hi all
So as far as i can tell there's never really been a thread on homosexuality and as a gay male i figured i would start one just to open it to discussion
Here's what Ra has to say about it
Quote:Homosexuality
31.8 Questioner: We have what seems to be an increasing number of entities incarnate here now who have what is called a homosexual orientation in this respect. Could you explain and expand upon that concept?
Ra: I am Ra. Entities of this condition experience a great deal of distortion due to the fact that they have experienced many incarnations as biological male and as biological female. This would not suggest what you call homosexuality in an active phase were it not for the difficult vibratory condition of your planetary sphere. There is what you may call great aura infringement among your crowded urban areas in your more populous countries, as you call portions of your planetary surface. Under these conditions the confusions will occur.
31.9 Questioner: Why does density of population create these confusions?
Ra: I am Ra. The bisexual reproductive urge has as its goal, not only the simple reproductive function, but more especially the desire to serve others being awakened by this activity.
In an over-crowded situation where each mind/body/spirit complex is under a constant bombardment from other-selves it is understandable that those who are especially sensitive would not feel the desire to be of service to otherselves. This also would increase the probability of a lack of desire or a blockage of the red-ray reproductive energy.
In an uncrowded atmosphere this same entity would, through the stimulus of feeling the solitude about it, then have much more desire to seek out someone to whom it may be of service thus regularizing the sexual reproductive function.
31.10 Questioner: Roughly how many previous incarnations, shall we say, would a male entity in this incarnation have had to have had in the past as a female to have a highly homosexual orientation in this incarnation? Just roughly.
Ra: I am Ra. If an entity has had roughly 65% of its incarnations in the sexual/biological body complex, the opposite polarity to its present body complex, this entity is vulnerable to the aura infringement of your urban areas and may perhaps become of what you call an homosexual nature.
It is to be noted at this juncture that although it is much more difficult, it is possible in this type of association for an entity to be of great service to another in fidelity and sincere green-ray love of a nonsexual nature thus adjusting or lessening the distortions of its sexual impairment.
For me personally, i've come out to my immediate family, work and friends and have been in a committed relationship for 10 months now. I can see how being gay impacted me whilst growing up (being aware at a very early age of my sexuality) and in particular that it wasnt accepted or considered normal by those around me. This led to alot of fear around my sexuality and expressing it, influenced my perception of myself and others and may have contributed to my diagnosis of depression. In the end some of my fears of coming out particularly to my parents were well founded but workable with time. What made me overcome alot of my initial fears was actually my growing regard for blue ray "the first ray of radiation of self regardless of any actions from another".
In the end I dont know whether aura infringement and past incarnations in the opposite gender played a role, nor do i know whether an uncrowded atmosphere would have made me straight. I dont really consider being gay a "sexual impairment" lol but it does comes with some unique catalyst.
Anyways feel free to comment or discuss
Regardless of what "caused it", I don't think homosexuals should be viewed as a defective product, especially in a spiritual community. It might make certain aspects of life more difficult, but it doesn't mean there's something wrong with you and you need to "heal yourself straight." You have as much chance to radiate love and compassion as anyone else.
I would also note that quite often in a homosexual relationship, one party will possess a great deal of energy from the opposite gender. I've been told I carry an unusual amount of male energy and I'm mildly bisexual. In my mind this would make it very similar to a straight relationship when it comes to energy exchanges, the only difference being in the physical body.
Also, the majority of deep spiritual seekers I know are at least somewhat bi. As unconditional love for other selves grows, it's hard to avoid EVERYTHING taking on a sexual undertone. I've had some pretty erotic experiences with trees...
Thanks for starting this thread spero, it is certainly an interesting topic within the Ra material that has a lot of bearing on modern life.
On the December 21st edition of the In The Now radio show Jim answers a question about homosexuality and the shift to 4D. According to him, while homosexual energy transfers might not be as efficient in terms of red-ray, they are just as efficient for green-ray transfers. Jim says he is not sure if homosexuality will continue into 4D or whether it is a distortion that will fall away. Personally I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be homosexual relationships past 3D, if anything maybe homosexuality won't be an issue anymore as people become more pansexual as Brittany Lynn says
here's a link to the radio show if you want.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/llresearch/...l-rueckert
(01-02-2013, 11:03 AM)Spaced Wrote: [ -> ]On the December 21st edition of the In The Now radio show Jim answers a question about homosexuality and the shift to 4D. According to him, while homosexual energy transfers might not be as efficient in terms of red-ray, they are just as efficient for green-ray transfers. Jim says he is not sure if homosexuality will continue into 4D or whether it is a distortion that will fall away.
I don't resonate at all with what Jim says here, I would not make a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relationships in terms of energy transfers, comes across a bit judgmental to me.
I also believe it won't be an issue in 4D whether one is bi- hetero- homo, whatnot... there is only one love.
(01-02-2013, 01:24 PM)Meerie Wrote: [ -> ]I don't resonate at all with what Jim says here, I would not make a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relationships in terms of energy transfers, comes across a bit judgmental to me.
I don't think it's judgmental to acknowledge that some interactions might be more efficient, in certain ways, than others. Magnetic energies are very real. There's no question that gay couples face catalysts that hetero couples don't. But then, mixed-race couples face other catalysts that same-race couples don't. Couples compatible in height might have an easier time with sex than those who are mismatched in size or other physical attributes. Someone with a physical handicap faces certain catalysts not faced by those who don't have that handicap. (just to give some examples)
It's all just variations of catalyst. One type of catalyst isn't any better or worse than any other. I don't think it's judgmental to say, for example, that I face certain catalyst because I'm short. I'm going to have more trouble playing basketball than someone who is tall. It just is what it is.
Jim and Carla are so loving. They weren't being judgmental, but were just trying to acknowledge certain types of catalyst that gay couples might face. I think it's unrealistic to say that energy transfers are all the same. Energy transfers aren't even the same among hetero couples! One hetero couple might have much more efficient energy transfer than another. There are many factors that come into play, not just whether they are gay or hetero. But it is one of many factors.
(01-02-2013, 01:47 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's unrealistic to say that energy transfers are all the same. Energy transfers aren't even the same among hetero couples! One hetero couple might have much more efficient energy transfer than another. There are many factors that come into play, not just whether they are gay or hetero. But it is one of many factors.
I don't think they are all the same either, and I agree there are many other factors, but they have the same potential imo, and Jim seems to make a distinction here, implying that homosexual relationships might not be as effective in red ray. That is all.
I conceptualize 'gender' and 'sexuality' as a continuum or spectrum. We slide along this spectrum between masculine and feminine, or heterosexuality and homosexuality at various times for various reasons. Unfortunately, in this confused state, we have a tendency to think in inflexible ways - either/or, black-and-white (e.g., male/female or hetro/homosexual).
(01-02-2013, 10:49 AM)Brittany Lynn Wrote: [ -> ]Regardless of what "caused it", I don't think homosexuals should be viewed as a defective product, especially in a spiritual community.
So would you call someone born with a birth 'defect' defective then?
Every distortion is oppurtunity for catalyst. Nothing more, and nothing less. Each person has a different pre-incarnative curriculum, and to judge anything 'good' or 'bad' is a distortion in the one doing the judging.
(01-02-2013, 02:08 PM)GentleReckoning Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2013, 10:49 AM)Brittany Lynn Wrote: [ -> ]Regardless of what "caused it", I don't think homosexuals should be viewed as a defective product, especially in a spiritual community.
So would you call someone born with a birth 'defect' defective then?
Every distortion is oppurtunity for catalyst. Nothing more, and nothing less. Each person has a different pre-incarnative curriculum, and to judge anything 'good' or 'bad' is a distortion in the one doing the judging.
I don't think she meant it like that. Reread her post.
(01-02-2013, 02:12 PM)rie Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2013, 02:08 PM)GentleReckoning Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2013, 10:49 AM)Brittany Lynn Wrote: [ -> ]Regardless of what "caused it", I don't think homosexuals should be viewed as a defective product, especially in a spiritual community.
So would you call someone born with a birth 'defect' defective then?
Every distortion is oppurtunity for catalyst. Nothing more, and nothing less. Each person has a different pre-incarnative curriculum, and to judge anything 'good' or 'bad' is a distortion in the one doing the judging.
I don't think she meant it like that. Reread her post.
I was wondering why she independently brought it up as though something in the previous post insinuated that homosexuality makes a person defective in some way...
(01-02-2013, 02:14 PM)GentleReckoning Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2013, 02:12 PM)rie Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2013, 02:08 PM)GentleReckoning Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2013, 10:49 AM)Brittany Lynn Wrote: [ -> ]Regardless of what "caused it", I don't think homosexuals should be viewed as a defective product, especially in a spiritual community.
So would you call someone born with a birth 'defect' defective then?
Every distortion is oppurtunity for catalyst. Nothing more, and nothing less. Each person has a different pre-incarnative curriculum, and to judge anything 'good' or 'bad' is a distortion in the one doing the judging.
I don't think she meant it like that. Reread her post.
I was wondering why she independently brought it up as though something in the previous post insinuated that homosexuality makes a person defective in some way...
I think that comment was simply addressing a commonly held belief in our society, though I don't presume to speak for Brittany Lynn
(01-02-2013, 02:16 PM)Spaced Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2013, 02:14 PM)GentleReckoning Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2013, 02:12 PM)rie Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2013, 02:08 PM)GentleReckoning Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2013, 10:49 AM)Brittany Lynn Wrote: [ -> ]Regardless of what "caused it", I don't think homosexuals should be viewed as a defective product, especially in a spiritual community.
So would you call someone born with a birth 'defect' defective then?
Every distortion is oppurtunity for catalyst. Nothing more, and nothing less. Each person has a different pre-incarnative curriculum, and to judge anything 'good' or 'bad' is a distortion in the one doing the judging.
I don't think she meant it like that. Reread her post.
I was wondering why she independently brought it up as though something in the previous post insinuated that homosexuality makes a person defective in some way...
I think that comment was simply addressing a commonly held belief in our society, though I don't presume to speak for Brittany Lynn
If she confirms that this is her thought, I will address this post.
Unfortunately it's been conceptualized as a 'defect' before... the psychiatric community had homosexuality as a mental illness up until the 1980s. Not to mention the 'taboo' of it, which exists even to this day.
Spero,
I am a heterosexual male. (according to the majority of social opinion), which is what Ra was attempting to convey.
It is the majority opinion of populated living conditions which establishes the more prominent views and opinions as the 'norm' or the most widely accepted with that set of views and opinions.
When living in a place where majority opinion does not matter as much because the differences are not separated by greater numbers, one would naturally not be subjected to the differing opinions as much.
Thus a more populated social setting would create an increased separation between the majority opinion and minority opinion.
This is why we all, regardless of orientations, sexual or otherwise, tend to gather in places where we find like-minded company.
Unfortunately there are many who do not appreciate that opportunity to gather in such comfort zones, and would strive to impose their ways on those who would not be comfortable with them.
These ruin the whole aspect of social tolerance and compromise for the sake of comfort and sharing spaces. Society as a whole has certain rights as well as its particular components. And individual components of society should tolerate and compromise for that opportunity just as they ask for the same in return.
If one believes that they should be able to have sex with their mate anywhere at any time, then they should also realize that in order to live in a large social structure and be able to enjoy that opportunity, they must consider the higher priority of all that share that space with them.
Do what you want in the privacy of your home.
Do not impose your freedom on the freedom of others. Grant the same sanctity to freedom that you place on it, to others who also deserve it as much as you do.
I do not consider myself a heterosexual, nor a homosexual. Nor am I what many would call gay.
The physical gender of my birth form has nothing to do with who I am, or what preferences I have.
It is simple genetic reproduction according to design. Just because certain parts are reproductive organs does not mean that they must therefore decide the orientations of desire.
If you are attracted to anything, it is a natural attraction based upon your entire self aspect. Why should the majority opinion of a social structure even be considered as a means of governing one's natural attraction. That in itself is an unnatural expectation.
Unfortunately, it is the majority of opinion.
I believe that a person should follow their attractions and enjoy whenever someone else is able to share that attraction with you.
But I also believe that there are certain interactions that are so intimate that they should not be shared in a public setting.
That is what the door is on the bedroom for.
Who's business is it what the hell we are doing on the other side of that door as long as they don't have to be subjected to it?
My parent's didn't have sex in front of us kids.
Why would they?
Why would we want to see it?
Most people would be appalled at the idea, and yet there are many who believe that they have a right to express their sexual frolicking anywhere they choose without regard for a social structure at all.
It is not the aspect of society which attempts to manage a comfort setting for all, that becomes the imposer in those cases. Rather it is the individual aspect of society which wants to impose its intolerance of others on everyone, for some sense of imposed acknowledgement of their choices and orientations.
I have no problem with homosexuality at all, except to say that it is not conducent to reproduction, or the natural child bearing form of human family development. The family suffers when it is void of either the male or female influence. Families can certainly be raised without issue in lieu of the perfect family setting, but without the male and female roles one of those nurturing values will be missed and reveal its consequence in some way.
There is some sense of loss when the human family individually loses one aspect of its gender, just as the human which is actually, genetically, both female and male, loses something from the full experience when it lives without one of those influences in its maturing experience.
Everyone, in a perfect setting, deserves the experience of both a mommy and a daddy.
Perfect settings are rare and few between. And even there the perfection of that setting would be scarred by the imposition of the parents on the children where the parent's intimate physical sharing was forced upon the little ones.
Like a family, we must all be considerate of each others spaces and comfort levels.
And when that doesn't work both ways, from both sides, designations are made by the majority experiencing it.
Normal? What the hell is normal?
Imposition? Well we all know what that is, and it really only has one definition.
Do what you will, but know that you reap the consequences both as an individual and as a whole.
Remember this if you are a homosexual that would like to be able to bring your child to a parade without having them exposed to S&M.
And remember this if you are a heterosexual that would like your gay child to be able to walk through town with one they are attracted to without being stoned to death.
Ok, I'll bite.
"I don't think homosexuals should be viewed as a defective product"
She is taking a defensive stance regarding homosexuality to an attack on homosexuality that doesn't exist on this forum.
"I think that comment was simply addressing a commonly held belief in our society"
There are many commonly held beliefs in society that are completely and totally disregarded on b4th.
(01-02-2013, 02:29 PM)GentleReckoning Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, I'll bite.
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing or do you have a point?
(01-02-2013, 02:32 PM)rie Wrote: [ -> ]Are you arguing for the sake of arguing or do you have a point?
Pre-emptively assuming an attack on something usually signifies an insecurity. I was hoping people would pick up on that without me actually saying it.
:-/
As with everything here, thats my angle and you're free to ignore it. It seems that I am applying my own level of seeking to others that might not be pursuing growth as recklessly as myself.
Strong blue ray works much better in person where the foundation of green ray is clearly evident.
Unless I get some validation soon, I'll likely curtail my posting as this level of relentlessly illuminating possible distortion is not easily made use of on a forum.
(01-02-2013, 02:16 PM)Spaced Wrote: [ -> ]I think that comment was simply addressing a commonly held belief in our society, though I don't presume to speak for Brittany Lynn
That's how I took it too. Look at how, to this day, Christians try to 'cure' homosexuals, and judge them as 'evil.' It's hideous.
This brings up a good point, though. No one gets offended if a heart 'defect' is labeled as such. Those with disabilities are recognized as having imbalances and even defects. But because of all the hatred and bigotry directed at gays, it's now very delicate to even hint that it could be any sort of imbalance at all. Look at how Jim's tactfully and lovingly expressed opinions were construed as judgmental.
It's sad that the bigots have so fouled the the topic that it's like walking on eggshells to even have a discussion about it.
Who's insecurity are you talking about? It was merely a question.
Wow, this is hilarious. I'm not sure I've ever had so many words crammed into my mouth. <chokes and dies>
Getting back to the topic, before I ever read the Law of One, I had already concluded that we've all been gay at various times. It made perfect sense to me that we would spend a number of lifetimes as one gender, then switch over to the other gender, and that transitional lifetime might likely be gay.
In light of that, it's ludicrous to judge homosexuality as any sort of sickness or 'sin' as the Christians say. That doesn't mean it might not be an imbalance. But aren't we all imbalanced in some way or another? One imbalance isn't any worse than any other. Anyone with extra weight on them, or any sort of illness, or any sort of emotional issues, has imbalances. We all have imbalances. There is nothing judgmental about that.
Maybe being gay might be considered an imbalance in the current lifetime, only because it presents certain catalyst, but it's perfectly normal and natural, when viewed as part of the big picture. If we've all been gay at various times, then it's obviously normal and natural to have those gay lifetimes as we transition from one gender to the next. This should also heighten our compassion, knowing that we've been gay too. Any sort of judgment goes out the window.
The Christians have a hard time with it because they don't believe in reincarnation. They just have an ancient book that contains a lot of bigotry, to rely on.
When I read the Law of One, and Ra's elucidation further confirmed what I had concluded. But it also raised the question: What is the optimal response to this particular catalyst? Since the entity is in the process of switching to the other gender, shouldn't that be taken into consideration?
It's easy for us heteros to philosophize about it, but unless we're actually in that position, our opinions mean nothing. The most important thing we can do is to promote gay rights and do what we can to end the bigotry. We must stand up for gay rights even if we're not gay.
(01-02-2013, 03:32 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Getting back to the topic, before I ever read the Law of One, I had already concluded that we've all been gay at various times. It made perfect sense to me that we would spend a number of lifetimes as one gender, then switch over to the other gender, and that transitional lifetime might likely be gay.
In light of that, it's ludicrous to judge homosexuality as any sort of sickness or 'sin' as the Christians say. That doesn't mean it might not be an imbalance. But aren't we all imbalanced in some way or another? One imbalance isn't any worse than any other. Anyone with extra weight on them, or any sort of illness, or any sort of emotional issues, has imbalances. We all have imbalances. There is nothing judgmental about that.
Maybe being gay might be considered an imbalance in the current lifetime, only because it presents certain catalyst, but it's perfectly normal and natural, when viewed as part of the big picture. If we've all been gay at various times, then it's obviously normal and natural to have those gay lifetimes as we transition from one gender to the next. This should also heighten our compassion, knowing that we've been gay too. Any sort of judgment goes out the window.
The Christians have a hard time with it because they don't believe in reincarnation. They just have an ancient book that contains a lot of bigotry, to rely on.
When I read the Law of One, and Ra's elucidation further confirmed what I had concluded. But it also raised the question: What is the optimal response to this particular catalyst? Since the entity is in the process of switching to the other gender, shouldn't that be taken into consideration?
It's easy for us heteros to philosophize about it, but unless we're actually in that position, our opinions mean nothing. The most important thing we can do is to promote gay rights and do what we can to end the bigotry. We must stand up for gay rights even if we're not gay.
I agree wholeheartedly, but how do we support a cause that is corrupted by the extreme actions of some of its proponents?
There is big difference between being gay, and being a person who wants to flaunt sadomasochism, or publicize their sexual exploits live.
I would support any effort to have those who may want to be able to take a mate of the same gender and live free from judgement and ridicule.
But I do not support those who want to publicly expose themselves, and their sexual intimacies, in vulgar display at every opportunity, especially those opportunities that allow them to flaunt that which should not be shared in public, just to spite the public confusion surrounding it. And unfortunately for us all, that seems to be the face of the gay movement in these times.
As always Monica, which I have often unsuccessfully tried to convey to you on many fronts, the dynamics of the whole matter must not be cast aside for mere action.
(01-02-2013, 04:58 PM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]There is big difference between being gay, and being a person who wants to flaunt sadomasochism, or publicize their sexual exploits live.
You just answered your own question!
Sadomasochism has nothing to do with being gay.
(01-02-2013, 05:03 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2013, 04:58 PM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]There is big difference between being gay, and being a person who wants to flaunt sadomasochism, or publicize their sexual exploits live.
You just answered your own question!
Sadomasochism has nothing to do with being gay.
Sorry Hon, what was the question?
And yup, that's what I just said above. Did you not get what I had written there Monica, or are you only reading one sentence of my post and then responding to that one sentence?
Wait a minute, I just realized why you are responding to me the way that you do.
Please, Please, if you cannot either understand my thinking or at least consider my thoughts in their entirety, then try to ignore me.
I do not seem to be sharing anything with you that you are not somehow taking wrong and as an insult to you. And I do not want to be insulting you all of the time when I try to respond to you.
Thanks for the interesting points guys and gals. Spaced, thanks for the link, i listened to it this morning, cheers. Lol Brittany Lynn, i've had some interesting experiences with trees whilst tripping lol. I agree Rie that its a continuum, almost to the point i didnt want to use the labels gay, or bi, or straight just because its overly simplistic thinking. GentleReckoning i see your point and that your coming from a place of love...dont stop posting lol.
Monica i was looking at this quote when i woke up
Quote:31.5 Questioner: If a sexual energy transfer occurs in green ray— and I am assuming in this case that there is no red-ray energy transfer— does this mean it is impossible then for this particular transfer to include fertilization and the birthing of an entity?
Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. There is always the red-ray energy transfer due to the nature of the body complex. The random result of this energy transfer will be as it will be, as a function of the possibility of fertilization at a given time in a given pairing of entities. The green-ray energy transfer occurs due to the vibratory rate of each entity being undistorted in any vital sense by the yellow- or orange-ray energies; thus the gift, shall we say, being given freely, no payment being requested either of the body, of the mind, or of the spirit. The green ray is one of complete universality of love. This is a giving without expectation of return.
i suppose if red ray energy transfer is all about the possibility of fertilization, then it makes sense gay couples wouldnt be very efficient at it lol
i see what your saying Shin'ra and you raise interesting points.
Quote:I do not support those who want to publicly expose themselves, and their sexual intimacies, in vulgar display at every opportunity, especially those opportunities that allow them to flaunt that which should not be shared in public, just to spite the public confusion surrounding it.
Sometimes kissing my partner in public or holding their hand in a busy street brings on a twinge of fear of judgement. Maybe the extreme displays of vulgarity you seem to be witnessing in the 'gay movement' is the result of repression and judgment of even the simplest expressions of intimacy between gay couples (at least in portions or segments of society) finding alternate avenues of expression.
(01-02-2013, 05:48 PM)spero Wrote: [ -> ]Sometimes kissing my partner in public or holding their hand in a busy street brings on a twinge of fear of judgement. Maybe the extreme displays of vulgarity you seem to be witnessing in the 'gay movement' is the result of repression and judgment of even the simplest expressions of intimacy between gay couples (at least in portions or segments of society) finding alternate avenues of expression.
I think displays of affection toward each other, and the way that a biased society frowns on anything that tests their boundaries, is simply a manifestation of intolerance.
It should be dismissed as just another of many of societies imperfections as a whole.
When you want to express love and affection toward the one that you love, let no other field come into that sacred place. It belongs only to the love you share and to no other experience.
However, if we consider that intimacy as being so sacred, so also should we consider the very much more intimate nature of the sexual expression of that love and attraction. It is a violation of the intimate nature of that sacred love to share it publicly. And it is not something that we should be exposing our children to until they are of a proper age to understand the intricacies of it.
Just to give you an example of what I speak of, in my town we started a public event which we called our Mardi Gras. The first year, it was a grand success, and brought a great economic bonus to the city. People came from all over to partake in it and it was a great success.
The next year the gay rights movement decided to use the opportunity to expose their efforts to a mass portion of the public by attending that even in full regalia.
There were people with their small children waiting at bus stops and walking the city streets trying to enjoy the event as they had done the year before, but now, at every corner, there were people displaying themselves in the most vulgar manner you can imagine with dildos hanging between their legs and all sorts of paraphernalia having to do with sadomasochism.
These are not true proponents of gay lifestyle and rights. these are the same parasites who would also take advantage of a natural disaster to loot stores or to cause riots at large sporting events so they can loot a store during the mayhem.
The equal rights movement of homosexuals has been sabotaged and taken over by those who really just want to flaunt their promiscuous and vulgar life styles in the faces of the public who do not care for their ways.
So when we speak of supporting gay rights we must be cautious of exactly what we are actually supporting.
4D orgies ! oh man those will be awesome, lots of love around.
(01-02-2013, 04:23 AM)spero Wrote: [ -> ]Anyways feel free to comment or discuss
Well, ain't sexuality a wonderful thing!
For the most part I find myself in congruence with Ra because this not only feels logically correct, but because it was my own intuitive realization as well ("they have experienced many incarnations as biological male and as biological female"). I would only add there is nothing inherently wrong or bad about it. So no need for guilt there. Sexual energy exchange may still be experienced as normal, at least mental/emotionally—physical-speaking, replication/reproduction by copulation becomes impossible due to natural mismatch between male/male or female/female (i.e. egg needs seed to germinate).
For what it's worth, I am a virgin. Asexual. And androgynously so. This is my incarnative distortion. I have never doubted my sexuality nor have had any interesting altering my current physical gender. I guess I haven't so totally
totally become a creature of 3rd-density. Sexual "fusion" is what feels "home" to me, rather than the bisexual modes of interplay characteristic of certain densities of experience (which is why I felt quite "repulsed" during childhood by the male/female dichotomy all around me, whether in physical differentiation, dress, conduct, mentality and overall behaviour—which at that time I didn't understand at all).
I have variously defined myself as unisexual (!!), trisexual (?!), zerosexual, neosexual, and even glamsexual (sexually enticed by glitz and sparkles!) just to challenge, confuse and "crack" the preconceived notions of how things are and ought to be according to pre-established cultural consensus regarding sexual identity and gender roles/norms in society (people do have an almost neurotic need to
genderize everything into the male/female categories, you must admit).
The wonders of the Creation is that the Creator may experience all It desires (including imbalances, limitations, biases, distortions and varieties—all make perfect).
So... enjoy your experience, sibling!
PS: When/if you truly are confident about your sexuality, the judgments, thoughts and opinions of other-selves slip away like butter and pose no harm. As long as you truly love (yourself and your chosen companion), nothing should affect you in the least. So love with confidence, my darling! <3
PS2: Look at the bright/positive side: an added bonus/opportunity you get by expressing your particular (beautiful) sexual distortion at this time is to alleviate the dense cloud of sexual discrimination and prejudice that so heavily oppresses this world!
(01-02-2013, 02:05 PM)Meerie Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think they are all the same either, and I agree there are many other factors, but they have the same potential imo, and Jim seems to make a distinction here, implying that homosexual relationships might not be as effective in red ray. That is all.
Yes, he did, but I don't think it was in a judgmental way. Jim is so NOT judgmental!
(01-02-2013, 02:05 PM)Meerie Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2013, 01:47 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's unrealistic to say that energy transfers are all the same. Energy transfers aren't even the same among hetero couples! One hetero couple might have much more efficient energy transfer than another. There are many factors that come into play, not just whether they are gay or hetero. But it is one of many factors.
I don't think they are all the same either, and I agree there are many other factors, but they have the same potential imo, and Jim seems to make a distinction here, implying that homosexual relationships might not be as effective in red ray. That is all.
Could Jim have just been acknowledging the whole baby issue? In that heterosexual sex can lead to creation of a new entity (red ray) and homosexual cannot?