnancies and extended periods of lactation.) The most elaborate celebration followed the longest and most exacting menstrual seclusion, that of menarche, a womans first menstrual period.

In a fascinating discussion of parallel menstruations, Grahn cites a variety of rituals that replicate the disciplines of menstrual seclusion. (She notes that a central meaning of the Sanskrit word for ritual, rtu, is menstruation, the original ritual.) In many cultures hunting, which appeared in human history much later than menses, borrowed menstrual-like rites of seclusion and privation for hunters prior to an excursion. Much later, when rituals to benefit the entire society were performed by special groups who became the priestly caste, the aristocracy, and royalty, many concepts issuing from menstrual logic were again adopted.

Grahn also demonstrates the effect of menstrual logic in symbolization, narrative, and the evolution of godheads, as well as in the development of art, handicraft, and technology. In time, production and technological endeavors took on a life of their own, ushering in the age of materialism and a corresponding diminution of rituals of cosmological reciprocity. With that transformation our species crossed another abyss, Grahn feels, this time to the logic of male blood power, including ritualized warfare. She ends by suggesting ways in which we might unravel the contemporary necroforms of exploitation and destruction to achieve political and cultural renewal.

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 14, 2000.

What is one to make of this grand theory? First, it is important to keep in mind that Grahn states that she is presenting a female- centered origin story. It is intended, I believe, to take a long- overdue place on the table for discussion alongside the towering stack of androcentric theories and assumptions about cultural history. With regard to the possible objection that Grahns thesis is reductionist, one should bear in mind that she never denies dynamics other than the one that is her focus, that she is a poet who theorizes with a brilliantly associative mind, and that the lost history of menstrual logic must be writ large in order to get onto the discussion table in modern times at all. In response to the possible objection that all this is nothing new since reproduction has long been understood as important in the early shaping of cultural history, Grahn emphasizes her finding that it was womens moon-blood, not babies, that was considered numinous. (If so, this realization might explain the absence of infants from the upper Paleolithic and Neolithic goddess statues.) Others have speculated on the early significance for women of womens blood mysteries, but Grahn traces their effect on culture, invention, production, trade, science, religion, and more.

Regarding linguistic theory, Grahn seems to have independently arrived  via her poetic mind  at a realization about conceptual thinking that has recently rumbled through that field. Prior to the late 1970s, metaphor was considered a poetic device, an artifice quite distinct from objective thought and expression. It is now recognized, however, that nearly all abstract thought in humans is organized metaphorically. In addition, bodily experience has been recognized recently s being enormously influential in the evolution of metaphorical concepts. Grahns thesis suggests rich possibilities in both of these areas, for she not only proposes the metaphors of menstrual logic but also introduces the concept of metaforms, cultural practices or objects that embody those metaphors.

----Taken from the foreward in Blood, Bread, and Roses

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 14, 2000.

Have you ever thown a party?

Your not a snob!!

??

-- ownership (----@--.com), May 14, 2000.

Debra,

Thats who I posted the snob remark towards.

-- ownership (----@--.com), May 14, 2000.

The reason that more men aren't participating or interested in this thread is because it has become somewhat of a female circle-jerk. My apoligies to Anita, Eve, and the other ladies who do have something to say.

-- Observer (lots@to.observe), May 14, 2000.

Your right Observer. I'm sorry. This is nothing more than a female circle-jerk. I apologize to you and all of my male friends.

Eve did seduce Adam. Eve was responsible for the fall of mankind. Eve contributed nothing positive to our world. It is up to men to clean up after her mess and women must forever suffer "the curse" for her sin.

And as far as Lilith? She deserted her man, she didn't support him. She is nothing but a whore.

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 14, 2000.

... And Eve grows even more quiet and continues to give birth to daughters who grow more conscious of Lilith and her anger.

And those daughters continue to suffer the disease of PMS, that last- resort language, that slave-language of riot because of repression. That language that communicates to them that something is wrong.

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 14, 2000.

Happy Mother's Day to all.

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 14, 2000.

Happy Mother's Day Debra!

I'm a guy (this incarnation). I tried to contribute (see post above re: Dr. Weil). It's just that the sheer brilliance of you, Anita & Eve would surely be dimmed by any further attempts on my part to add to the mix.

Smile From The Heart!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 14, 2000.

Thanks, Debra. And Happy Mother's Day to you, too. Hey, Debra, don't let Observer's comments get you down -- although I found some of your points a little hard to follow, I thought that for the most part it was very interesting, whether I agreed with it or not. So, keep posting to your heart's desire, girl. I know I'll stay tuned...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 14, 2000.

Happy Mother's Day to you as well, Debra, and to all the other moms on the board.

I really don't know what is meant by female-circle-jerk, so I can't read anything into that one.

Future: I'll gladly retract the Puritan society comment.

Debra: Interesting reading on menstruation. Here's something else that might be of interest [and notice one of the references is none other than Susan Weed.] Menstrual Rites

As I said earlier, I think we get what we expect. I had many friends who married right after high-school and reproduced shortly thereafter. Every year we'd have a hen party and the conversations moved along with the times, the subject changing from dating to marriage to childbirth to raising children, to planting sod. After hearing the horror stories associated with childbirth, I was convinced I'd never reproduce. I couldn't imagine why a woman would repeatedly experience pain willingly.

To make a long story short, when the time came and the doctor basically told me to shit or get off the pot regarding reproducing, I read a book entitled "Childbirth Without Fear." Of course I went beyond that and attended Lamaze classes, etc., but that book helped the most. The book wasn't intended to deal with complicated births, so please don't assume that I'm saying there's no pain involved with a Caesarean section or a birth wherein the baby comes out by virtually sliding down your spine. There's no doubt that stuff hurts like hell. The author suggested that one WOULD feel a burning sensation as the head crowned, but beyond that, contractions, etc. could be dealt with by simply keeping one's hands open. It made sense to me. Our immediate reaction to an uncomfortable sensation is to CLENCH [tighten]. The theory was that this exacerbated the sensation. So, on the first birthing, I felt a burning sensation as the head crowned. By the next birth, I'd forgotten I was "supposed" to feel that burning sensation, and didn't feel one. Same on the third. By the third child, I was old enough that the doctor wanted to do an amniocentesis. A co-worker had experienced the amniocentesis and I asked her if it was painful. She said, "There was a sensation, but I wouldn't call it pain." She was correct, IMO.

Moving along to the question of another poster regarding arousal time differences in gender, I don't think anyone is pretending to be "Dr. Ruth" here, but doesn't the mind have a great deal to do with arousal in BOTH genders? The instigator has a head-start in the aroused ALREADY arena, but if a man can't think of anything but what his boss said, or [like Mary Hartman] a woman can't think of anything but the faucet dripping, arousal may NEVER arrive.

On the above subject, cultural expectations also come into play. Some women have been "trained" by society to think that sex is for men. Some men have been trained by the same school. Some women have never experienced orgasm. Some men know this about their wives, but consider it the wife's "problem." Some men don't know this about their wives, and spend their entire married life thinking that SHE had an orgasm because HE did. Many years ago, I discussed birth control with an older married couple who lived next door. The husband said, "Just make like the IC [a commuter railroad in Chicago] and pull out on time." I said, "But is your wife able to have an orgasm with this "time" constraint?" He said, "Of course she is." I looked over to her and she simply shook her head negatively. Contrast THIS story to my cousin who has been married now about 32 years. He and his wife haven't had sex in 8 years now. He said she simply wasn't interested anymore. When I asked if she'd ever had an orgasm, he said, "No. I was always too fast."

Contrast BOTH those stories to one a professor shared with his class about a Masters and Johnson? study wherein a female had 100 orgasms in a single session. A male student yelled out, "Who WAS she?" A female student yelled out, "Forget about HER! Who was HE?"

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 14, 2000.

"HE" was most likely someone with a red-hot tongue!

-- Ruby (-@the.dyke), May 14, 2000.

Anita -

I too, had my three children by natural childbirth. Relaxation IS the key. BTW, I gave birth to my son, 22 years ago, on Mother's Day. This is only the 3rd or 4th time since then that his birthday and Mother's Day have fallen on the same day. Today is extra special to me for that reason!

I first became aware of PMS when, while watching TV, I realized that my fists were clenched. The tension experienced is so real. Ever since then much of my way of dealing with it included relaxation techniques. Much also included understanding the psychological aspects of it. It became a journey. A journey of consciousness in my humanity and in my femininity.

Bingo1 -

Thank you for your kindness. A big smile from the heart right back at you! :^D

Men like you are a pleasure to know.

Eve -

Thank you too for your kindness. Don't worry Observer didn't get me down. In the words from your post about the anima and animus:

"Anima Possession: Since the unindividuated man has not consciously developed any of his symbolically feminine qualities (e.g. emotion, need for relatedness), his personality is apt to be taken over or "possessed" by these qualities at times, so that his emotional behavior and relationships may be acted out in childish and immature ways that are apparent to others but not to him."

I see his comments as childish and "anima possessed." I feel sorry for any women in his life.

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 14, 2000.

"... And Eve grows even more quiet and continues to give birth to daughters who grow more conscious of Lilith and her anger."

Debra,

You seem to have a lot of repressed anger about men. Have you ever considered this? The only people that I have known who were concerned with this Lilith stuff are feminists, and most do not seem very happy.

-- Lurker2 (lots@to.lurk.for), May 14, 2000.

Lurker2 -

Anger is a signal, and one worth listening to. Our anger may be a message that we are being hurt, that our rights are being violated or simply that something is not right. The pain of anger preserves the very integrity of self. Our anger can motivate us to say "no" to the ways in which we are defined by others and "yes" to the dictates of our inner self.

Women, however, have long been discouraged from the awareness and forthright expression of anger. Sugar and spice are the ingredients from which we are made. We are the nurturers, the soothers, the peacemakers, and the steadiers of rocked boats. It is our job to please, protect, and placate the world.

Women who openly express anger at men are especially suspect. (And I am not angry at men.) Even when society is sympathetic to our goals of equality, we all know that "those angry women" turn everybody off. Unlike our male heroes, who fight and even die for what they believe in, women may be condemned for waging a bloodless and humane revolution for their own rights. The direct expression of anger, especially at men, makes us unladylike, unfeminine, unmaternal, sexually unattractive, or, more recently, "strident." Even our language condemns such women as "shrews," "witches," "bitches," "hags," "nags," "man-haters," and "castrators." They are unloving and unlovable. They are devoid of femininity. Certainly, you do not wish to become one of THEM. It is an interesting sidelight that our language - created and codified by men - does not have one unflattering term to describe men who vent their anger at women. Even such epithets as "bastard" and "son of a bitch" do not condemn the man but place the blame on a woman - his mother!

The taboos against our feeling and expressing anger are so powerful that even knowing when we are angry is not a simple matter. When a woman shows her anger, she is likely to be dismissed as irrational or worse, hence so many problems with PMS. An angry tone to her voice disqualifies not only what she has to say but also who she is.

Why are angry women so threatening to others? If we are guilty, depressed, or self-doubting, we stay in place. We do not take action except against our own selves and we are unlikely to be agents of personal and social change. In contrast, angry women may change and challenge the lives of us all, as witnessed by the past decade of feminism. And change is an anxiety-arousing and difficult business for everyone, including those who are actively pushing for it.

We learn to fear our own anger, not only because it brings about the disapproval of others, but also because it signals the necessity for change. We may begin to ask ourselves questions that serve to block or invalidate our own experience of anger: "Is my anger legitimate?" "Do I have a right to be angry?" "What's the use of my getting angry?" "What good will it do?" These questions can be excellent ways of silencing ourselves and shutting off our anger.

We should question these questions. Anger is neither legitimate nor illegitimate, meaningful nor pointless. Anger simply is. Anger is something we feel. It exists for a reason and always deserves our respect and attention. We all have a right to everything we feel - and certainly our anger is no exception.

There are questions about anger, however, that may be helpful to ask ourselves: "What am I really angry about?" "What is the problem and whose problem is it?" "How can I sort out who is responsible for what?" "How can I learn to express my anger in a way that will not leave me feeling helpless and powerless?" "When I am angry, how can I clearly communicate my position without becoming defensive or attacking?" "What risks and losses might I face if I become clearer and more assertive?" The goal is not getting rid of our anger or doubting its validity, but of gaining greater clarity about its sources and then learning to take a new and different action on our own behalf.

That being said, I must confess  Lilith made me do this!

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 14, 2000.

Debra:

Good points there on anger. Expression of anger and anger management in general seem to be "learned", starting with very early childhood. This is not to say that temperament isn't genetic. My mom,for instance, inherited the temperament of her father. She was quick to anger. However, her upbringing led her to believe that this anger should be held in when it came to her husband. Dad very RARELY got angry. When he did, he expressed it casually, verbally and it was over. So, whenever mom and dad got in an argument, dad would calmly express his side and mom would simply seethe, typically concluding with her retreat to another room and my dad getting the "silent treatment" for several days. As children, WE weren't allowed to express our anger [in the presence of our parents.] We wrestled and clobbered each other when our parents weren't around, but we made sure the blood was washed off and appropriate bribes offered to ensure no word of this would get back to our folks.

I married young, and married a man who'd been allowed in his youth to express his anger openly, and often violently. He never hit me or the kids; he took out his anger on inanimate objects and by yelling, etc. How did I handle MY anger? I handled it the very same way my mother did. I repressed it. I noticed my son came with a temperament similar to his dad's. If he lost in a board game, he would become so angry he turned red. He'd then flip the game all over the floor. His sisters got to the point where they "allowed" him to win the game to avoid his tantrums. I said, "No. This is NOT the way. HE must learn to control his anger, and develop the skill required to win the game." If he became overtly angry in a lost game, he was exiled to the bathroom. Eventually, he concentrated on learning the required skills. By this time, I'd learned quite a bit about anger management myself, from training for a rape/abuse hotline, and the kids and I oftentimes discussed anger in our daily after-school get-togethers.

Eventually, I got to the point where I was tired of being "scared" when I saw the phone ripped off the wall and thrown across the room, or a hole punched into a wall, etc. I could spend the rest of my life making up for the lost love of his mother, but did I want to? I ended the marriage, which provoked MORE anger, but money seemed to placate him, so I took virtually NOTHING when I moved on.

Not wanting to make the same mistake twice, in my second [current] relationship, I spent a year or two expressing the anger that I'd repressed in the first. As I mentioned to Flint in another thread, I hadn't really come to grips with the "baggage" I carried, and tended to concentrate on the traits that reminded me of my ex rather than the traits that were quite the opposite. I wasn't even aware of this until SO sat me down and said, "I'm NOT your ex-husband." He sure isn't, so the baggage fell to the side and we spent several years together happily until we moved closer to his family.

I compare this period to "The Honeymoon Is Over." SO's brother is married to a woman from a culture that caters to men. His son married into a similar culture. These family members would congregate at our home on Sundays [or any other day when they felt like it.] The men would gather around the T.V. to watch sports while the women were left to entertain themselves. I had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common with these women, so felt my day a waste at the end. In addition, I found myself sucked into cultural expectations that weren't even MINE in that I was EXPECTED to feed anyone who showed up. Somehow the cooking schedule left Sundays [in particular] to me, while the other days of the week cooking was shared by household members. I think SO cooked on Tuesdays and Thursdays, I cooked on Wednesdays and Sundays, and the kids cooked on alternate days. Since I purchased the food for the days I cooked as well as the days my kids cooked, MY food bills were always much higher than SO's with up to 10 extra folks attending each Sunday. I grew resentful, but had no one to blame but myself. Why was I catering to a culture that wasn't even my own? This wasn't expected by SO, but I felt it expected by his family.

SO took a 6-month contract in Puerto Rico at one point, giving me time to ponder the situation, as well as a welcome relief from the Sunday visitors. When he returned, I suggested that we get separate places for a while. We did, although got them close enough that we could simply cross a pond to be together. When HE invited his family for dinner, he also invited me. It was almost comical to listen to his brother address ME if he felt the room too hot or cold. I simply said, "This isn't MY apartment. Tell HIM!" I NEVER invited his family to dine at MY apartment. I was quite happy without them.

By the time we moved into THIS house [which HE owns}, we'd already weaned his family of expectations. If they come over, I show myself to exchange pleasantries, but soon afterwards retreat to MY computer room [which may be how this internet addiction began.] Shortly thereafter, the family began meeting at someone ELSE's home. I RARELY attend with him.

What's the point of all this? Anger/resentment are symptoms of something WRONG. It shouldn't be IGNORED. It should be dealt with quickly by correcting the problem. The "problem" may be something in one's CURRENT life, or may be something carried over from the past. Relaxing, exercising, etc. certainly move energy wasted on anger to other paths, but is it correcting the problem? The problem usually lies within ourselves. Why do we/did we respond to the expectations of others? If we decide we'll no longer engage in "feeding" those expectations, the problem will correct itself. With any luck at all, we'll find some folks who expect no more from us than we're willing to give, meaning folks who accept us for who we are rather than who they'd like us to be.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 14, 2000.

Debra, I thought your post about anger was pure dynamite. Thank you!

Anita...interesting and informative stuff too; thanks. Btw, Happy Mother's Day to you as well.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 14, 2000.

Just to try to add a little additional insight into the anger issue -- expanding it to emotion in general...

Emotions are lightning-like appraisals of situations that come from value-judgments, about all sorts of things that we've previously automatized, and that lie in our subconscious. So, the relationship of value-judgments to emotions is that of cause to effect. Our emotions are our response to the value judgment that exists below the surface. In other words, the emotion is an automatic psychological result (involving both mental and physical/physiological features) of an incredibly quick subconscious appraisal of a person, a remark, a thing, a situation etc.

The sequence of psychological events is: from perception, to evaluation (the value-judgment), to emotional response. But as far as what were immediately aware of, the sequence seems to jump from perception directly to emotion. So, many times were not consciously aware of the intervening value-judgment. Since the sequence flows so rapidly, we may need a separate act of focused awareness to grasp the value-judgment. Because we may fail to identify the intervening value-judgment, we end up confused about the nature and source of our emotions. In order to discover the value- judgment we have to learn to introspect and make efforts to understand our own mental processes.

This post is very condensed -- probably too much so -- but hopefully it will give you a hint of what I think is an interesting insight into our emotional process. Emotions are a complex topic, and one that has fascinated me for a while. But I dont want to take this thread too much off topicso feel free to refocus it any which way yall please  I found most of the issues on this thread fascinating in different ways.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 14, 2000.

eve -

Great insight into emotion. So the value-judgment (the evaluation) is the place where we ask ourselves the questions about our anger so as to bypass auto pilot?

We percieve our anger, we evaluate our anger and then we respond to our evaluation (not our auto pilot).

"So, the relationship of value-judgments to emotions is that of cause to effect."

So our thoughts (value-judgments/cause) determine our reality (emotions/effect).

Your right, it is so easy to miss a step! Straight from perception to emotion with no thought in between. It's like we're playing these old tapes(someone else's tapes no less) in our heads and letting them determine our reality.

"Since the sequence flows so rapidly, we may need a separate act of focused awareness to grasp the value-judgment. Because we may fail to identify the intervening value-judgment, we end up confused about the nature and source of our emotions. "

Yes we do!

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 14, 2000.

Mornin' Debra,

You asked,

"So the value-judgment (the evaluation) is the place where we ask ourselves the questions about our anger so as to bypass auto pilot?"

The value-judgment/evaluation is more in the nature of a practically automatic estimate -- an assessment of the situation in regards to whether the aspect of reality that you're confronted with is either for you or against you, in some way. You may be aware of it at the time, but there would never be time for questions during this time frame, because this all has to take place so quickly -- remember, the evaluation/value-judgment has to take place between the perception and the emotional response.

All the questions we ask ourselves would be afterwards, during introspection, as we try to delve into ourselves and figure out where the emotion(s)came from and exactly what type of, or mixture of, emotions were involved in our reaction.

You know, there are lots of reasons why we may be unaware of our evaluative processes underlying our emotions (either within that lightning-fast sequence of perception to emotional response, or afterwards):

1) We have to be good at introspecting and identifying our mental processes;

2) We may not hold our values and convictions (that underly our emotions) in a clearly defined way;

3) The emotion and the underlying value-considerations may be highly complex. Say for instance you're upset and you know the feeling involves your husband or SO; maybe he's been inconsiderate of you in some way; but you're also under stress and you're tired of bearing the emotional burden of his work pressures; on the other hand, you know you're overly sensitive; then again, you want to be honest with him about your feelings, but you don't want to get him upset and make the situation worse.

So here you've got all these things clashing in your subconscious. On the conscious level, you feel a generalized emotion of irritation regarding your life and/or the world, as well as at your husband/SO -- and on top of it all you might feel guilt, etc. And you just can't untangle all the reasons.

4) We may respond emotionally to things of which we're not aware. For example, when we meet someone and just a subtle thing the person says or something in their body language puts us off;

5) Repression is a tough one to overcome -- a big obstacle to identifying the roots of our emotions. If the "values" (really "dis- values," here) that we subconsciously hold which underlie our emotions are actually offensive to our self-respect and conscious convictions, through repression we bar the real causes (these "dis- values") of our emotional reactions from awareness.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 15, 2000.

no-one has mentioned ironing as the highest female experience

IMHO this is the most important of all (I mean the entire family's not just men's shirts)

-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), May 15, 2000.

Richard:

"you haven't talked about the need for females to do the drudge work about the house, look after the kids, do a crap job down the supermart, or be secretaries etc

no-one has mentioned ironing as the highest female experience IMHO this is the most important of all (I mean the entire family's not just men's shirts)"

Single parents must do more, regardless of gender, but I don't know any COUPLES that don't share household and child-rearing activities pretty much equally. I suspect you're trying to push some "feminist" buttons here, but *I* don't have any, and the couples I know work together as a team, recruiting the kids to the team as soon as they're capable of performing simple tasks. I remember my mom ironing when I was a child, and folks who sew still keep them around to lock in seams, etc. Outside of that, most folks have moved on to permanent press or have their clothing laundered professionally.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 15, 2000.

I am Woman, hear me roar .... Where IS that laundry room door? .... The men have the key .... so the iron they'll see .... And the family will have wrinkles no more!

or

Find the iron you say? .... so it will fill my day? .... This man has no clue .... laundry is not my due .... But he dreams big dreams, aye?

or

...I'll stop now because this could be too much fun! :D

-- Debra (backto@work.com), May 15, 2000.

Weve already made the point that with old-world monkeys, apes and human beings an extraordinary evolutionary jump occurred with the development of a menstrual cycle. What is a single, shared function in most of the animal kingdom splits in two for human females: ovulation and reproduction on the one side and menstruation and sexual drive on the other.

We examined how these two principles are clearly differentiated in the Old Testament. We looked at Eve, as the ovulation half of the cycle, bearing children. We also looked at Lilith, as the menstruation half of the cycle, bearing the evolutionary energy of man, our sexual drive. We discussed how Lilith fled Adam when he would not recognize her as an equal.

Was Eve/Lilith the cause of mankinds downfall or was she the cause of mankinds becoming spiritually aware?

It was mentioned how Grahn emphasized that it was womans moon-blood, not babies, that was considered numinous (spiritually elevated). The knowledge and power of Lilith, of menstruation, of sexual drive and of evolutionary energy fled from us when Adam would not recognize them as equal to his knowledge and power. She became lost to us.

Lets look at the contrast between the rich tapestry of womens lost history and the modern, barren version of the females cultural significance.

CREATION/ORIGIN stories remember a time before anything was, a time that consisted entirely of darkness, of water, of endless space or of flatness without landscape; a time before name, before consciousness; a time described as asleep, or dreaming, or by the Greek word Chaos, meaning yawning.

With origin stories, we think of Chaos as a real geological time. The stories seem to describe the beginnings of the earth and its features, of the sun, moon and the galaxies, in short, those bodies of energy and mass that at some point in geological time did not exist. However (and heres the metaphor) the idea of chaos is also a description of human, or more accurately, prehuman, consciousness.

At one time, our ancestral apes could not see the landscape of the earth, could not recognize the sun and the moon, had no name for water. The ancient stories recall a time when our prehuman ancestors could not perceive shape, color, light, depth, distance, as we do, and had no names for them and no fixed sense of their qualities. This state of being, which we call nature, rules from inside the animal body; emotions, physiological states, estrus, and mating simply happen, they are not up for question, examination, or rearrangement. Seasons change and fur turns white or brown; the animal is moved from within to interaction with life around it, without externalizing much imagery beyond what the body conveys through gesture, smell or sound. Although the inner animal life has its own order, its own integration with the whole, its own rationalism, we rely so much on our culture that the preconscious state before our ancestors learned to think outside themselves was a state we now call chaos, and greatly fear.

When we fall out of external mind as adults, mental and emotional confusion catch us in a whirlpool of broken boundaries and inexpressible emotion, chiefly terror. Children never taught to speak may growl, grunt and scream, but they say no words. Language must be taught; differentiation  of shape, of color, of day from night, sun from moon, land from water, up from down  must be taught.

The process of learning is a process of separation, and most of the major creation stories describe a change of consciousness through separation. The god, or originating principle creates heaven, earth, light and dark by separating them, or as some myths describe, the first beings emerge from darkness or from a lower world. The act of separating is the act of creation, and also of consciousness, of understanding the imagery, of mental connection.

But how were those connections first made? While myths capture verbally principles of human existence, human actions are the source of those principles, human actions that lead to human comprehension. A myth merely holds the information in a verbal memory; tens of thousands of years of repeated actions may go into the making of a single line of its story. Fortunately human actions from times prior to ours have been recorded in ethnography, especially in those accounts gathered before Christianization and other religious and moral views (including feminism) required and enabled an end to some of the more dramatic ritual practices of humankind. Disciplined separation is clearly a major factor of human culture, and the most complex and fundamental separation practice is that of first menstruation, or as it is more formally termed, menarche.

SEPARATING DARK FROM LIGHT  Menstrual seclusion rites as recorded over the last few centuries typically include three basic taboos: the menstruating woman must not see light, she must not touch water, and she must not touch the earth. Since these same elements are differentiated in Genesis and other creation stories, we begin to see how menstrual rites might have created the world for ancient peoples, and to wonder whether the sleepers who awoke and saw landscape, who named the elements, who separated the above from the below, and darkness from light, were informed by rites of seclusion that specified these very elements, singled them out for attention through tapua, sacred law of the womans friend.

Human perception began, many creation stories say, when we could distinguish between light and dark. That distant ancestral eyes didnt have the perception of this distinction is easier to comprehend (how could they not see light?) if we remember that until very recently a person could walk for weeks in dense forest without seeing the sky as more than fragments of glitter through a maze of moving leaves. Not only the equatorial girdle, but much of the Northern Hemisphere was covered with dense forest in the age immediately preceding our own; even the stark sand of the Sahara is believed to have once been forested.

In many parts of a dense forest, light never reaches the ground; it lives scattered in the trees, and in constant motion. A band of primates, held to a small forested area by predators and the need for leafy food, lived in a small world, one that didnt need to know the original sources of water or light, merely the keen inner senses to locate water and see with light. For it isnt that the remote ancestors didnt see light, but they saw WITH light, as naturally as breathing. They did not see light as outside of themselves, as having a distinct source, a single place from whence it emanated. They had no origin story of light. Once externalized light was recognized by someone, was perceived as a separate entity, how could she retain and remember it, given that prehumans by definition had no language, no marking system, nothing that we call physical culture. How could they establish noninstinctual knowledge outside of their own bodies? How did we acquire orderly minds of external measurement?

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 17, 2000.

Although I think this essay is interesting, I think that a lot of feminists are going to have to get their thinking straight.

First, feminists said that men and women are all equal and that differences are entirely a result of the evil male hegemony that has dominated the post-neolithic age (~6000 b.c. to present).

Later they go back to biological positivism--once an evil meme running through male-dominated science--and say that women have all these special and unique qualities like "intuition" and "maternal instinct." Women are as strong as men yet twice as sensitive, like the Alien movies' Lieutentant Ripley.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between. But you can't hold both of these extreme views in your head at the same time and be logical.

-- coprolith (jacothecat@yahoo.com), May 17, 2000.

coprolith,

Thank you for your thoughts. Do you mind if I ask if you think I am a feminist or if you think the writings are feminist?

I find the subject matter extremely interesting on many different levels. There is the female experience but there is also evolution, spiritual growth, myth and metaphor. I am amazed at the way everything comes together.

I'd like to keep posting and sharing. I have no intent on making anyone angry. I love men (although they can be a big pain in the butt sometimes ), they are my brothers. And for the record ... I think men have intuition too.

Off subject question - anyone know why some questions "lose" numbers of answers? Yesterday this thread had 87 answers and now it is down to 79.

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 17, 2000.

Debra:

I've noticed the thread counts jump back and forth as well. I have no explanation.

"Weve already made the point that with old-world monkeys, apes and human beings an extraordinary evolutionary jump occurred with the development of a menstrual cycle. What is a single, shared function in most of the animal kingdom splits in two for human females: ovulation and reproduction on the one side and menstruation and sexual drive on the other."

This point was made, but *I* never agreed to it. The more I've thought about it, in fact, the more I disagree with it. I'm talking about the ability to THINK versus basic instincts. 'Y' touched on that above, actually, and I don't suspect she knows all the thoughts she triggered beyond the ones for which I gave her credit. There's no conscious thought necessary when a bird grabs a twig for the nest. There's no conscious thought required when a bird sings to attract a mate. Birds aren't mammals, but their instincts drive them just as much as the "lower" mammals described by the author.

If one includes other species that operate on instinct alone, the author's argument regarding separation falls apart. Only the human can think and remember things that aren't instinctive. Only the human can recall a moment spent by a fire wherein an embrace led to an evening of immeasurable pleasure. Only the human can attempt to relive that experience DESPITE any biological cycle.

What I'm saying, Debra, is that I'm questioning both the author and what I thought before. I'm questioning ONE trait being used to explain behavior that may involve MANY traits.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 17, 2000.

I suspect you're trying to push some "feminist" buttons here

only kidding, but the serious point is that there are chores to be done, men tend to better/good at some women at others, which is not to say some men (not me) actually like ironing etc, but obviously any couple shares the work according to who does what the best or who has the time and when

the answer is get in a scivvy

PS they used to sell "non-iron" shirts

-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), May 18, 2000.

richard,

I believe what your're describing is what this author would call "the ongoing dance of mind between the genders." When they work together they are working from the "whole." When they don't, they suffer.

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 18, 2000.

[[Debra]]

I didn't mean to sound curt or rude to you. I like what you have written. I was just spouting off on a slight tangent.

I don't know if you are a "feminist." I suppose anyone who calls themself a supporter of women and their right to live as they choose (so long as those choices don't infringe on others' choices) can do that. But the word "feminist" has been co-opted by radical elements on the left who want it to mean political support for a list of various legal bills and initiatives. It is been exploited by the right by those who want to use venom to make equal rights seem scary to the everyday working person. It means different things to different people.

The mystery of women and men and how they do and don't get along with their differences is fascinating to me, especially, since I have just been married and am in the process of moving over my wife's stuff into my apartment. The ways we conceive of how a space is filled is indeed very different at times.

Well anyway, gotta bail. Interesting discussion....maybe I'll have time later to read it all and not just respond in a knee-jerk way to the opening comment.

-- coprolith (jacothecat@yahoo.com), May 18, 2000.

Anita,

I am still trying to figure out what you disagree with in the quote. I believe we started this thread on this point.

I dont think you disagree with ovulation/menstruation being opposite ends of our cycle. Nor do I believe you disagree with ovulation/ reproduction being on one side. That only leaves the menstruation/SEXUAL DRIVE part. Are you saying you disagree with a sexual drive during menstruation?

Y said:

On the other hand, when I DO get sexual urges, which does coincide with ovulation and menstruation that I have noticed over the years, then I AM preoccupied by it, as much as my male SO is.

I think most women would say this. There IS a sexual drive at both ends of the cycle. I would go further and say during ovulation the sexual drive is about attracting a mate. Its about reaching outside yourself. On the other hand, during menstruation its not about attracting a mate. Its about going within. Its a deeper, darker aspect of our sexual drive, totally unrelated to reproduction. You might liken it to re-entering the chaos. There is a very deep tension we hold while going back into the darkness. When menstruation ends, we have a feeling of light-ness again as we travel back toward ovulation. Waxing and waning of the light describes it well.

You said:

If one includes other species that operate on instinct alone, the author's argument regarding separation falls apart. Only the human can think and remember things that aren't instinctive.

The ability to think versus basic instincts is what were exploring. Its what separates us from the animal kingdom. I dont understand what youre saying here. How is the authors argument regarding separation falling apart by including other species that operate on instinct alone or that only the human can think and remember things that arent instinctive? I think that is just what she is saying. I admit, I tend to miss much when I am exploring an idea. What am I missing here?

You also said:

Only the human can recall a moment spent by a fire wherein an embrace led to an evening of immeasurable pleasure. Only the human can attempt to relive that experience DESPITE any biological cycle.

I somewhat disagree here. Mice in labs attempt to relive experiences that bring pleasure. What makes us different is our recall. Humans today can attempt to relive an experience DESPITE any biological cycle, yes, but we are talking here about our ancestors. About our evolution. How did this external mind BEGIN? What moved us out of pure instinct? The author is putting forth that it began with the females recognition of her cycle coinciding with the light and dark of the moon.

Further into this author's thoughts is the idea that our ancestor's, after recognizing this "entrainment" of the female cycle with the moon, believed that the female "held power" over the moon, over light and dark (they had not yet recognized that the sun and moon were two separate bodies). Here is one (just one) of the beginnings of the idea of good and evil. When the female menstruated, in a natural state, it was during the new moon, a time of darkness, of chaos. The forest was black at night. The female took on the responsibility of "remembering" the light. She connected the blood to the chaos, the fear, the darkness and she connected the end of menstruation to the light (of the moon), a time to "see". A constant renewal that we still experience today. She taught the males about the cycles of light and dark, of good and evil. It makes perfect sense to me that through the female's cycle we became "spiritually aware", we became conscious of ourselves as separate from the instinctual world. And with that awareness we began to suffer.

Youre last statement:

What I'm saying, Debra, is that I'm questioning both the author and what I thought before. I'm questioning ONE trait being used to explain behavior that may involve MANY traits.

Maybe its not so much ONE trait being used to explain behavior that may involve MANY traits. Maybe its more like ONE trait being used to become AWARE of many traits. : )

So the question remains:

Once externalized light was recognized by someone, was perceived as a separate entity, how could she retain and remember it, given that prehumans by definition had no language, no marking system, nothing that we call physical culture. How could they establish noninstinctual knowledge outside of their own bodies? How did we acquire orderly minds of external measurement?

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 18, 2000.

coprolith,

Thanks and congratulations on your new marriage!

I agree with you about the word "feminist." It's loaded and so I try to stay away from it. That is not to say that I disagree with them but neither does it say that I do. Like everyone and everything else, I remain open to it, take out what I agree with and leave the rest. :)

-- Debra (womenandtheir@ways.com), May 18, 2000.

Mornin', Debra.

I have to say I'm still somewhat skeptical regarding the separation issues that you speak of. So far, it seems very interesting, yet based primarily on conjecture. Here's my very condensed take on a crucial point, though, that I think is part of your inquiry. (and forgive me if I guessed wrong and thereby am taking this discussion off track)

Mankind took an immense leap -- somehow -- when we -- male and female alike -- developed the ability to form concepts. Concepts are mental units that encompass a practically infinite number of particulars. For example, the concept "table" we can't visualize. But it encompasses every table that ever existed and all that could ever exist. The only difference is that during the conceptualization process we remove the measurements -- e.g., size, design, color, type of materials used, etc. That gets us from "this table" to "table." And "table" thereby becomes a mental unit -- just one that we can't "see."

And the discovery that enabled us to accomplish this was language. Language, as we know, is an organized system of auditory-visual symbols that allow us to retain our concepts in a firm, precise form. And we use words (single units that stand for unlimited numbers of particulars) to accomplish this. By using words, our minds are able to hold and work with wide categories of entities, attributes, actions, and relationships. And this wouldn't be possible if we had to form images of each concrete subsumed under those categories.

Further, the symbols have to be linguistic. A random collection of images or other non-linguistic symbols could never permit the exactitude, clarity, and complexity our thinking requires. In the process of forming a concept, in order that it it doesn't remain as a momentary impression or observation which then vanishes we have to identify what we've just observed in some one, concrete, specific, sensory form. And that's the word -- and ultimately the language.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 18, 2000.

Debra:

"That only leaves the menstruation/SEXUAL DRIVE part. Are you saying you disagree with a sexual drive during menstruation?"

I'm worried now that I'll say something that will result in a blush by Bingo. Studies have certainly shown that there's an increase in estrogen during menstruation and studies have shown that increases in estrogen result in increased sexual drive. As you know, I'm estranged from the menstrual experience, so I must rely on memory. I certainly remember a tingling in the loins during menstruation, but I can't say it was the same [or different] as the sensation induced by a number of other stimuli that occur at ANY time.

Rather than use my own experiences in this regard, I'll reference Jill on the "Tool Time" sitcom. I can think of two occasions where Jill's sex drive kicked in for reasons quite outside hormonal influences. In one, she was discussing a dream wherein she was Jane and Tarzan would make passionate love to her. In the second, she saw Tim carrying a heavy box and the bulging of his muscles triggered a response. These activities of the mind "triggered" her sex drive. One might suggest that her mind was triggered due to an Estrogen high, but how would one then explain MY situation, where the Estrogen level is constant, and these same stirrings arise?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 18, 2000.

Hey Debra, I'm sorry about all the formality in my post above (as well as some of my other stuff). I mean, geez -- we're friends now, ya know? (goes for you too, 'Nita)

Or, how about this way:

I hereby apologize for the unnecessary formality in my previous posts, the primary reason being is that it is my fervent belief that we have succeeded in establishing a mutually beneficial and harmonious relationship, that for all accounts and purposes renders all such disseminations and transmissions irrelevant, immaterial, and therefore moot.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 18, 2000.

Eve:

I don't think you need to apologize to Debra. We're all grown folks here trying to get a handle on some weird thoughts. We won't all agree on one thing, and I don't think anyone expects that from us. I'm going to present some very disjointed thoughts here, so BEWARE:

It's easy for a theory to go off-mark. I don't know if the one on menstruation's correlation to sex-drive is true or not. It was once thought that smoking and drinking contributed to heart disease, yet left unexplained were folks who smoked and drank all their lives and lived to be 110 and folks who never smoke or drank and died of a heart attack at age 40. Sheeple recently began a thread on heart disease wherein anger seemed to be at the root. You began a thread on positive thinking which seemed to correspond to the anger thread insofar as positive thinkers rarely get angry.

In all these "studies", folks have looked at the SITUATION and tried to determine a generic CAUSE. In the heart-attack situation, studies showed that many folks smoked and drank who had heart attacks. The CAUSE appeared to be smoking and drinking. Is smoking and drinking a cause or an effect? Why do some folks smoke/drink and others not? Of course, AGAIN, we're also faced with why can some folks smoke/drink with no effect on their heart at all?

I'm questioning the menstuation/sexual drive theory in the same sense that I'd question the smoking/drinking/heart disease theory. How do we account for women who have never experienced PMS [like ME]? How can *I* associate thoughts of a light or a darkness if my light has been constant?

Theories are simply theories, and must be put to the test, revisited, and revised. Each revision will, perhaps, go back one step further in determining cause for effect, but I don't think we'll be anywhere CLOSE to conclusions until the DNA chains of all species have been identified and compared. Even THEN we'll have unanswered questions.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 18, 2000.

Anita,

I haven't read your post yet, but I just wanted to answer your first comment. I wasn't apologizing for disagreeing with her at all; I'd never do that with anyone. I was just regretting that I presented the post so formally -- like a schoolmarm would -- that's all.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 18, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Sorry if somebody else already answered this. I was skimming and missed it. The number of answers fluctuates because it is a count of the replies that have arrived during the previous week. If the number goes down on any given day that means that the number of answers that came in during the past day is less than how many came in on the same day one week earlier.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), May 18, 2000.