509. The Fallacy Of Tantra
The word Tantra in a man's profile makes me suspicious. The word Tantra in the context of our western culture can have two meanings, both indicating something, that I prefer to avoid.
Those who claim to be sophisticated, experience and define Tantra as one of many eastern woo-woo cults. In entry 508, I already presented the debunking by the Great Tantra Challenge. A man with such beliefs is not more my mindmate than is any other believer in some irrationality.
But there is an even cruder interpretation, which reduces Tantra to a technique of instinct-enhancing gymnastics.
While I react with repugnance towards the vulgarity of Penn & Teller, the last part of their show is nevertheless an example of how people are trained in Tantra:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jFj_RL5QvM
Those who claim to be sophisticated, experience and define Tantra as one of many eastern woo-woo cults. In entry 508, I already presented the debunking by the Great Tantra Challenge. A man with such beliefs is not more my mindmate than is any other believer in some irrationality.
But there is an even cruder interpretation, which reduces Tantra to a technique of instinct-enhancing gymnastics.
While I react with repugnance towards the vulgarity of Penn & Teller, the last part of their show is nevertheless an example of how people are trained in Tantra:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jFj_RL5QvM
The documentation shows people in the public activity of near-copulation, the pornographic display reminds me of the behavior of dogs from the gutter, void of any human dignity. I cringe at the mere idea of getting involved with a man, who has participated in such a session.
It was not even clear, if the participants were committed couples. But assuming them as couples attempting to improve something wrong between them, learning Tantra is not more an appropriate remedy for their problem as would be fighting a headache by hitting the head with a hammer. The enhanced pain and enhanced pleasures are both only stronger sensation covering temporarily a persistent and not solved real problem.
Long term happiness as a couple requires more than attractive bodies, but also specific psychological conditions. When a couple is dissatisfied with what happens inside their bedroom, Tantra cannot be more than a pseudo remedy.
Their real problems are very different, they are a consequence of the general mating fallacy.
In many mammals including homo sapiens, the physiological male needs for sexual homeostasis and the motivation to pursue this by the stimulation of the pleasure center in the brain has evolved to trick people into procreation. The infatuation between bodies has evolved to produce healthy offspring, but it has not evolved to last, especially not as long as people live today.
In many mammals including homo sapiens, the physiological male needs for sexual homeostasis and the motivation to pursue this by the stimulation of the pleasure center in the brain has evolved to trick people into procreation. The infatuation between bodies has evolved to produce healthy offspring, but it has not evolved to last, especially not as long as people live today.
The sad consequence of this is promiscuity.
But there has also been the second evolution of human cognition including both emotional and intellectual needs and cognitive abilities to be guided by long-term thinking, non-physical enjoyments and self-control.
The more the human intelligence has evolved enabling people acquiring education, sophistication and intellectuality, the more they are able to enjoy intellectual and creative pleasures. Logically, in comparison with non-physical enjoyments, sexuality becomes a dull banality and less rewarding.
The theoretical consequence is the cognitive ability to find happiness in monogamous close long-term bonding based upon intellectual and emotional intimacy.
In spite of the benefits of the advanced evolution of the cognition compared with the evolution of the more primitive instincts, many humans continue to fall into the trap of the general mating fallacy. Due to this fallacy, people continue to consider sexual satisfaction as the purpose of and the reason for having a relationship and as the criterion for the choice of a mate.
This fallacy is maintained and enhanced by the social norm of oversexation as already explained in entry 498 and entry 493.
I would not be astonished, if some of the participants in the Tantra course were even singles and as mislead as to believe, that such skills would be of more advantage in the competition for a mate than personality and intelligence.
Mistaking Tantra as a remedy when experiencing physical dissatisfaction as a couple is a behavioral expression of this general fallacy.
- How affective physical intimacy is experienced depends on the quality of the intellectual and emotional intimacy of the couple. The quality of physical intimacy is a measuring device for the emotional quality of the relationship.
When there is a distortion of physical intimacy, it is absurd to apply mechanical remedies like Tantra. Instead the couple needs to find out, what is wrong in the relationship. When unresolved conflicts are damaging the emotional intimacy, then the couple needs to solve the conflict and repair the emotional bond. When they restore the close bond, they also restore the non-verbal message of belonging together expressed by physical intimacy. If external help is needed, couple's therapy improves much more than Tantra instruction.
- Some people are innately hedonists, and hedonists are the kind of consumers, who bring the most profits to capitalists. Therefore they are the preferred role models as shown in entry 498.
Others are Epicureans with predominantly cognitive and emotional needs. It is absurd, when Epicureans are manipulated by the capitalistically propagated hedonistic social norms to attempt to experience the same as do hedonists. Methods like Tantra are used to override Epicurean innate preferences.
Some Epicurean couples are mislead by the general fallacy to expect much more benefits from sexual activities, than there really are, when seen realistically with an unmanipulated mind. Sexuality is nothing more than an instinct shared with animals, who have no cognition, who cannot enjoy anything better. Animals have no choice, but humans do.
Only maintaining a man's physiological homeostasis is a necessity for a relationship, but nothing more. There is no rational reason to artificially attempt to get more pleasure from something, when it is experienced and considered as a mere banality.
If intelligent and educated people would be free from the detrimental social norm of oversexation and would instead fully recognize that they can enjoy a visit to a museum, a lecture or a good movie together more than bed activities, this would enable them to just shift their focus in a positive way to share, what they really enjoy most. They would be out of the reach of capitalists selling Tantra.
If a man believes in the possibility of improving a relationship by methods like Tantra, this scares me. I am looking for a man as my mindmate, who shares the full awareness and recognition, that the quality of the affective physical intimacy depends only on the emotional quality of the relationship.
