Messages By: trtlelove

I've been a Dr. Phil fan for a while and this is the first time I've ever posted a message.  I feel the same way as some others who have posted here and I have counseled men myself on this matter; i.e. If a woman doesn't already know how to be happy, there's nothing a man will ever be able to do to make her happy.  Happiness and PLEASURE are two totally different things.  Marlon may be able to give her some pleasure with all of the things he's trying to do, but that's not going to ever satisfy her as long as she persists in choosing to be un-happy.  I feel Happiness is an individual's choice and INDIVIDUAL responsibility.  It really surprises me that Dr. Phil is not returning to the whole "external locus of control" concept he has talked about before.  Isn't he asking Marlon to become the "external locus of control" for Shamika's happiness and vice-versa?

How dare Charles openly challenge one of our most sacred institutions: The Cult of Pairs!  How dare he presume that he has within himself the capacity to freely love and honor more than one person or intimate partner at the same time.  No one, man or woman, has that much love to give, and even if they did, they are, never, never, ever suppose to express that physically outside of their particular Cultic Pair. (And they’re never, ever, ever supposed to try to be honest about it or act with any kind of integrity.  The nerve of that guy!)  Doesn’t he know all human hearts are only big enough to love intimately one person, and one person only once we've "joined" and that’s why we call it a Cult.  It Excludes Everyone Else outside of it and it gives each of us exclusive privilege over the other person’s mind, body, heart and soul.  We lock down our love and life force so only we and maybe our children and can have access to it.  No one else!  

  

There are only two roles for a man and they are (exclusively) husband and father and two roles for a woman and they are (exclusively) wife and mother.  (Sex is optional, but really only necessary for procreation.  It has no other potentially enlightening function in the human body-mind, so don’t let any of those “Oriental” or “New Age” thinkers convince you otherwise.)  Forget loving counselor, understanding friend, or companion.  Once you have signed your sex contract, that’s it, your heart is sealed up and the exclusive property of your partner.  You can’t share it with anybody else, in any form.  No. No. No.  That makes you EVIL. And in this Cult, we ostracize people who don’t obey the rules.  Or we verbally castrate them or degrade them as human beings on National television. 

  

Our only responsibility is to procreate and raise more humans who will then go on to perpetuate the same Cult that we are devoted to.  No one has any identity that has value apart from the roles above. Period. And each person will get their love needs met in relationship with their spouses, and if those spouses do not have the capacity to meet their partners love needs, that’s just too bad.  Individual happiness or ecstatic potentially Real-God Realizing pleasure in intimate relationship with another person is not important here, only perpetuating the Cult.  If you grow at all, you better hope you grow together otherwise, tough, too bad, so sad, you can’t leave the Cult. And if you try, it’s going to cost you Big Time.   

  

We exclude intimacy and love from all other relationships in our lives because in this society, we’re only allowed to love our children and one other person from our peer group (preferably the opposite sex, but we’ve  recently made some exceptions should pairs of men or women decide to get together, but again, they have to be in Pairs as the Cult demands).  It’s the only Right way to do things, and that’s even more obvious to me now since Dr. Phil has said so! 

  

Thank you Dr. Phil for helping me see the Light! 

  

  

(Pleasse Note:  The above commentary is using a rhetorical form of writing called “hyperbole”; i.e. exaggeration to make a point, and should not be read as the author’s actual point of view.) 

  

*       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       * 

  

I would like to suggest that what I have observed as a general lack of awareness of All of the different types or “archetypes” of masculine and feminine expression (as first proposed by C. G. Jung) might be remedied by reading a short book entitled: “About Men and Women” by Tad and Noreen Guzie.  Barring that, I will attempt to make the relevance of such "lack of awareness" clear in the following. 

  

Although the Guzies do not promote polygamous relationships, they do point out that the “Mother” and “Father” archetypes are given significant positive bias in our society compared to the (female) “Companion” and (male) “Seeker” archetypes.   

  

In sum, “Mother” and “Father” get their greatest fulfillment orienting their lives towards raising children and they seek out their opposite sexed partner to fill the role of husband/father or wife/mother respectively.  They usually view the family as a “collective” and promote conventional or traditional values. They have many role models in society to guide them. 

  

In contrast, “Companion” and “Seeker” orient their lives towards individual self-discovery and development, usually through a variety of different life experiences and relationships.  They are often more inclined to challenge conventions and traditions rather than accept them blindly.  Currently, they have very few if any positive role models represented in society and are often at first confused by the dominant displays of “Mother” and “Father” models and try to conform themselves to those, even when that denies their own authentic self-expression. 

  

The “Companion” woman will orient herself towards a man as an individual, not only as a potential “husband/father”.  She usually assists him in defining himself as an individual apart from the many “roles” he is expected to fulfill within the “collective” of family or society.  “Seeker” men, function reciprocally in relationship with women. 

  

Sexuality between “Mothers” and “Fathers” is usually oriented towards procreation; where sexuality between “Companions” and “Seekers” is an exploration for its own sake and for the pleasure of the individuals. 

  

(The Guzies also outline feminine archetypes of “Amazon” and “Medium”; and masculine archetypes of “Warrior” and “Sage”, where once again the bias is in favor of the former and against the latter.  However, descriptions of these archetypes are not relevant to the current topic.) 

  

Very often during what is commonly known as the “mid-life crisis”, one may find an urge within themselves to develop their “opposite” archetype; i.e. if you have been a “Father” you may wish to develop your identity as a “Seeker”.  It is very often that “Companion” women will end up relating with men at this time in their lives . . . and, yes, they often become the “other woman”, especially if the “Mother”; i.e. the wife of such a man, is not also prepared to start exploring or developing her own “Companion” nature at the same time or at all. 

  

As the Guzies point out, although there is a strong positive bias for certain archetypes in our society and a strong negative bias towards others (a circumstance that was made glaringly obvious in this recent Dr. Phil show) they acknowledge and defend that ALL of these archetypes exist as valid expressions of masculine and feminine energy or character; they all have both “immature” and “mature” expressions, and they all have advantages and disadvantages for both the individuals and society as a whole. 

  

However, if  each is taken as part of the whole, these archetypes serve to maintain balance within the individual and in society, organizing our relationships in both the interpersonal and social planes, in relationship to the material and spiritual worlds.  However, in our current society, which is so positively biased towards certain archetypes and negatively biased towards others, we as human beings are generally failing to reach our full potential; both as individuals and members of our families and society as a whole, as well as with respect to material and spiritual life. 

  

I am very sorry for that.  However, I am extremely grateful to Charles and Tracy; Charles’ “Companion” woman, and Dr. Phil for bringing this consideration to a wider audience and inspiring me to write publicly about a subject that has been at the forefront of my own awareness for nearly a decade.  May we all come to a better understanding of ourselves and of each other and become more tolearant and open minded in considering the what are the "right" ways for us to be relating to one another. 

  

 

Peace and Love All-Ways, 

  

Turtle Love 

The cover story of the current issue of National Geographic is "Love: The Chemical Reaction".  After

reading the article I did a  web based follow-up on "oxytocin" a hormone that has been linked to our

experience of feelings of love.


The following is quoted from an article I found at:   http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html

discussing the ways in which different areas of the brain are activated when we experience

different "types" of love:

"Because they are independent, these three systems [lust, romantic love and long-term attachment] can
work simultaneously — with dangerous results. As Dr. Fisher explains, 'You can feel deep attachment for
a long-term spouse, while you feel romantic love for someone else, while you feel the sex drive in
situations unrelated to either partner.' This independence means it is possible to love more than
one person at a time, a situation that leads to jealousy, adultery and divorce — though also to the
possibilities of promiscuity and polygamy, with the likelihood of extra children, and thus a bigger stake
in the genetic future, that those behaviours bring. As Dr. Fisher observes, 'We were not built to be happy
but to reproduce.'" (Emphasis mine.)

In other words, in spite of everyone's derision to the contrary, Charles could have been speaking truthfully
when he expressed "sincere feelings" for both his mistress and his wife, because on some level, that is
something we are all biologically programmed to be capable of. And just because certain rather vocal
groups on this forum think they have a monopoly on the "rules" for how we are all to deal with these biol-
logically programmed capabilities does not mean that those "rules" are the "best and only" ones everyone
else should be forced to follow.

Furthermore, if these capacities are inherent in our very biology, how can any person be judged less worthy
of respect or love for having expressed them openly?

Dear Vendros,

I am totally grateful to Charles and Tracy, the "other woman" and Dr. Phil for bringing this show and the issues it raises into the public eye.  I think it is interesting how it has brought what seem like the "extremes" in viewpoints under one "roof" through this forum.  There may be some people here who never knew that legitimate, functional polyamorous relationships existed up until now, and even though we are hearing extreme criticism from many, I suspect there are others who don't feel so motivated to speak who are being (literally) more "considerate"; (i.e. they are "considering" other possibilities and other points of view, maybe for the first time in their lives.)  With respect to some of the other more condemning members of this forum, I note (possibly) in the words of Shakespeare they " . . . . protest too much".

And who's to blame them.  We are talking about a really radical re-definition of loving and intimate relational behaviors -- changing ways of interacting that have been hammered into our minds and into our laws for thousands of years.  Nevertheless, I do think it is time for change.  We may be witnessing the fertilization of those seeds that current poly's have been nurturing for some time, and who knows how this movement my grow?

The article that I quoted earlier concerning the independence of the brain systems involved in feeling lust, romantic love and long-term attachment was new even to me only a day ago.  However, I think its implications and relevancy to this discussion cannot be ignored.  Furthermore, if indeed we are biologically programmed, even hard-wired to experience "love" in so many different ways, and even in different ways with different people at the same time, then what we have really been suffering all these centuries is a social limitation of that capacity rather than any real one.

Personally, I have already begun to recognize in myself the limitation I have experienced because the things that attract me to a person physically, and the things that attract me to a person emotionally/spiritually and the things that attract me to a person practically; i.e. for a long-term commitment, are all very, very different.  And I don't think there were specific choices I made in developing those preferences and I suspect there is only so much "manipulation" and "re-training" I might be able to do to over-ride my programming.

Consequently, up to now I have been in some ways "doomed" because there was no way I could be truly satisfied in a relationship.  The sex might be great but there were no feelings of romance or deeper attachment.  The functional day to day satisfaction might have been there, but there was no sexual attraction, etc., etc.  And if you really think about, with there being three totally independent systems, for any two people to "match", consistently, on all levels, that's really not that likely.  And that may very well be why so many "pairs" don't survive, or in the one's that do, some part of them is left un-satisfied; i.e. they don't get to give and receive love in every way that they could, in every way that they are (apparently) biologically "programmed" to.

Now, however, I'm already thinking more in terms of polyamory.  I know men who can touch me on an emotional/spiritual level that may do nothing for me physically.  I know men who can totally arouse me physically, who do nothing for me emotionally or spiritually.  And I know men who I could see living functionally with on a day to day basis.  Who knows, maybe "polyamory" is in my future.  And now I know where to turn to for advice. : ))  (And that may not necessarily be the Dr. Phil show . . .  : ))

No offense to Dr. Phil.  I think he's done some wonderful service to the world and obviously helped many, many people.  But he's not God, and I don't think he has All the answers.

I would also like to think, that since he is such a "reality based" person, he will take a moment to double-check the new discoveries about the "realities" of our biological natures when it comes to our experiences of love.

It just may turn out that he's going to have to "eat some crow" down the road, and we'll be here to see if he can be as Big a Man about it as Charles has been.

. . . . I don't know.  I'd say Dr. Phil has a lot more riding on people's opinions of him than Charles does, so it will be interesting to see if we ever hear anything more about this via his show . . . . ???

I'm glad that you and your husband are satisfied in your marriage.  However, even with that being the case, it seems there are surely an awful lot of people in the world who are struggling, for all kinds of reasons, including some of the one's you have pointed out and many, many, many others.

We're all trying to learn to be happy and satisfied with one another.  It seems that some people have managed to do that in polyamorous relationships and others would like to try.  Furthermore, for such relationships to be successful, it seems to me that it would require an even greater capacity for self-awareness, effective communication, understanding and love, not less.  No longer would you have only your partner's needs to consider in addition to your own, but those of possibly several other people as well.

I agree, there are a lot of people who can't make it work with just two people.  But if there are people who are managing to make it work with several, all I can say is "More power to you!"

I'm not questioning if your faith is real, I'm questioning if your Love is real. 

  

I have been observing many people (but not all) who have posted here, some (but not all) of them professing to be Christian who have expressed more interest in being "right" than in being loving.  Furthermore, they have actually used scriptures from the Bible to justify their lovelessness. 

  

If God is a God of love, then I wonder how he might be feeling about that? 

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html 

  

What I understood from reading it was that each human being has the capacity to experience "love" (chemically) in many different ways such as lust, romantic love, and long-term attachment.  What cues and mechanisms are involved in creating those experiences for each person may be very different.  However, where all parties concerned are consenting adults, I'm not sure that it's anyone else's business to define or limit their experiences of "love", however that ends up working out for them. 

  

Re: "Finding someone to give myself to 100% and them giving 100% to me."  I'm almost 41 years old.  I've never been in a serious "living together" kind of relationship for over a year.  I've been to college, been on the road with a carnival, lived in Kentucky, Tennessee, Montana, England, Hawaii, Colorado, Illinois, Virginia, and Maryland.  I spent three years aboard an aircraft carrier with as many as 5000 men aboard when deployed and I've spent the last couple of years viewing and being viewed by thousands of other men via various on-line services.  I'm intelligent, well-educated, I have a sense of humor and I'd say my physical attractiveness is at least a little above average.  I'm active in both work and community organizations and I really am a genuinely caring and compassionate woman whose been in and out of a lot of different relationships.  Consequently, if it's a "numbers" game I'm playing, I'm thinking there's a pretty good chance I should have "won" by now. 

  

However, what has come to my attention through reading the article above is that given my mother's schizophrenia and my nephew's autism, there's a chance I've got some "oxytocin" regulation issues myself that simply haven't manifested in any severe symptoms other than the fact that I haven't really "bonded" with anyone.  Maybe my system needs a lot of different experiences to stimulate the "love" chemicals, and get's bored easily when things are too much the same from day to day in a relationship?  As I suggested earlier, I doubt there would be a whole lot I could do to re-program my biochemistry, maybe to try to force it to adapt to a long-term monogamous relationship.  So would you "doom" me to a loveless experience of life because you think monogamous marriage is the best alternative for everyone? 

  

And with regards to the institution of marriage . . . . my understanding is that, initially, it had a lot more to do with securing property rights for the (usually male) offspring than any of the more "romantic", personally fulfilling ideas we have about it today.  That's why it was a much bigger deal for women to be faithful.  If they bore another man's child, it could potentially undermine the transfer of property through the lawful husband's bloodline. (And, of course, it's much easier to keep track of and divide property in one bloodline rather than several.)  Furthermore, as far as men fantasizing about having many women, back then women were often seen merely as property; the more women they had, the "wealthier" these men were seen to be by their peers.  If anything, they may have felt any sexual involvement to be an obligation and a burden rather than something to fantasize about. 

  

Re: "I think a lot is lost and the quality of life is less when you live this way. A good marriage is ten times better than polyfidelity." 

  

Do you know this from direct personal experience or are you just stating an opinion?  I'll have to be honest with you, when it comes to forming an opinion about polyfidelity myself, I would probably be a little more inclined to listen to people who have mutually agreed to be in such arrangements rather than someone without such experience.  And if you really want to know, I probably would not make a final judgment about it until I had actually had an opportunity to try it for myself. 

  

Once again, I appreciate that the possibility has been brought to the table, so now I do know where to go for more information. 

  

Thanks again Charles, Tracy, "Other Woman", Dr. Phil and the polamorists who have posted to this forum. : )) 

Thanks!  Thanks for letting yourself really consider my point of view even though it is very different from yours.  I can tell where your heart is in communication with me, and I feel your concern.  That means a lot.  The program and my follow-up research has generated what feels something like an "explosion" or "break through" of new self-awareness and understanding for me and I value having the opportunity to continue to "process" in this forum and with other people sharing their ideas as well. 

  

I'd like to share something of my approach here, which I think is really important.  First of all, I have absolutely no doubt about my inherent worth as a person, both as a biological or natural being and as a spiritual being; the mysterious combination of which makes us all the human beings that we are.  I believe that everything, both both tangible and intangible, is a manifestation of Divine Consciousness and there is a reason that everything and everyone is exactly the way they are.  I believe we are all intimately involved in a process of growth with implications for both our material and spiritual destinies for individuals and for the whole of humanity. 

  

Consequently, as I have more deeply considered my particular "case" as I have described it to you in the earlier message, I have asked myself the questions:  1) How does this fit into the picture with respect to biology and biological evolution and 2) How does this fit into the picture with respect to spiritual growth, even to the point of becoming perfectly enlightened.  With the assumption that it "belongs" in there somewhere and for some reason, all I have to do is ask the question "Why?". 

  

This is something I've been doing all my life, and very frequently I get some very interesting answers.  In this case . . . are you ready for this . . . ? . . . .  

  

Re: Question #1 - It seems we have these biochemical mechanisms within us which affect the way we "bond" to one another and although we see the value of forming strong bonds to raise children, etc. obviously, that process of bonding has a very broad range of variation.  How is that "adaptive"?  How does that actually help us survive as a species? 

  

Well, think about it . . . . What if our bonds were so tight the death of a partner resulted in incapacitating depression or even suicide?  What if our bonds to our children were so strong, we never let them leave the "nest" and they never wanted to?  What if our bonds to home and country were so strong we never went "exploring"?  What if our bonds to a certain point of view were so strong, we could never consider another's? 

  

Do you see what I'm getting at? 

  

The truth is, although I may not have had that experience of being "happily bound" in a long term relationship with another person, I have actually had some really, really enjoyable experiences in my life.  As you may have noticed, I've lived in a lot of different places.  I've met and even been intimate with a lot of different people who have awakened me to many different facets of myself and vice versa.  Although I've struggled over the endings of some of my relationships, I can now see where part of that was made worse by the expectation that "everyone" is supposed to find their happiness in a "long-term, committed, monogamous" relationship. 

  

You know, I've had people tell me, "You're the most interesting person I've ever met."  Well, maybe that's because I've been free to explore the world and relationships without feeling bound to family, society, or any particular point of view.  I've been able to read and embrace new ideas very easily and I have found my own way to an authentic expression of myself and I did that without any help from Dr. Phil. (Although I will acknowledge that there were lots of other authors and speakers before him who have influenced me. : )) 

  

Re: Question #2 -- What are the "spiritual implications"?  Well, I think that even though we experience biological life here, it is not the only part of our experience.  There are certain pretty obvious limitations to such existence.  It seems our biological patterning has within it a force that merely wants to keep the ball rolling, so to speak, without regards to the affects that may have on any particular individual.  There is life, but there is also death of this biological body. To be identified with that, to be bound by that is to be identified and bound to limitation. 

  

But, in our most essential nature, I do not feel we are so limited.  What is "eternal" and un-changing persists long after these bodies are dead and burried and maybe, for some of us who are not as inclined to being bound by biological programming and chemical interactions, we have more of an opportunity to realize or identify with that eternal and transcendent part of our humanness. 

  

From my current point of view, I can see how this matrix of relationships, with each in some ways "opposed to" but also "balancing out" the other, allows for the whole to be sustained within this physical plane without losing its connection to the spiritual plane as well.   

  

One of the key components of evolutionary growth is not just differentiation or specialization but also cooperation; all of the different parts learning from each other and working together as a whole. 

  

Far from being "disturbed" by the possibility that "people are hoplelessly wired different", I can only say, "Thank God!" that we are! : )) 

Judy Blue 22, 

  

Thanks for sharing. : )) 

  

Peace, 

  

Turtle Love 

Thanks for being willing to communicate relationally with me, because that is what has allowed this "synthesis" of ideas to occur.   

  

Now I understand better as well. : )) 

  

Peace Be With you, 

  

Turtle Love